Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28926579›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2017

Cervical screening with primary HPV testing or cytology in a population of women in which those aged 33 years or younger had previously been offered HPV vaccination: Results of the Compass pilot randomised trial.

Karen Canfell, Michael Caruana, Val Gebski, Jessica Darlington-Brown, Stella Heley, Julia Brotherton, Dorota Gertig, Chloe J Jennett, Annabelle Farnsworth, Jeffrey Tan and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02328872 (Compass - Randomized Controlled Trial of 5-yearly Cervical Screening With Primary HPV Testing Versus Cervical Screening With 2.5-yearly Liquid Based Cytology Testing, in HPV-Unvaccinated and HPV-Vaccinated Women in Australia), which is not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02328872 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Compass - Randomized Controlled Trial of 5-yearly Cervical Screening With Primary HPV Testing Versus Cervical Screening With 2.5-yearly Liquid Based Cytology Testing, in HPV-Unvaccinated and HPV-Vaccinated Women in Australia

TypeinterventionalSponsorVCS FoundationRan2015 to 2037Enrolled76,181ConditionsCancer of the Cervix, Cervical Intraepithelial NeoplasiaArmsMolecular testing for HPV, Liquid Based Cytology
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Assessing 10-Year Safety of a Single Negative HPV Test for Cervical Cancer Screening: Evidence from FOCAL-DECADE Cohort.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. How to evaluate and select cervical screening and triage tests in vaccinated populations.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. HPV Vaccine: An Effective but Underutilized Prevention Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Karen CanfellCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael CaruanaCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5439-6552
Val GebskiNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jessica Darlington-BrownCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8003-956X
Stella HeleyVictorian Cytology Service, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Julia BrothertonVictorian Cytology Service, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dorota GertigSchool of Public Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Chloe J JennettCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Annabelle FarnsworthSchool of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jeffrey TanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0226-8647
C David WredeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2624-9061
Philip E CastleAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America.
Marion SavilleVictorian Cytology Service, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Cancer Council NSW · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USVictorian Clinical Genetics Services · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and invasive cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) compared to cytology, but no evaluation has been conducted in a population previously offered HPV vaccination. We aimed to assess colposcopy referral and CIN2+ detection rates for HPV-screened versus cytology-screened women in Australia's HPV-vaccinated population (by 2014, resident women ≤33 years had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination, with 3-dose uptake across age cohorts being about 50%-77%). METHODS AND

findingsCompass is an open-label randomised trial of 5-yearly HPV screening versus 2.5-yearly liquid-based cytology (LBC) screening. In the first phase, consenting women aged 25-64 years presenting for routine screening at 47 primary practices in Victoria, Australia, provided a cervical sample and were randomised at a central laboratory at a 1:2:2 allocation to (i) image-read LBC screening with HPV triage of low-grade cytology ('LBC screening'), (ii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with LBC triage for other oncogenic (OHR) types ('HPV+LBC triage'), or (iii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with dual-stained cytology triage for OHR types ('HPV+DS triage'). A total of 5,006 eligible women were recruited from 29 October 2013 to 7 November 2014 (recruitment rate 58%); of these, 22% were in the group age-eligible for vaccination. Data on 4,995 participants were analysed after 11 withdrawals; 998 were assigned to, and 995 analysed (99.7%) in, the LBC-screened group; 1,996 assigned to and 1,992 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+LBC triage group; and 2,012 assigned to and 2,008 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+DS triage group. No serious trial-related adverse events were reported. The main outcomes were colposcopy referral and detected CIN2+ rates at baseline screening, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis after follow-up of the subgroup of triage-negative women in each arm referred to 12 months of surveillance, and after a further 6 months of follow-up for histological outcomes (dataset closed 31 August 2016). Analysis was adjusted for whether women had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination or not. For the LBC-screened group, the overall referral and detected CIN2+ rates were 27/995 (2.7% [95% CI 1.8%-3.9%]) and 1/995 (0.1% [95% CI 0.0%-0.6%]), respectively; for HPV+LBC triage, these were 75/1,992 (3.8% [95% CI 3.0%-4.7%]) and 20/1,992 (1.0% [95% CI 0.6%-1.5%]); and for HPV+DS triage, these were 79/2,008 (3.9% [95% CI 3.1%-4.9%]) and 24/2,008 (1.2% [95% CI 0.8%-1.6%]) (p = 0.09 for difference in referral rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women; p = 0.003 for difference in CIN2+ detection rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women, with p = 0.62 between HPV screening groups). Limitations include that the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated population, that individual women's vaccination status was unknown, and that long-term follow-up data on disease detection in screen-negative women are not yet available.

conclusionsIn this study, primary HPV screening was associated with significantly increased detection of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions compared to cytology, in a population where high vaccine uptake was reported in women aged 33 years or younger who were offered vaccination. It had been predicted that increased disease detection might be associated with a transient increase in colposcopy referral rates in the first round of HPV screening, possibly dampened by HPV vaccine effect; in this study, although the point estimates for referral rates in women in each HPV-screened group were 41%-44% higher than in cytology-screened women, the difference in referral rate between cytology- and HPV-screened women was not significant. These findings provide initial support for the implementation of primary HPV screening in vaccinated populations.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001207707.

Indexed as

AdultAtypical Squamous Cells of the CervixBiopsyCervix UteriColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansMiddle AgedPapillomavirus VaccinesPilot ProjectsReferral and ConsultationSquamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the CervixTriagePapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID28926579
PMCPMC5604935
OpenAlexW2754735799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.