TABLE 3. Round 1: positivity rate, disease rate per woman screened, disease rate per positive result.
| Positivity rate, (%)a |
Rate per woman screened (CIN2 or greater), % |
Rate per positive result (CIN2 or greater), % |
Rate per woman screened (CIN3 or greater), % |
Rate per positive result (CIN3 or greater), % |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Comparison | Age range, y |
HPV | Cyto | HPV | Cyto | HPV | Cyto | HPV | Cyto | HPV | Cyto |
| Ronco et al16 (2010) (NTCCS) |
HPV plus cytology (passive response) vs cytology alone |
25-34 | 11.7 | 4.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 10.1 | 17.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 3.0 | 11.0 |
| Ronco et al16 (2010) (NTCCS) |
HPV plus cytology (active response) vs cytology alone |
35-60 | 10.6 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 6.0 | 9.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 2.8 | 4.5 |
| Ronco et al16 (2010) (NTCCS) |
HPV alone vs cytology alone |
25-34 | 13.1 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 12.7 | 9.2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 4.8 | 4.1 |
| Ronco et al16 (2010) (NTCCS) |
HPV alone vs cytology alone |
35-60 | 5.8 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 9.5 | 8.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 4.7 | 3.6 |
| Leinonen et al20 (2009) (Finnish trial) |
HPV plus cytology triage vs cytology alone |
25-65 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 37.0 | 25.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 10.7 | 8.0 |
| Kitchener et al18 (2009) (ARTISTIC trial) |
HPV plus cytology (passive response) vs cytology alone |
20-64 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 36.2 | 41.8 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 18.6 | 25.1 |
| Sankaranarayanan et al17 (2009) (India trial)b |
HPV alone vs cytology alone |
30-59 | 10.3 | 7.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 9.1 | 15.4 | 0 .4 | 0.5 | 3 .6 | 6. 8 |
| Rikjaart et al13 (2012) (POBASCAM trial)c |
HPV plus cytology (passive response) vs cytology alone |
29-56 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 47 | 49 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 33 | 32 |
| Naucler et al19 (2007) (SwedeScreen trial) |
HPV plus cytology (passive response) vs cytology alone |
32-38 | NR | NR | 1.8 | 1.2 | NA | NA | 1.2 | 0.9 | NA | NA |
ARTISTIC, A Randomised Trial of HPV Testing in Primary Cervical Screening; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cyto, cytology; HPV, human papillomavirus; NA, not applicable; NR, not relative; NTCCS, New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening; POBASCAM, Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam; QUADAS, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy.
When positivity rate was not recorded, the colposcopy referral rate was used instead because both values should theoretically be the same
CIN3 or greater was not an outcome measured in this study; instead the detection rates for CIN3 or greater actually refer to the detection rates for cancer
Values recorded in table abstracted and calculated based on numbers printed in earlier publication because the most recent publication does not give enough information to calculate a new positivity rate (Bulkmans, 2007).14
Patanwala. HPV testing in cervical cancer screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013.