Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 2000 Aug;53(8):606–611. doi: 10.1136/jcp.53.8.606

PCR based high risk HPV testing is superior to neural network based screening for predicting incident CIN III in women with normal cytology and borderline changes

L Rozendaal 1, J Westerga 1, J C van der Linden 1, J Walboomers 1, F Voorhorst 1, E Risse 1, M Boon 1, C Meijer 1
PMCID: PMC1762926  PMID: 11002764

Abstract

* Professor J M M Walboomers died recently

Background/Aims—To improve the accuracy of conventional cytology in cervical cancer screening, high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and neural network based screening have been developed. This study assessed the power of both techniques to detect women at risk of developing incident CIN III; that is, CIN III detected during the follow up of women with normal cytology and borderline nuclear changes.

Methods—A cohort of 2250 women, 34–54 years of age, who attended population based cervical cancer screening from 1988 to 1991 and had normal smears or borderline nuclear changes was followed. All smears were tested for high risk HPV and the smears were rescreened using neural network based screening. The value of neural network based screening for predicting incident CIN III during a mean follow up period of 6.4 years was compared with that of high risk HPV testing. In addition, morphological markers presumed to be related to HPV were correlated with HPV status.

Results—Thirteen (0.6%) women had incident CIN III. Both high risk HPV positivity and abnormal cytology were associated with an increased risk for incident CIN III (odds ratio, 240 and 22, respectively) and high risk HPV positivity was associated with abnormal cytology. The sensitivity of high risk HPV testing for predicting incident CIN III was much higher than that of neural network based screening (92% and 46%, respectively). None of the morphological markers assessed, including koilocytosis, was correlated with high risk HPV status.

Conclusion—High risk HPV testing is superior to neural network based screening in identifying women at risk of developing CIN III. For women with normal cytology and borderline changes and a negative high risk HPV test, the screening interval can be considerably prolonged.

Key Words: neural network based screening • high risk human papillomavirus testing • CIN III

