Possibilities and prospects of cervical screening

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

This literature review examines data on the informativeness of each research method proposed in the diagnosis of HPV-associated neoplasia, recommended cervical screening programs are described, and the need to search for new, more accessible relevant research methods is justified.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

V. A. Kaptilnyy

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: rtchilova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2656-132X

Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

M. V. Poznyak

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: rtchilova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-8217-0784
Russian Federation, Moscow

R. A. Chilova

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: rtchilova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6331-3109

Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

 

Russian Federation, Moscow

D. V. Lystsev

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: rtchilova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-3826-3174
Russian Federation, Moscow

M. I. Savelyeva

Yaroslavl State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: rtchilova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2373-2250

Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Yaroslavl, 150000

References

  1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71 (3): 209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
  2. Cervical Cancer: Statistics. Approved by the Cancer. Net Editorial Board, 01/2022.
  3. Brisson M., Drolet M. Global elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20 (3): 319–21. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30072-5
  4. Denny L., Kuhn L., De Souza M. et al. Screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 294 (17): 2173–81. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.17.2173
  5. Brisson M., Kim J.J., Canfell K. et al. Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination:A comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Lancet. 2020; 395 (10224): 575–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30068-4
  6. WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention, 2nd ed., 2021.
  7. Koliopoulos G., Nyaga V.N., Santesso N. et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 8 (8): CD008587. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008587
  8. Soost H.J., Lange H.J., Lehmacher W. et al. The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Cytol. 1991; 35 (1): 8–14.
  9. Najib F.S., Hashemi M., Shiravani Z. et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Cervical Pap Smear and Colposcopy in Detecting Premalignant and Malignant Lesions of Cervix. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2020; 11 (3): 453–8. doi: 10.1007/s13193-020-01118-2
  10. Liang L.A., Einzmann T., Franzen A. et al.Cervical Cancer Screening: Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear Test, Liquid-Based Cytology, and Human Papillomavirus Testing as Stand-alone or Cotesting Strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021; 30 (3): 474–84. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1003
  11. Aslam S., Robin C., Nagayasu E. et al. The early detection of cervical cancer. The current and changing landscape of cervical disease detection. Cytophatology. 2020; 31 (4): 258–70. doi: 10.1111/cyt.12835
  12. Arbyn M., Bergeron C., Klinkhamer P. et al. 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
  13. Pankaj S., Kumari A., Kumari S. et al. Evaluation of Sensitivity and Specificity of Pap Smear, LBC and HPV in Screening of Cervical Cancer. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog. 2018; 16 (3): 49. doi: 10.1007/s40944-018-0221-x
  14. Wright T.C.Jr., Behrens C.M., Ranger-Moore J. et al. Triaging HPV-positive women with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: Results from a sub-study nested into the ATHENA trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 144 (1): 51–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.031
  15. Ovestad I.T., Dalen I., Hansen E. et al. Clinical value of fully automated p16/Ki-67 dual staining in the triage of HPV-positive women in the Norwegian cervical cancer screening program. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017; 125 (4): 283–91. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21807
  16. Tay T.K.Y., Lim K.L., Hilmy M.H. et al. Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of p16/Ki-67 dual staining and HPV DNA testing of abnormal cervical cytology in the detection of histology proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and above (CIN 2+). Malays J Pathol. 2017; 39 (3): 257–65.
  17. Chen C.C., Huang L.W., Bai C.H. et al. Predictive value of p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry for triage of women with abnormal Papanicolaou test in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Saudi Med. 2016; 36 (4): 245–51. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2016.245
  18. Sun M., Shen Y., Ren M.L. et al. Meta-analysis on the performance of p16/Ki-67 dual immunostaining in detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasm. J Cancer Res Ther. 2018; 14 (Suppl): S587–S593. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.183216
  19. Poljak M., Oštrbenk A., Domjanic G.G. et al. Commercially available molecular tests for human papillomavirus: A global overview. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020; 26 (9): 1144–50. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.03.033
  20. Wright T.C.Jr., Schiffman M., Solomon D. et al. Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103 (2): 304–9. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000109426.82624.f8
