HPV DNA testing with cytology triage in cervical cancer screening: Influence of revealing HPV infection status Journal Articles uri icon

  • Overview
  • Research
  • Identity
  • Additional Document Info
  • View All


  • BACKGROUNDKnowledge of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) status might influence a cytotechnician's assessment of cellular abnormalities. The authors compared original cytotechnicians' Papanicolaou (Pap) readings for which HPV status was concealed with Pap rereads for which HPV status was revealed separately for 3 screening populations.METHODSPreviously collected cervical Pap smears and clinical data were obtained from the Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial (study A), the Democratic Republic of Congo Community‐Based Screening Study (study B), and the Brazilian Investigation into Nutrition and Cervical Cancer Prevention (study C). Smears were reread with knowledge of HPV status for all HPV‐positive women as well as a sample of HPV‐negative women. Diagnostic performance of Pap cytology was compared between original readings and rereads.RESULTSA total of 1767 Pap tests were reread. Among 915 rereads for HPV‐positive women, the contrast between “revealed” and “concealed” Pap readings demonstrated revisions from negative to positive results for 109 women (cutoff was atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse) and 124 women (cutoff was low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [LSIL] or worse). For a disease threshold of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse, specificity significantly declined at the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cutoff for studies A (86.6% to 75.3%) and C (42.5% to 15.5%), and at the LSIL cutoff for study C (61.9% to 37.6%). Sensitivity remained nearly unchanged between readings, except in study C, in which reread performance was superior (91.3% vs 71.9% for the LSIL cutoff).CONCLUSIONSA reduction in the diagnostic accuracy of Pap cytology was observed when revealing patients' cervical HPV status, possibly due to a heightened awareness of potential abnormalities, which led to more false‐positive results. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2015;123:745–754. © 2015 American Cancer Society.


  • Richardson, Lyndsay Ann
  • El‐Zein, Mariam
  • Ramanakumar, Agnihotram V
  • Ratnam, Sam
  • Sangwa‐Lugoma, Ghislain
  • Longatto‐Filho, Adhemar
  • Cardoso, Marly Augusto
  • Coutlée, Francois
  • Franco, Eduardo L

publication date

  • December 2015