Trial reportJournal of the National Cancer Institute2009
Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting.
Trial report in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
87 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 261 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of randomized trials assessing human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2013Pooled it
- Self-collected HPV testing improves participation in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2013Pooled it
- American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2012Pooled it
- American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansGuideline
- Randomized Implementation of a Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing-based Cervical Cancer Screening Protocol for Women 34 to 69 Years in Norway.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Trial
- Clinical impact of the analytical specificity of the hybrid capture 2 test: data from the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer (NTCC) study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Trial
- Primary cervical cancer screening with HPV testing compared with liquid-based cytology: results of round 1 of a randomised controlled trial -- the HPV FOCAL Study.British journal of cancer · 2012Trial
- Detection rates of precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions within one screening round of primary human papillomavirus DNA testing: prospective randomised trial in Finland.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Trial
- Trial
- Rate of cervical cancer, severe intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma in situ in primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage: randomised study within organised screening programme.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Trial
- Five-Year Risk of CIN3+ After CIN1 Biopsy in a Norwegian Screening Setting: Comparison of CIN1 Diagnosed in a Single Calendar Year and in Two Consecutive Calendar Years.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Long-term human papillomavirus genotype-specific risk of cervical high-grade intraepithelial lesion and cancer-By age group and triage cytology.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Clinical relevance of partial HPV genotyping in cervical cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinically validated HPV assays offer comparable long-term safety in primary cervical cancer screening: A 9-year follow-up of a population-based screening cohort.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Structured Literature Review to Identify Human Papillomavirus's Natural History Parameters for Dynamic Population Models of Vaccine Impacts.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Review
- Discovery and technical validation of high-performance methylated DNA markers for the detection of cervical lesions at risk of malignant progression in low- and middle-income countries.Clinical epigenetics · 2024Article
- Article
- Age-specific performance of human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA assay versus cytology for primary cervical cancer screening and triage: community-based screening in China.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has shown higher sensitivity than cytology for detecting cervical lesions, but it is uncertain whether the higher sensitivity is dependent on the age of the woman being screened. We compared the age-specific performance of primary HPV DNA screening with that of conventional cytology screening in the setting of an organized population-based cervical cancer screening program in Finland.
methodsFrom January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2005, randomized invitations were sent to women aged 25-65 years for routine cervical cancer screening by primary high-risk HPV DNA testing (n = 54 207) with a Hybrid Capture 2 assay followed by cytology triage for women who were HPV DNA positive or by conventional cytology screening (n = 54 218). In both screening arms, cytology results of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse triggered a referral for colposcopy. Relative rates (RRs) of detection to assess test sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPVs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the histological endpoints of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 1 or higher (CIN 1+), CIN grade 2 or higher (CIN 2+), and CIN grade 3 or higher (CIN 3+). All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsThe overall frequency of colposcopy referrals was 1.2% in both screening arms. Women younger than 35 years were referred more often in the HPV DNA screening vs the conventional screening arm (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.60). The prevalence of histologically confirmed CIN or cancer was 0.59% in the HPV DNA screening arm vs 0.43% in the conventional screening arm. The relative rates of detection for CIN 1, CIN 2, and CIN 3+ for HPV DNA screening with cytology triage vs conventional screening were 1.44 (95% CI = 0.99 to 2.10), 1.39 (95% CI = 1.03 to 1.88), and 1.22 (95% CI = 0.78 to 1.92), respectively. The specificity of the HPV DNA test with cytology triage was equal to that of conventional screening for all age groups (99.2% vs 99.1% for CIN 2+, P = .13). Among women aged 35 years or older, the HPV DNA test with cytology triage tended to have higher specificity than conventional screening. The PPVs for HPV DNA screening with cytology triage were consistently higher than those for conventional screening. In both screening arms, the test specificities increased with increasing age of the women being screening, whereas the highest PPVs were observed among the youngest women being screened. Overall, 7.2% of women in the HPV DNA screening arm vs 6.6% of women in the conventional screening arm were recommended for intensified follow-up, and the percentages were highest among 25- to 29-year-olds (21.9% vs 10.0%, respectively).
conclusionsPrimary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage is more sensitive than conventional screening. Among women aged 35 years or older, primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage is also more specific than conventional screening and decreases colposcopy referrals and follow-up tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.