4.7 Article

Human papillomavirus 'reflex' testing as a screening method in cases of minor cytological abnormalities

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 99, Issue 4, Pages 563-568

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604504

Keywords

human papilloma virus (HPV); genotyping; liquid-based cytology (LBC); atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim was to evaluate human papillomavirus (HPV) 'reflex genotyping' in cases of minor cytological abnormalities detected in the gynaecological screening programme in Stockholm, Sweden. Liquid-based cytology samples showing minor cytological abnormalities were analysed using HPV genotyping (Linear Array, Roche diagnostics). Colposcopically directed cervical biopsies were obtained and the HPV test results were correlated with the histological results. In all, 63% (70/112) of the samples were high-risk (HR) HPV (HR-HPV) positive. A statistically significant correlation was found between high-grade cervical lesions and HR-HPV (P = 0.019), among which HPV 16, 18, and 31 were the most important. The negative predictive value of HR-HPV detection for histologically confirmed high-grade lesions was 100%. An age limit for HPV reflex testing may be motivated in cases of low-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (LSIL), because of high HR-HPV prevalence among younger women. By using HPV reflex genotyping, additional extensive workup can safely be avoided in about 50% of all cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance ( ASCUS) and LSIL among women >= 30 years. This screening strategy could potentially reduce the total abnormal cytology-reporting rate in the Swedish screening programme by about 1% and provide more accurately directed follow-up, guided by cytological appearance and HPV test results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available