Pooled Analysis of the Performance of Liquid-based Cytology in Population-based Cervical Cancer Screening Studies in China

Overview

Journal Cancer Cytopathol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2013 Aug 3

PMID 23907807

Citations 17

Authors

Qin-Jing Pan

Shang-Ying Hu

Xun Zhang

Pu-Wa Ci

Wen-Hua Zhang

Hui-Qin Guo

Jian Cao

Fang-Hui Zhao

Alice Lytwyn

You-Lin Qiao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been widely used for cervical cancer screening. Despite numerous studies and systematic reviews, to the authors' knowledge few large studies to date have focused on biopsy-confirmed cervical lesions and controversy remains concerning its diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the current study was to assess LBC for detecting biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer.

Methods: A pooled analysis of LBC using data from 13 population-based, cross-sectional, cervical cancer screening studies performed in China from 1999 to 2008 was performed. Participants (n = 26,782) received LBC and human papillomavirus testing. Women found to be positive on screening were referred for colposcopy and biopsy. The accuracy of LBC for detecting biopsy-confirmed CIN of type 2 or worse (CIN2+) as well as CIN type 3 or worse (CIN3+) lesions was analyzed.

Results: Of 25,830 women included in the analysis, CIN2+ was found in 107 of 2612 with atypical squamous cells (4.1%), 142 of 923 with low-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (15.4%), 512 of 784 with high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (65.3%), 29 of 30 with squamous cell carcinoma (96.7%), 4 of 27 with atypical glandular cells (14.8%), and 85 of 21,454 with normal cytology results (0.4%). No invasive cancers were found to have atypical squamous cells, atypical glandular cells, or cytologically normal slides. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of LBC for detecting CIN2+ were 81.0%, 95.4%, 38.3%, 99.3 %, and 94.9%, respectively. Although Hybrid Capture 2 was more sensitive than LBC, the specificity, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy of LBC were higher than those of Hybrid Capture2 at 85.2%, 18.6%, and 85.5%, respectively.

Conclusions: The results of the current study indicate that the performance of LBC can effectively predict the risk of existing CIN2+ and may be a good screening tool for cervical cancer prevention in a developing country.

Citing Articles

Cancer screening in China: a steep road from evidence to implementation.

Xia C, Basu P, Kramer B, Li H, Qu C, Yu X Lancet Public Health. 2023; 8(12):e996-e1005.

PMID: 38000379 PMC: 10665203. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00186-X.

Mailing human papillomavirus self-sampling kits to women under-screened for cervical cancer improved detection in cervical cancer screening in a general population study in Japan.

Nishimura Y, Matsuura M, Terada N, Nagao S, Shimada H, Isoyama K BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):473.

PMID: 36906527 PMC: 10008572. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15402-7.

Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in the context of routine HPV vaccination by optimizing screening strategies with respect to vaccine uptake: a modeling analysis.

Choi H, Leung K, Chan K, Bai Y, Jit M, Wu J BMC Med. 2023; 21(1):48.

PMID: 36765349 PMC: 9921628. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-02748-3.

The Help of HPV Integration Testing to Avoid the Misdiagnosis of a Patient with Stage Ia1 Cervical Cancer: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Li J, Zhang X, Wang P, Li W Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2021; 14:1457-1461.

PMID: 34819743 PMC: 8608241. DOI: 10.2147/PGPM.S310345.

Development of models for cervical cancer screening: construction in a cross-sectional population and validation in two screening cohorts in China.

Wu Z, Li T, Han Y, Jiang M, Yu Y, Xu H BMC Med. 2021; 19(1):197.

PMID: 34474668 PMC: 8414700. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-02078-2.

References

Dai M, Bao Y, Li N, Clifford G, Vaccarella S, Snijders P . Human papillomavirus infection in Shanxi Province, People's Republic of China: a population-based study. Br J Cancer. 2006; 95(1):96-101. PMC: 2360486. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603208. View

Belinson J, Qiao Y, Pretorius R, Zhang W, Elson P, Li L . Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 83(2):439-44. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6370. View

Cagle A, Hu S, Sellors J, Bao Y, Lim J, Li S . Use of an expanded gold standard to estimate the accuracy of colposcopy and visual inspection with acetic acid. Int J Cancer. 2009; 126(1):156-61. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24719. View

Bruner K, Davey D . ASC-US and HPV testing in women aged 40 years and over. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004; 31(5):358-61. DOI: 10.1002/dc.20144. View

DeSimone C, Day M, Tovar M, Dietrich 3rd C, Eastham M, Modesitt S . Rate of pathology from atypical glandular cell Pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107(6):1285-91. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000218705.87329.4a. View

Belinson J, Pretorius R, Zhang W, Wu L, Qiao Y, Elson P . Cervical cancer screening by simple visual inspection after acetic acid. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98(3):441-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01454-5. View

KIRSCHNER B, Simonsen K, Junge J . Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smear and SurePath liquid-based cytology in the Copenhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer. Cytopathology. 2006; 17(4):187-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00384.x. View

Pretorius R, Zhang W, Belinson J, Huang M, Wu L, Zhang X . Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191(2):430-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.02.065. View

Pretorius R, Kim R, Belinson J, Elson P, Qiao Y . Inflation of sensitivity of cervical cancer screening tests secondary to correlated error in colposcopy. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2005; 10(1):5-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.lgt.0000192694.85549.3d. View

10.

Insinga R, Glass A, Rush B . Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191(1):105-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.043. View

11.

Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers A, Bulten J . Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111(1):167-77. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3. View

12.

Qiao Y, Sellors J, Eder P, Bao Y, Lim J, Zhao F . A new HPV-DNA test for cervical-cancer screening in developing regions: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy in rural China. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(10):929-36. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70210-9. View

13.

Pan Q, Belinson J, Li L, Pretorius R, Qiao Y, Zhang W . A thin-layer, liquid-based pap test for mass screening in an area of China with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. A cross-sectional, comparative study. Acta Cytol. 2003; 47(1):45-50. DOI: 10.1159/000326474. View

14.

Belinson J, Qiao Y, Pretorius R, Zhang W, Rong S, Huang M . Shanxi Province cervical cancer screening study II: self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus compared to direct sampling for human papillomavirus and liquid based cervical cytology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003; 13(6):819-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2003.13611.x. View

15.

Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Dalla Palma P, Del Mistro A . Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11(3):249-57. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70360-2. View

16.

Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, Radberg T, Ryd W . Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program : a prospective randomized study. Cancer. 2007; 111(5):285-91. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22953. View

17.

Zhao F, Lin M, Chen F, Hu S, Zhang R, Belinson J . Performance of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing as a primary screen for cervical cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 17 population-based studies from China. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11(12):1160-71. PMC: 5716831. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70256-4. View

18.

Wright Jr T, Massad L, Dunton C, Spitzer M, Wilkinson E, Solomon D . 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197(4):346-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.07.047. View

19.

Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi M, Dalla Palma P, Naldoni C . Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007; 335(7609):28. PMC: 1910655. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39196.740995.BE. View

20.

Shi J, Qiao Y, Smith J, Dondog B, Bao Y, Dai M . Epidemiology and prevention of human papillomavirus and cervical cancer in China and Mongolia. Vaccine. 2008; 26 Suppl 12:M53-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.05.009. View