Abstract
Australia has a unique and highly successful screening program for cervical cancer which is based on the conventional Pap smear. Since its introduction in 1991 there has been a decline in both the incidence of and mortality from this disease. Part of the success of this program has been the introduction of Pap test registers and strict quality assurance measures for cervical cytology, including compulsory key performance indicators for laboratories. Using these measures, nationwide calculations give cervical cytology in Australia a sensitivity of 78% for high-grade lesions and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 78%. Australia was the first country to introduce a widespread government-funded human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in 2007. Because of the high accuracy of Australian cytology, HPV testing alone, given its low PPV and high cost, is unlikely to be a viable alternative to cytology for primary screening in this country. Australia therefore faces unique issues and choices in integrating its extensive vaccination program with a successful cervical screening program.
References
1.
Australasian Association of Cancer Registries, Australian Government: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, 2010. http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer/data/acim_books/cervical_cancer.xls.
2.
Schiffman M: Integration of human papillomavirus vaccination, cytology, and human papillomavirus testing. Cancer Cytopathol 2007;111:145–153.
3.
Heideman D, Snijders PJ, Berkhof J, Verheijen RH, Helmerhorst TJ, Meijer CJ: Vaccination against HPV: indications for women and the impact on the cervical screening programme. BJOG 2008;115:938–946.
4.
Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Stout NK, Salomon JA, Kuntz KM, Goldie SJ: Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16, 18 vaccinations. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:308–320.
5.
Solomon D, Papillo JL, Davey DD: Statement on HPV DNA test utilization. Acta Cytol 2009;53:247–248.
6.
National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council: Requirements for Gynaecological (Cervical) Cytology. Canberra, ACT, 2006.
7.
Shield PW, Finnimore J, Cummings M, Wright RG: Performance measures for Australian laboratories reporting cervical cytology: a decade of data 1998–2008. Pathology 2010;42:623–628.
8.
National HPV Vaccination Program Register 2001, Victorian Cytology Service Inc, East Melbourne. http://www.hpvregister.org.au.
9.
Garland S, Brotherton J, Stevens M, Tabrizi S, Condon J, McIntyre P, Smith D: The results of the WHINURS study (Women HPV Indigenous Non-Indigenous Urban Rural Study): a baseline genotype prevalence prior to vaccine rollout (abstract). Australian and New Zealand Vulvovaginal Society, November 2010.
10.
Stevens MP, Garland SM, Tan JH, Quinn MA, Petersen RW, Tabrizi SN: HPV genotype prevalence in women with abnormal pap smears in Melbourne, Australia. J Med Virol 2009;81:1283–1291.
11.
Smith MA, Canfell K, Brotherton JM, Lew JB, Barnabas RV: The predicted impact of vaccination on human papillomavirus infections in Australia. Int J Cancer 2008;123:1854–1863.
12.
Donovan B, Franklin N, Grulich AE, Regan DG, Ali H, Wand H, Fairley CK: Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination and trends in genital warts in Australia: analysis of national sentinel surveillance data. Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:39–44.
13.
Farnsworth A: The changing landscape for cervical screening. Med J Aust 2008;189:6–7.
14.
National Cervical Screening Program: Cervical Screening in Australia 2007–2008 Data Report. Canberra, The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2010.
15.
Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter SD, Hanley J, Ferenczy A, Ratnam S, Coutlee F, Franco EL; Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial Group: Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1579–1588.
16.
Dillner J, Rebolj M, Birembaut P, Petry KU, Szarewski A, Munk C, de Sanjose S, Naucler P, Lloveras B, Kjaer S, Cuzick J, van Ballegooijen M, Clavel C, Iftner T: Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study. BMJ 2008;377:a1754.
17.
Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM, Hingmire S, Malvi, S, Thorat R, Kothari A, Chinoy R, Kelkar R, Kane S, Desai S, Keskar VR, Rajeshwarkar R, Panse N, Dinshaw KA: HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1385–1394.
18.
Wright TC Jr: Cervical cancer screening in the 21st century: is it time to retire the PAP smear? Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007;50:313–323.
19.
Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB: Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810–819.
20.
Baleriola C, Millar D, Melki J, Coulston N, Altman P, Rismanto N, Rawlinson W: Comparison of a novel HPV test with the Hybrid Capture II (hcII) and a reference PCR method shows high specificity and positive predictive value for 13 high-risk human papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol 2008;42:22–26.
21.
Myers E, Huh WK, Wright JD, Smith JS: The current and future role of screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Gynecol Oncol 2008;109:S31–S39.
22.
Franco EL, Cuzick J, Hildesheim A, de Sanjose S: Chapter 20: issues in planning cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Vaccine 2006;24:S3/171–177.
23.
Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, Saville AM: Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based cytology versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122–132.
24.
Davey E, d’Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, Farnsworth A: Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:1–8.
25.
Dehn D, Torkko KC, Shroyer KR: Human papillomavirus testing and molecular markers of cervical dysplasia and carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol 2007;111:1–14.
26.
Coquillard G, Palao B, Patterson BK: Quantification of intracellular HPV E6/E7 mRNA expression increases the specificity and positive predictive value of cervical cancer screening compared to HPV DNA. Gynecol Oncol 2011;120:89–93.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
