Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening program

Abstract

Background: In 2017, the Dutch cervical cancer screening program had replaced the primary cytology-based screening with primary high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening, including the opportunity to participate through self-sampling. Evaluation and balancing benefit (detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) and burden of screening (unnecessary referrals, invasive diagnostics, and overtreatment) is needed.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the referral rates, detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment in the new high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening program, including physician-sampled and self-sampled material, with the previous cytology-based screening program in the Netherlands.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study was conducted within the Dutch population-based cervical cancer screening program. Screenees with referrals for colposcopy between 2014 and 2015 (cytology-based screening) and 2017 and 2018 (high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening) were included. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and compared between the 2 screening programs. The main outcome measures were referral rate, detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse, overdiagnosis (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less in the histologic specimen), and overtreatment (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less in the treatment specimen).

Results: Of the women included in the study, 19,109 received cytology-based screening, and 26,171 received high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening. Referral rates increased from 2.5% in cytology-based screening to 4.2% in high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening (+70.2%). Detection rates increased to 46.2% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 32.2% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, and 31.0% for cervical cancer, and overdiagnosis increased to 143.4% with high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening. Overtreatment rates were similar in both screening periods. The positive predictive value of referral for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening was 34.6% compared with 40.2% in cytology-based screening. Women screened through self-sampling were at higher risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse detection (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.59) and receiving treatment (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.48) than those screened through physician-sampling.

Conclusion: Compared with cytology-based screening, high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, with 462 more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse cases per 100,000 women but at the expense of 850 more cases per 100,000 women with invasive diagnostics indicating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less.

Keywords: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; cervical smear; colposcopy; overdiagnosis; overtreatment; population screening.