J Pathol Transl Med.  2020 Jan;54(1):112-118. 10.4132/jptm.2019.11.29.

Comparison of papanicolaou smear and human papillomavirus (HPV) test as cervical screening tools: can we rely on HPV test alone as a screening method? An 11-year retrospective experience at a single institution

• Kang M
• Ha SY
• Cho HY
• Chung DH
• Kim NR
• An J
• Lee S
• Seok JY
• Jeong J

• KMID: 2501599
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2019.11.29

Abstract

Background
The decrease in incidence of cervical dysplasia and carcinoma has not been as dramatic as expected with the development of improved research tools and test methods. The human papillomavirus (HPV) test alone has been suggested for screening in some countries. The National Cancer Screening Project in Korea has applied Papanicolaou smears (Pap smears) as the screening method for cervical dysplasia and carcinoma. We evaluated the value of Pap smear and HPV testing as diagnostic screening tools in a single institution.
Methods
Patients co-tested with HPV test and Pap smear simultaneously or within one month of each other were included in this study. Patients with only punch biopsy results were excluded because of sampling errors. A total of 999 cases were included, and the collected reports encompassed results of smear cytology, HPV subtypes, and histologic examinations.
Results
Sensitivity and specificity of detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) were higher for Pap smears than for HPV tests (sensitivity, 97.14%; specificity, 85.58% for Pap smears; sensitivity, 88.32%; specificity, 54.92% for HPV tests). HPV tests and Pap smears did not differ greatly in detection of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (85.35% for HPV test, 80.31% for Pap smears). When atypical glandular cells were noted on Pap smears, the likelihood for histologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma following Pap smear was higher than that of high-risk HPV test results (18.8 and 1.53, respectively).
Conclusions
Pap smears were more useful than HPV tests in the diagnosis of HSIL, SCC, and glandular lesions.

Keyword

Uterine cervical neoplasms; Papanicolaou test; Human papillomavirus DNA tests; Early detection of cancer; Sensitivity

Reference

1. Snijders PJ, Steenbergen RD, Heideman DA, Meijer CJ. HPV-mediated cervical carcinogenesis: concepts and clinical implications. J Pathol. 2006; 208:152–64.

2. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65:87–108.

3. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61:69–90.

4. Kim Y, Jun JK, Choi KS, Lee HY, Park EC. Overview of the National Cancer screening programme and the cancer screening status in Korea. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011; 12:725–30.

5. Polman NJ, Snijders PJ, Kenter GG, Berkhof J, Meijer CJ. HPV-based cervical screening: Rationale, expectations and future perspectives of the new Dutch screening programme. Prev Med. 2019; 119:108–17.

6. Sangrajrang S, Laowahutanont P, Wongsena M, et al. Comparative accuracy of Pap smear and HPV screening in Ubon Ratchathani in Thailand. Papillomavirus Res. 2017; 3:30–5.

7. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014; 383:524–32.

8. Tota JE, Bentley J, Blake J, et al. Introduction of molecular HPV testing as the primary technology in cervical cancer screening: acting on evidence to change the current paradigm. Prev Med. 2017; 98:5–14.

9. US Preventive Services Task Force, Curry SJ, Krist AH, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018; 320:674–86.

10. Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes. 3rd ed. Cham: Springer;2015.

11. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci. 2001; 16:101–33.

12. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley;1981.

13. Tracht J, Wrenn A, Eltoum IE. Primary HPV testing verification: a retrospective ad-hoc analysis of screening algorithms on women doubly tested for cytology and HPV. Diagn Cytopathol. 2017; 45:580–6.

14. Costa S, Sideri M, Negri G, et al. The predictive value of human papillomavirus testing for the outcome of patients conservatively treated for stage IA squamous cell cervical carcinoma. J Clin Virol. 2015; 70:53–7.

15. McKenna M, McMenamin MM. Human papillomavirus testing in young women: clinical outcomes of human papillomavirus triage in a UK cervical screening program. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014; 122:702–10.

16. Pileggi C, Flotta D, Bianco A, Nobile CG, Pavia M. Is HPV DNA testing specificity comparable to that of cytological testing in primary cervical cancer screening? Results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cancer. 2014; 135:166–77.

17. Garland SM, Kjaer SK, Muñoz N, et al. Impact and effectiveness of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: a systematic review of 10 years of real-world experience. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 63:519–27.

18. Shim SH, Kim H, Sohn IS, et al. Nationwide cervical cancer screening in Korea: data from the National Health Insurance Service Cancer Screening Program and National Cancer Screening Program, 2009-2014. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 28:e63.

19. Sherman ME, Wang SS, Wheeler CM, et al. Determinants of human papillomavirus load among women with histological cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: dominant impact of surrounding low-grade lesions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003; 12:1038–44.

20. Jastania R, Geddie WR, Chapman W, Boerner S. Characteristics of apparently false-negative digene hybrid capture 2 high-risk HPV DNA testing. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 125:223–8.

21. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Albert Einstein College of Medicine; Analytical Biological Services, et al. Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer. Nature. 2017; 543:378–84.

22. Stolnicu S, Barsan I, Hoang L, et al. International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification (IECC): a new pathogenetic classification for invasive adenocarcinomas of the endocervix. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018; 42:214–26.

23. Hodgson A, Park KJ, Djordjevic B, et al. International endocervical adenocarcinoma criteria and classification: validation and interobserver reproducibility. Am J Surg Pathol. 2019; 43:75–83.

24. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press;2014.

25. Nasser H, AlAyyaf M, Atallah A, et al. Eleven-year review of data on Pap smears in Saudi Arabia: we need more focus on glandular abnormalities! Ann Saudi Med. 2017; 37:265–71.

26. Patanwala IY, Bauer HM, Miyamoto J, Park IU, Huchko MJ, Smith-McCune KK. A systematic review of randomized trials assessing human papillomavirus testing in cervical acancer screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208:343–53.

27. Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Thomson C, et al. HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10:672–82.

28. Luyten A, Buttmann-Schweiger N, Luyten K, et al. Early detection of CIN3 and cervical cancer during long-term follow-up using HPV/Pap smear co-testing and risk-adapted follow-up in a locally organised screening programme. Int J Cancer. 2014; 135:1408–16.

29. Sasagawa T, Takagi H, Makinoda S. Immune responses against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and evasion of host defense in cervical cancer. J Infect Chemother. 2012; 18:807–15.