Comparison of single-, double- and triple-combined testing, including Pap test, HPV DNA test and cervicography, as screening methods for the detection of uterine cervical cancer

Kim,Ju  Hee; Kim,In-Wook; Kim,Yong-Wan; Park,Dong  Chun; Kim,Yong  Wook; Lee,Keun-Ho; Ahn,Tae-Gyu; Han,Sei-Jun; Ahn,Woong  Shick

doi:10.3892/or.2013.2257

Comparison of single-, double- and triple-combined testing, including Pap test, HPV DNA test and cervicography, as screening methods for the detection of uterine cervical cancer

Authors:
- Ju Hee Kim
- In-Wook Kim
- Yong-Wan Kim
- Dong Chun Park
- Yong Wook Kim
- Keun-Ho Lee
- Tae-Gyu Ahn
- Sei-Jun Han
- Woong Shick Ahn
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Catholic Research Institute of Medical Science, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 137-701, Republic of Korea, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 137-701, Republic of Korea, Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju 501-759, Republic of Korea
Published online on: January 29, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2013.2257
Pages: 1645-1651

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Cervical cancer is a serious disease that threatens the health of women worldwide. This study compared the sensitivities and false-positive rates of cervical cytology (Pap smear), human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA test, cervicography, first double-combined testing (cervical cytology and HPV DNA test), second double-combined testing (cervical cytology and cervicography) and triple-combined testing (cervical cytology, HPV DNA test and cervicography). The study included 261 patients screened for uterine cervical cancer. All women simultaneously underwent cervical cytology, HPV DNA test and cervicography for uterine cervical cancer screening and colposcopically directed biopsy for diagnostic evaluation. The triple-combined testing was consistently the most sensitive among the cervical screening tests. The second double-combined testing, with a sensitivity rate of 98.1% was more sensitive than the first double-combined test (92.3%). However, cervical cytology was most specific (93.5%) and showed the highest positive predictive value (77.8%). The sensitivity of cervical cytology was markedly improved in combination with HPV DNA test and cervicography. Thus, the triple-combined testing, which improves the high false negativity of cervical cytology, may be an effective tool in uterine cervical cancer screening, pending confirmation of the effectiveness in a mass screening study.

View Figures

View References

1	Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E and Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 61:69–90. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
2	Recommendations for cervical screening 1997. Members of the Working Party on Cervical Screening. N Z Med J. 111:94–98. 1998.PubMed/NCBI
3	Miller AB, Nazeer S, Fonn S, et al: Report on consensus conference on cervical cancer screening and management. Int J Cancer. 86:440–447. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Sarian LO, Derchain S, Shabalova I, et al: Optional screening strategies for cervical cancer using standalone tests and their combinations among low- and medium-income populations in Latin America and Eastern Europe. J Med Screen. 17:195–203. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Soler ME and Blumenthal PD: New technologies in cervical cancer precursor detection. Curr Opin Oncol. 12:460–465. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, et al: HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. JAMA. 283:87–93. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Wright TC Jr and Schiffman M: Adding a test for human papillomavirus DNA to cervical-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 348:489–490. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Bukovic D, Fures R, Speranda Z, et al: Cervicography in evaluation of early detection of the cervical lesions. Coll Antropol. 26(Suppl): 143–147. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
9	Franco ES, Hyppolito SB, Franco RG, et al: Digital cervicography criteria: improving sensitivity in uterine cervical cancer diagnosis. Cad Saude Publica. 24:2653–2660. 2008.(In Portuguese).
10	Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC and Rietveld WJ: Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 33:843–848. 1989.PubMed/NCBI
11	Koss LG: The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy JAMA. 261:737–743. 1989.PubMed/NCBI
12	Kim YT: Current status of cervical cancer and HPV infection in Korea. J Gynecol Oncol. 20:1–7. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Jin XW, Sikon A and Yen-Lieberman B: Cervical cancer screening: less testing, smarter testing. Cleve Clin J Med. 78:737–747. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Yang KY: Abnormal pap smear and cervical cancer in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 55:838–848. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Sirovich BE and Welch HG: The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 19:243–250. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	DeMay RM: Should we abandon pap smear testing? Am J Clin Pathol. 114(Suppl): S48–S51. 2000.PubMed/NCBI
17	Mount S, Harmon M, Eltabbakh G, Uyar D and Leiman G: False positive diagnosis in conventional and liquid-based cervical specimens. Acta Cytol. 48:363–371. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Richart RM: Screening. The next century Cancer. 76:1919–1927. 1995.PubMed/NCBI
19	Giles JA, Hudson E, Crow J, Williams D and Walker P: Colposcopic assessment of the accuracy of cervical cytology screening. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 296:1099–1102. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA. 262:931–934. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Sherris J, Wittet S, Kleine A, et al: Evidence-based, alternative cervical cancer screening approaches in low-resource settings. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 35:147–154. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
22	Gavillon N, Vervaet H, Derniaux E, Terrosi P, Graesslin O and Quereux C: How did I contract human papillomavirus (HPV)? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 38:199–204. 2010.(In French).
23	Stanley M: Pathology and epidemiology of HPV infection in females. Gynecol Oncol. 117:S5–S10. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Scheinfeld N and Lehman DS: An evidence-based review of medical and surgical treatments of genital warts. Dermatol Online J. 12:52006.PubMed/NCBI
25	Schiffman MH, Kiviat NB, Burk RD, et al: Accuracy and interlaboratory reliability of human papillomavirus DNA testing by hybrid capture. J Clin Microbiol. 33:545–550. 1995.PubMed/NCBI
26	Wright TC Jr, Denny L, Kuhn L and Goldie S: Use of visual screening methods for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 29:701–734. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Howard M, Sellors JW, Lytwyn A, Roth P and Mahony JB: Combining human papillomavirus testing or cervicography with cytology to detect cervical neoplasia. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 128:1257–1262. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
28	Campion MJ and Reid R: Screening for gynecologic cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 17:695–727. 1990.
29	Ferris DG, Payne P, Frisch LE, Milner FH, diPaola FM and Petry LJ: Cervicography: adjunctive cervical cancer screening by primary care clinicians. J Fam Pract. 37:158–164. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
30	Schiffman MH, Bauer HM, Hoover RN, et al: Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 85:958–964. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar
31	McKinnon KJ, Ford RM and Hunter JC: Comparison of cytology and cervicography in screening a high risk Australian population for cervical human papillomavirus and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 33:176–179. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Hall JB: Can cervicography be improved? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 188:8542003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Coibion M, Autier P, Vandam P, et al: Is there a role for cervicography in the detection of premalignant lesions of the cervix uteri? Br J Cancer. 70:125–128. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI