Browse > Article

Cervical Cancer Prevention for the Future: the Complimentary Roles of Cytology Screening and HPV Vaccination  

McGoogan, Euphemia (Department of Pathology, University of Edinburgh)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Cytopathology / v.18, no.1, 2007 , pp. 1-12 More about this Journal
Abstract
Approximately 70% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV types 16/18 and thus the implementation of vaccination programmes with vaccines against HPV types 16/18 will have a major impact on the incidence of cervical cancer worldwide. However, this reduction will not be seen until several decades after full implementation of such vaccination programmes since the vaccines must be given to young adolescents before exposure to the virus and women who are already sexually active are not likely to be protected. Both GSK and Merck insist that even vaccinated women must continue to participate in regular cervical screening by the most sensitive method available since the vaccine can only give protection against up to 70% of cervical cancers. It is unlikely that the current vaccines will be modified to include additional high risk HPV types in the foreseeable future. While HPV testing is highly sensitive, it is not recommended for women under 30 years of age nor for vaccinated women. Additionally, HPV testing has poor specificity. The Digene Hybrid Capture 2 test is licensed for use only in conjunction with a cytology test, not as a stand-alone test, and the high risk panel has recognised cross reactivity with low risk HPV types. None of the other HPV test methods currently commercially available are FDA approved and all must be internally validated before use. This makes comparison of test results between laboratories difficult. The most sensitive and specific screening test currently available for women of all ages is the Cytyc ThinPrep System consisting of the ThinPrep Pap Test (TPPT) and the ThinPrep Imaging System (Imager). The TPPT was the first LBC system approved by the US FDA in 1996 and there are about 4,000 processors in use worldwide. The Imager was FDA approved in 2003 and over 350 systems are in routine use, mainly in the US. 40% of TPPT in the US are processed on Imager. There is clear evidence in peer reviewed literature that the Imager increases laboratory productivity by 100% and growing evidence that Imager detects more high grade SIL than the conventional smear or manual evaluation of TPPT. This aspect is particularly important since the number of cytological abnormalities will decrease as vaccination programmes are implemented. Cytotechnologists will see fewer and fewer abnormal smears and their skills will be put at risk. By doubling throughput, Imager will allow cytotechnologists to maintain their skills.
Keywords
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Sasieni P, Adams J. Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model BMJ 1999;318:1244-5   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Williams ARW: Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12-month periods. Cytopathol 2006;17:82-5   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K: Performance of an Imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Ctyol 2006;50:309-11   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680-9   DOI
5 Richards A, Farnsworth A, Davey E,Irwig L. Is the ThinPrep imaging system the future of cervical screening in Australia? BMJ (in press)
6 Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening or disease World Health Organisation. Geneva: WHO. Public Health Paper, 1968
7 Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1-73
8 Moss SM, Gray A, Legood R, et al. Cervical Screening LBC Pilot Studies. 2003, www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/research.html
9 Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England : evaluation based on routinely collected statistics BMJ 1999;318:904-8   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Gemmen EK, Blackburne RE, Ulrich UJ, van Engen AK, Partlow KL.A health economic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening methods. J Lower Genit Tract Dis 2006;10:197 Abstract
11 Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L et al. Effect of Study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid based cytology versus conventional cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122-32   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Cibas ES, Hong X, Crum CP, Feldman S. Age-specific detection of high-risk HPV DNA in cytologically normal, computer-imaged ThinPrep papanicolaou samples. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:702-6   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Evaluation of Cervical Cytology Technology Abstract: number 5, AHCPR publication 1999-00-E010
14 Lozano R. Comparison of computer assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2006;104:134-8
15 Biscotti CV, O'Brien DL, Gero MA, Gramlich TL, Kennedy AW, Easley KA: Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear: analysis of 400 split sample studies. J Reprod Med 2002;47:9-13
16 Richart RM, Masood S, Syrjanen KJ. HPV immortalization of human oral epithelial cells: a model for carcinogenesis. Acta Cytol 1998;42:50-8   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers Er, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-19   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Scottish Cervical Screening Programme http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/sehd/publications/ScreeningLiquidCytologyv2.pdf. 2002;1:1-51