  21. Cui M., Chan N., Liu M. et al. Clinical performance of Roche Cobas 4800 HPV test. J Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52 (6): 2210–1. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00883-14
  22. Mustafa R.A., Santesso N., Khatib R. et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the accuracy of HPV tests, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology, and colposcopy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 132 (3): 259–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.024
  23. Isidean S.D., Mayrand M.H., Ramanakumar A.V. et al. Human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: End-of-study and extended follow-up results from the Canadian cervical cancer screening trial. Int J Cancer. 2016; 139 (11): 2456–66. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30385
  24. Stoler M.H., Wright T.C.Jr., Sharma A. et al. High-risk human papillomavirus testing in women with ASC-US cytology: Results from the ATHENA HPV study. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011; 135 (3): 468–75. doi: 10.1309/AJCPZ5JY6FCVNMOT
  25. Katki H.A., Kinney W.K., Fetterman B. et al. Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: A population-based study in routine clinical practice. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12 (7): 663–72. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70145-0
  26. Ronco G., Dillner J., Elfström K.M. et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: Follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014; 383 (9916): 524–32. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7
  27. Sasieni P., Castanon A., Cuzick J. Screening and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Int J Cancer. 2009; 125 (3): 525–9. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24410
  28. Ronco G., Giorgi-Rossi P., Carozzi F. et al. 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
  29. Madzima T.R., Vahabi M., Lofters A. Emerging role of HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening for hard-to-reach women: Focused literature review. Can Fam Physician. 2017; 63 (8): 597–601.
  30. Yeh P.T., Kennedy C.E., de Vuyst H. et al. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing:A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019; 4 (3): e001351. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001351
  31. Polman N.J., Ebisch R.M., Heideman D.A. et al. Performance of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse: A randomised, paired screen-positive, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20 (2): 229–38. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30763-0
  32. Nodjikouambaye Z.A., Adawaye C., Mboumba Bouassa R.S. et al. A systematic review of self-sampling for HPV testing in Africa. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020; 149 (2): 123–9. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13112
  33. Bhatla N., Dar L., Patro A.R. et al. Can human papillomavirus DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compare with physician-collected cervical samples and cytology for cervical cancer screening in developing countries? Cancer Epidemiol. 2009; 33 (6): 446–50. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2009.10.013
  34. Arbyn M., Simon M., de Sanjosé S. et al. Accuracy and effectiveness of HPV mRNA testing in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23 (7): 950–60. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00294-7 [Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23 (8): e370].
  35. Mayrand M.H., Duarte-Franco E., Rodrigues I. et al. Human papillomavirus DNA versus papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357 (16): 1579–88. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa071430
  36. Kitchener H.C., Gilham C., Sargent A. et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: Extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47 (6): 864–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.01.008
  37. Polman N.J., Veldhuijzen N.J., Heideman D.A. et al. HPV-positive women with normal cytology remain at increased risk of CIN3 after a negative repeat HPV test. Br J Cancer. 2017; 117 (10): 1557–61. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.309
  38. Schiffman M., Kinney W.K., Cheung L.C. et al. Relative performance of HPV and cytology components of cotesting in cervical screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018; 110 (5): 501–8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx225
  39. Chan K.K.L., Liu S.S., Wei N. et al. 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. Int J Cancer. 2020; 147 (4): 1152–62. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32861
  40. Kocken M., Uijterwaal M.H., de Vries A.L. et al. High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125 (2): 500–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.015
  41. Denny L., Kuhn L., Pollack A. et al. Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource-poor settings. Cancer. 2000; 89 (4): 826–33. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4<826::aid-cncr15>3.0.co;2-5
  42. Arbyn M., Sankaranarayanan R., Muwonge R. et al. Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer. 2008; 123 (1): 153–60. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23489
  43. Mezei A.K., Pedersen H.N., Sy S. et al. Community-based HPV self-collection versus visual inspection with acetic acid in Uganda: A cost-effectiveness analysis of the ASPIRE trial. BMJ Open. 2018; 8 (6): e020484. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020484
  44. Sauvaget C., Fayette J.M., Muwonge R. et al. Accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 113 (1): 14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.10.012
  45. Adsul P., Manjunath N., Srinivas V. et al. Implementing community-based cervical cancer screening programs using visual inspection with acetic acid in India: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol. 2017; 49: 161–74. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2017.06.008
  46. Sankaranarayanan R., Esmy P.O., Rajkumar R. et al. Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: A cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2007; 370 (9585): 398–406. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61195-7
  47. Paul P., Winkler J.L., Bartolini R.M. et al. Screen-and-treat approach to cervical cancer prevention using visual inspection with acetic acid and cryotherapy: Experiences, perceptions, and beliefs from demonstration projects in Peru, Uganda, and Vietnam. Oncologist. 2013; 18 (Suppl): 6–12. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.18-S2-6
  48. Santesso N., Mustafa R.A., Schünemann H.J. et al. World Health Organization guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 and screen-and-treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 132 (3): 252–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.038
  49. Sankaranarayanan R., Basu P., Wesley R.S. et al. Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia:Results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa. Int J Cancer. 2004; 110 (6): 907–13. doi: 10.1002/ijc.20190
  50. Chanthavilay P., Mayxay M., Phongsavan K. et al. Accuracy of Combined Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid and Cervical Cytology Testing as a Primary Screening Tool for Cervical Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015; 16 (14): 5889–97. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.14.5889
  51. Fokom-Domgue J., Combescure C., Fokom-Defo V. et al. Performance of alternative strategies for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015; 351: h3084. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3084
  52. Catarino R., Schäfer S., Vassilakos P. et al. Accuracy of combinations of visual inspection using acetic acid or lugol iodine to detect cervical precancer: a meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018; 125 (5): 545–53. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14783
  53. Monsonego J., Hudgens M.G., Zerat L. et al. Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening:The FASE study. Int J Cancer. 2011; 129 (3): 691–701. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25726
  54. Haedicke J., Iftner T. A review of the clinical performance of the Aptima HPV assay. J Clin Virol. 2016; 76 (Suppl 1): S40-S48. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2015.10.027
  55. Cook D.A., Smith L.W., Law J.H. et al. Comparative performance of human papillomavirus messenger RNA versus DNA screening tests at baseline and 48 months in the HPV FOCAL trial. J Clin Virol. 2018; 108: 32–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2018.09.004
  56. Cook D.A., Smith L.W., Law J. et al. Aptima HPV Assay versus Hybrid Capture® 2 HPV test for primary cervical cancer screening in the HPV FOCAL trial. J Clin Virol. 2017; 87: 23–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.12.004
  57. Arbyn M., Roelens J., Cuschieri K. et al. The APTIMA HPV assay versus the Hybrid Capture 2 test in triage of women with ASC-US or LSIL cervical cytology: A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy. Int J Cancer. 2013; 132 (1): 101–8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27636
  58. Xu B., Chotewutmontri S., Wolf S. et al. Multiplex identification of human papillomavirus 16 DNA integration sites in cervical carcinomas. PLoS One. 2013; 8 (6): e66693. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066693
  59. Goia-Rusanu C.D., Iancu I.V., Botezatu A. et al. Mitochondrial DNA mutations in patients with HRHPV-related cervical lesions. Roum Arch Microbiol Immunol. 2011; 70 (1): 5–10.
  60. Hu Z., Ma D. The precision prevention and therapy of HPV-related cervical cancer: New concepts and clinical implications. Cancer Med. 2018; 7 (10): 5217–36. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1501
  61. Lorincz A.T. Virtues and weaknesses of DNA methylation as a test for cervical cancer prevention. Acta Cytol. 2016; 60 (6): 501–12. doi: 10.1159/000450595
  62. Hesselink A.T., Heideman D.A., Steenbergen R.D. et al. Combined promoter methylation analysis of CADM1 and MAL: An objective triage tool for high-risk human papillomavirus DNA-positive women. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17 (8): 2459–65. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2548
  63. Li N., He Y., Mi P. et al. ZNF582 methylation as a potential biomarker to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia type III/worse:A meta-analysis of related studies in Chinese population. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98 (6): e14297. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014297
  64. Pun P.B., Liao Y.P., Su P.H. et al. Triage of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women by methylated POU4F3. Clin Epigenetics. 2015; 7 (1): 85. doi: 10.1186/s13148-015-0122-0
  65. Hamers F.F., Poullié A.I., Arbyn M. Updated evidence-based recommendations for cervical cancer screening in France. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2022; 31 (3): 279–86. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000701
  66. Arbyn M., Xu L., Verdoodt F. et al. Genotyping for human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in women with minor cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166 (2): 118–27. doi: 10.7326/M15-2735
  67. Shi S., Ma H.Y., Zhang Z.G. Clinicopathological and prognostic value of STAT3/p-STAT3 in cervical cancer: A meta and bioinformatics analysis. Pathol Res Pract. 2021; 227: 153624. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2021.153624

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Russkiy Vrach Publishing House