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (133.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abadi M. A., Ho G. Y., Burk R. D., Romney S. L., Kadish A. S. Stringent criteria for histological diagnosis of koilocytosis fail to eliminate overdiagnosis of human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1. Hum Pathol. 1998 Jan;29(1):54–59. doi: 10.1016/s0046-8177(98)90390-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bosch F. X., Manos M. M., Muñoz N., Sherman M., Jansen A. M., Peto J., Schiffman M. H., Moreno V., Kurman R., Shah K. V. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International biological study on cervical cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 Jun 7;87(11):796–802. doi: 10.1093/jnci/87.11.796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyes D. A., Morrison B., Knox E. G., Draper G. J., Miller A. B. A cohort study of cervical cancer screening in British Columbia. Clin Invest Med. 1982;5(1):1–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cannistra S. A., Niloff J. M. Cancer of the uterine cervix. N Engl J Med. 1996 Apr 18;334(16):1030–1038. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199604183341606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cramer H. M., Skinner-Wannemuehler S. E., Brown D. R., Katz B. P., Fife K. H. Cytomorphologic correlates of human papillomavirus infection in the "normal" cervicovaginal smear. Acta Cytol. 1997 Mar-Apr;41(2):261–268. doi: 10.1159/000332452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuzick J., Szarewski A., Terry G., Ho L., Hanby A., Maddox P., Anderson M., Kocjan G., Steele S. T., Guillebaud J. Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening. Lancet. 1995 Jun 17;345(8964):1533–1536. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91086-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Doornewaard H., van de Seijp H., Woudt J. M., van der Graaf Y., van den Tweel J. G. Negative cervical smears before CIN 3/carcinoma. Reevaluation with the PAPNET Testing System. Acta Cytol. 1997 Jan-Feb;41(1):74–78. doi: 10.1159/000332308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gustafsson L., Adami H. O. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: consistent results obtained by an identification technique. Br J Cancer. 1989 Jul;60(1):132–141. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1989.236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ho G. Y., Burk R. D., Klein S., Kadish A. S., Chang C. J., Palan P., Basu J., Tachezy R., Lewis R., Romney S. Persistent genital human papillomavirus infection as a risk factor for persistent cervical dysplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 Sep 20;87(18):1365–1371. doi: 10.1093/jnci/87.18.1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jacobs M. V., de Roda Husman A. M., van den Brule A. J., Snijders P. J., Meijer C. J., Walboomers J. M. Group-specific differentiation between high- and low-risk human papillomavirus genotypes by general primer-mediated PCR and two cocktails of oligonucleotide probes. J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Apr;33(4):901–905. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.4.901-905.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jenkins D., Sherlaw-Johnson C., Gallivan S. Can papilloma virus testing be used to improve cervical cancer screening? Int J Cancer. 1996 Mar 15;65(6):768–773. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960315)65:6<768::AID-IJC10>3.0.CO;2-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kjaer S. K., van den Brule A. J., Bock J. E., Poll P. A., Engholm G., Sherman M. E., Walboomers J. M., Meijer C. J. Human papillomavirus--the most significant risk determinant of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer. 1996 Mar 1;65(5):601–606. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960301)65:5<601::AID-IJC8>3.0.CO;2-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Knesel E. A., Jr Roche Image Analysis Systems, Inc. Acta Cytol. 1996 Jan-Feb;40(1):60–66. doi: 10.1159/000333586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kok M. R., Boon M. E. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening: increase in diagnostic consistency and positive scores. Cancer. 1996 Jul 1;78(1):112–117. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960701)78:1<112::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Koss L. G. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA. 1989 Feb 3;261(5):737–743. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Koutsky L. A., Holmes K. K., Critchlow C. W., Stevens C. E., Paavonen J., Beckmann A. M., DeRouen T. A., Galloway D. A., Vernon D., Kiviat N. B. A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection. N Engl J Med. 1992 Oct 29;327(18):1272–1278. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199210293271804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurman R. J., Henson D. E., Herbst A. L., Noller K. L., Schiffman M. H. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. The 1992 National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA. 1994 Jun 15;271(23):1866–1869. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Laverty C. R., Farnsworth A., Thurloe J. K., Grieves A., Bowditch R. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1997 Jun;19(3):239–245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Laverty C. R., Thurloe J. K., Redman N. L., Farnsworth A. An Australian trial of ThinPrep: a new cytopreparatory technique. Cytopathology. 1995 Jun;6(3):140–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.1995.tb00466.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Linder J., Zahniser D. The ThinPrep Pap test. A review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol. 1997 Jan-Feb;41(1):30–38. doi: 10.1159/000332302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Melkert P. W., Hopman E., van den Brule A. J., Risse E. K., van Diest P. J., Bleker O. P., Helmerhorst T., Schipper M. E., Meijer C. J., Walboomers J. M. Prevalence of HPV in cytomorphologically normal cervical smears, as determined by the polymerase chain reaction, is age-dependent. Int J Cancer. 1993 Apr 1;53(6):919–923. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910530609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Palcic B., Garner D. M., MacAulay C. E., Matisic J., Anderson G. H. Oncometrics Imaging Corporation and Xillix Technologies Corporation. Use of the Cyto-Savant in quantitative cytology. Acta Cytol. 1996 Jan-Feb;40(1):67–72. doi: 10.1159/000333599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Patten S. F., Jr, Lee J. S., Nelson A. C. NeoPath, Inc. NeoPath AutoPap 300 Automatic Pap Screener System. Acta Cytol. 1996 Jan-Feb;40(1):45–52. doi: 10.1159/000333584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Remmink A. J., Walboomers J. M., Helmerhorst T. J., Voorhorst F. J., Rozendaal L., Risse E. K., Meijer C. J., Kenemans P. The presence of persistent high-risk HPV genotypes in dysplastic cervical lesions is associated with progressive disease: natural history up to 36 months. Int J Cancer. 1995 May 4;61(3):306–311. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910610305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rosenthal D. L., Acosta D., Peters R. K. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET Testing System. Acta Cytol. 1996 Jan-Feb;40(1):120–126. doi: 10.1159/000333592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rozendaal L., Walboomers J. M., van der Linden J. C., Voorhorst F. J., Kenemans P., Helmerhorst T. J., van Ballegooijen M., Meijer C. J. PCR-based high-risk HPV test in cervical cancer screening gives objective risk assessment of women with cytomorphologically normal cervical smears. Int J Cancer. 1996 Dec 11;68(6):766–769. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19961211)68:6<766::AID-IJC13>3.0.CO;2-Z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schiffman M. H., Brinton L. A. The epidemiology of cervical carcinogenesis. Cancer. 1995 Nov 15;76(10 Suppl):1888–1901. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19951115)76:10+<1888::aid-cncr2820761305>3.0.co;2-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sherman M. E., Schiffman M. H., Lorincz A. T., Manos M. M., Scott D. R., Kuman R. J., Kiviat N. B., Stoler M., Glass A. G., Rush B. B. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Correlation of cytopathologic diagnoses with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus types. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Aug;102(2):182–187. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/102.2.182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Tanaka H., Chua K. L., Lindh E., Hjerpe A. Patients with various types of human papillomavirus: covariation and diagnostic relevance of cytological findings in Papanicolaou smears. Cytopathology. 1993;4(5):273–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.1993.tb00102.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Vassilakos P., Cossali D., Albe X., Alonso L., Hohener R., Puget E. Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology: emphasis on suboptimal specimens. Acta Cytol. 1996 May-Jun;40(3):496–500. doi: 10.1159/000333905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Vooijs G. P. De advisering bij afwijkende bevindingen van cytologisch onderzoek van de cervix uteri. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1987 Sep 19;131(38):1662–1663. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Walboomers J. M., Jacobs M. V., Manos M. M., Bosch F. X., Kummer J. A., Shah K. V., Snijders P. J., Peto J., Meijer C. J., Muñoz N. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999 Sep;189(1):12–19. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199909)189:1<12::AID-PATH431>3.0.CO;2-F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilbur D. C., Bonfiglio T. A., Rutkowski M. A., Atkison K. M., Richart R. M., Lee J. S., Patten S. F., Jr Sensitivity of the AutoPap 300 QC System for cervical cytologic abnormalities. Biopsy data confirmation. Acta Cytol. 1996 Jan-Feb;40(1):127–132. doi: 10.1159/000333593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilbur D. C., Facik M. S., Rutkowski M. A., Mulford D. K., Atkison K. M. Clinical trials of the CytoRich specimen-preparation device for cervical cytology. Preliminary results. Acta Cytol. 1997 Jan-Feb;41(1):24–29. doi: 10.1159/000332300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. de Roda Husman A. M., Walboomers J. M., van den Brule A. J., Meijer C. J., Snijders P. J. The use of general primers GP5 and GP6 elongated at their 3' ends with adjacent highly conserved sequences improves human papillomavirus detection by PCR. J Gen Virol. 1995 Apr;76(Pt 4):1057–1062. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-76-4-1057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. van Ballegooijen M., Habbema J. D., van Oortmarssen G. J., Koopmanschap M. A., Lubbe J. T., van Agt H. M. Preventive Pap-smears: balancing costs, risks and benefits. Br J Cancer. 1992 Jun;65(6):930–933. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1992.195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. van der Graaf Y., Vooijs G. P., Gaillard H. L., Go D. M. Screening errors in cervical cytologic screening. Acta Cytol. 1987 Jul-Aug;31(4):434–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES