Page 149 - Screening for Cervical Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review

Appendix C. Evidence Tables

Evidence Table 3B. Performance of HPV Testing for Triage (cont'd)

Quality
Patients & Methods Outcomes Measured Study Results & Limitations* Considerations
190 consecutive Blinded to HPV status Prevalence: Quality Score=11
mildly/moderately while performing LGSIL or none=134/190=70.5% Ref. Std.:2
abnormal Paps colposcopy HGSIL or none=56/190=29.5% Blind:2
referred for Verification:2
colposcopy HPV presence and Se (CPI/IIG, HSIL)=96% Consecutive:2
type by CPI/IIG PCR, Sp (CPI/IIG)=33% Spectrum:1
HPV presence by Publication:1
SHARP probe Se (HPV subtypes Industry:1
16,18,31,33,45/HGSIL)=68%
Histologic diagnosis: Sp (HPV subtypes
no dysplasia or LGSIL type16,18,31,33,45/HGSIL)=70%
vs. HGSIL
Se (SHARP Probe B, HSIL)=95%
Sp (SHARP Probe B, HSIL)=40%

Using both HPV tests:
Se (SHARP Probe B +CPI/IIG,
HSIL)=98%
Sp (SHARP Probe B+CPI/IIG,
HSIL)=28%

358 women Cytology: Bethesda Quality Score=8
diagnosed with and system Ref. Std.: 1
not treated earlier for Blind: 2
abnormal smears Colposcope-directed Verification: 0
referred for biopsies and Consecutive: 2
colposcopy histology: negative, Spectrum: 1
koilocytotic changes, Publication: 1
CIN I, II, III, cancer Industry: 1

HPV testing: Hybrid:
high risk +
intermediate risk=high
risk (types 16, 18, 31,
33, 35, 45, 51, 52, and
56), vs. low risk (6, 11,
42, 43, 44)
PCR: high risk (16,
18, 31, 33 and 35) vs.
low (6, 11) or
unclassified (other
than these.)

C-55