Primary HPV testing with cytology versus cytology alone in cervical screening—A prospective randomized controlled trial with two rounds of screening in a Chinese population

We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial with two screening rounds to evaluate the effectiveness of combining HPV testing with liquid‐based cytology (LBC) as a co‐test, compared to LBC only in cervical cancer screening of a Chinese population. First, 15,955 women aged 30–60 were random...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of cancer 2020-08, Vol.147 (4), p.1152-1162
Hauptverfasser: Chan, Karen K.L., Liu, Stephanie S., Wei, Na, Ngu, Siew F., Chu, Mandy M.Y., Tse, Ka Y., Lau, Lesley S.K., Cheung, Annie N.Y., Ngan, Hextan Y.S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial with two screening rounds to evaluate the effectiveness of combining HPV testing with liquid‐based cytology (LBC) as a co‐test, compared to LBC only in cervical cancer screening of a Chinese population. First, 15,955 women aged 30–60 were randomized at a 1:1 ratio into an intervention group (Digene Hybrid Capture 2 HPV test with LBC) and a control group (LBC alone). Women in the intervention group would be referred for colposcopy and biopsy immediately if they were found to have high‐risk HPV regardless of cytology results. The detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or above (CIN2+) lesions was significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control (0.95% vs. 0.38%, OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.65–3.88). At the subsequent round of screening approximately 36 months later, CIN2+ detection was significantly lower in the intervention group (0.08% vs. 0.35%, OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08–0.57). Over the two rounds of screening, the total detection of CIN2+ was higher in the intervention group (1.01% vs. 0.66%, OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09–2.19). There was a fourfold increase (10.6% vs. 2.4%, p
ISSN:0020-7136
1097-0215
DOI:10.1002/ijc.32861