Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41811316›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

HPV, Cytology, and Cotest Cervical Cancer Screening and the Risk of Precancer.

Anna Gottschlich, Laurie W Smith, Quan Hong, Smritee Dabee, Lovedeep Gondara, Darrel Cook, Ruth Elwood Martin, Joy Melnikow, Stuart Peacock, Lily Proctor and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

14 authors.

Anna GottschlichWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Laurie W SmithWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Quan HongWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Smritee DabeeWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Lovedeep GondaraBritish Columbia Cervix Screening Program, BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Darrel CookBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ruth Elwood MartinFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Joy MelnikowCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California.
Stuart PeacockPopulation Health Sciences, BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Lily ProctorWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gavin StuartFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Eduardo L FrancoDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Mel KrajdenFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gina S OgilvieWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There is a global call to end cervical cancer, and various jurisdictions are still determining optimal strategies to accelerate elimination. Human papillomavirus (HPV)-negative testing confers lower risk of future precancer vs normal cytology; high-quality longitudinal data are needed comparing risk after a negative HPV test vs negative cotest (HPV and cytology). Objective: To compare long-term risk of cervical precancer based on HPV, cytology, and cotest screening results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study linked data from a randomized clinical trial to a comprehensive screening program in British Columbia. Participants were recruited between 2006 and 2012 and followed from trial exit to 10 years postexit. Eligible participants were women who completed trial exit cotesting. Data were analyzed between January and April 2025. Exposure: HPV and cytology status from exit cotesting were considered, stratified by status of each test. Main Outcome and Measures: Cumulative risk of precancer was calculated over follow-up using Kaplan-Meier techniques. Risk was compared among groups who tested HPV-negative with normal cytology, HPV-negative with abnormal cytology, HPV-positive with normal cytology, and HPV-positive with abnormal cytology. Additionally, risk among those who were HPV-negative (regardless of cytology result), with normal cytology (regardless of HPV results), or were cotest negative were compared in order to simulate outcomes in primary HPV screening, cytology, and cotest programs, respectively. Results: In this cohort of 8078 women (median [IQR] age at exit screen, 49 [41-57] years; 1636 Asian [22.4%], 223 Indigenous [3.0%], 5568 White [76.1%]) who participated in a British Columbia-based cervical cancer screening trial, the HPV-positive with abnormal cytology group had the highest cumulative incidence risk (CIR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher at the end of follow-up (CIR, 43.47%; 95% CI, 23.45%-58.26%), followed by the HPV-positive and cytology-negative group (CIR, 22.21%; 95% CI, 11.49%-31.62%). The HPV-negative with abnormal cytology (CIR, 4.83%; 95% CI, 0%-10.03%) and the HPV-negative with normal cytology (CIR, 0.37%; 95% CI, 0.13%-0.60%) groups had significantly lower CIR at the end of follow-up. Less than 1% of the population was HPV-negative with abnormal cytology (69 of 8078 [0.85%]). Women who were HPV-negative regardless of cytology results (CIR, 0.41%; 95% CI, 0.17%-0.65%) had a similar risk as those who cotested negative (CIR, 0.37%; 95% CI, 0.13%-0.60%); both groups had lower risk than those with normal cytology results (regardless of HPV result) (CIR, 1.28%; 95% CI, 0.78%-1.78%) throughout follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of cervical cancer screen testing approaches and risk of cervical precancer, after a negative HPV test (regardless of cytology results) risk of precancer remained acceptably low throughout long-term follow-up. This suggests that cotesting yielded limited benefits, while increasing costs, relative to primary HPV testing.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPapillomavirus InfectionsPrecancerous ConditionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultBritish ColumbiaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID41811316
PMCPMC12980249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.