Introduction: After the transition toward the HPV-based screening protocol, which has led to an increase in sensitivity, and in order to bring the specificity back to acceptable values, cytology underwent a change of approach, becoming a triage test. For these reasons, in the Tuscany region (after the recommendations of the GISCi document), it was decided to reduce, as much as possible, the use of ASC-US category in cytology triage, classifying these morphological cases as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancies (NILM) or LSIL, basing on the grade of nuclear atypia. So, in Italy, in a cytology triage context (HPV primary screening), a modified Bethesda system (TBS) is currently used. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the review activity of 384 cytology triage cases and of the cervical cancer screening indicators (sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ lesions) using the TBS 2014 or the modified TBS. Materials and Methods: 384 HPV positive cases at one-year recall (192 with a cytology result of NILM both at baseline and at one-year recall; 192 with a cytology result of NILM at baseline but abnormal at one-year recall), all with a histologically confirmed result (128 CIN2+, 256 ≤ CIN1), were selected, and their baseline Pap tests were reviewed in blind mode by 5 expert cytologists. Results: The cytological results of NILM were confirmed for 92.5% and 83.8% of cases using TBS 2014 or modified TBS, respectively. 20/128 CIN2+ cases could have been reported at the baseline cytology triage, causing an anticipatory effect and an improvement in sensitivity of the screening protocol at baseline (+15.6%). Using TBS 2014, the number of false positives more than tripled with respect to the modified TBS 2014, with a significant increase in unnecessary colposcopies (+11.4%). Conclusion: This work demonstrated that a greater expertise of cytologists, acquired during the following 3 years of experience with cytological triage, and a strong IQC system could lead to the identification of a significant number of lesions reported to baseline rather than at one-year recall (diagnostic anticipation).

Journal Section:
Gynecologic Cytopathology
Keywords:
Pap test review, Cytology triage, Reproducibility, Peer review IQC, ASC-US in cytology triage
1.
Ronco G, Confortini M, Maccallini V, Naldoni C, Segnan N, Sideri M, et al. Health technology assessment report: ricerca del DNA di papillomavirus umano (HPV) come test primario per lo screening dei precursori del cancro del collo dell’utero [Health technology assessment report: HPV DNA based primary screening for cervical cancer precursors]. Epidemiol Prev. 2012;36(5 Suppl 2):e1–33.
2.
Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Dalla Palma P, Del Mistro A, et al. Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(7):492–501.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn065
3.
Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, Meijer CJLM, Hoyer H, Ratnam S, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 2006;119(5):1095–101.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21955
4.
Naucler P, Ryd W, Törnberg S, Strand, A, Wadell, G, Elfgren, K, et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 18;357(16):1589–97.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa073204
5.
Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Dalla Palma P, Del Mistro A, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):249–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70360-2
6.
Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A, Bailey A, Albrow R, Roberts C, et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(6):864–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.01.008
7.
Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade FJ, Bulkmans NWJ, Heideman DAM, et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):78–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70296-0
8.
Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJF, Arbyn M, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):524–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7
9.
Zorzi M, Del Mistro A, Farruggio A, de'Bartolomeis L, Frayle-Salamanca H, Baboci L, et al. Use of a high-risk human papillomavirus DNA test as the primary test in a cervical cancer screening programme: a population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2013;120(10):1260–7; discussion 1267-8.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12272
10.
Elfström KM, Arnheim-Dahlström L, von Karsa L, Dillner J. Cervical cancer screening in Europe: quality assurance and organisation of programmes. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(8):950–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.03.008
11.
Jansen E, