Trial reportInternational journal of cancer2026
HPV Testing Versus Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women 50 Years and Older: Evidence From the HPV FOCAL Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- HPV Testing Versus Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women 50 Years and Older: Evidence From the HPV FOCAL Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of cancer · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of HPV testing versus cytology specifically in women aged ≥ 50 years who are approaching screening cessation remains limited. This analysis included 6471 women aged ≥ 50 at baseline screening in the HPV FOCAL randomized clinical trial. Women were randomly allocated to receive cytology (Control Group, n = 3248, 50.19%) or HPV testing (Intervention Group, n = 3223, 49.81%) at baseline, with co-testing at 48-month exit. We calculated incidence rates and risk ratios for CIN2+ detection over follow-up and compared missed lesions at exit by screening method. At the 48-month exit, CIN2+ detection was lower among HPV baseline-negative women than among those in the cytology group (1.61/1000 [95% CI, 0.52-3.76] vs. 3.15/1000 [95% CI, 1.51-5.78]; risk ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.11-0.91]), reflecting higher baseline detection with HPV testing and fewer prevalent lesions at exit. Even with cytology re-screening at 2 years, 50% of CIN2+ cases were missed compared to 30% with HPV testing. After adjusting for age, education, smoking status, and lifetime sexual partners, the hazard ratio for CIN2+ comparing HPV to cytology was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.22-0.88). Among women aged ≥ 50 years, HPV primary screening was more effective than cytology at detecting CIN2+ lesions and was associated with a continued lower subsequent risk following a negative HPV test, supporting its use in cervical cancer screening programs in this age cohort.
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.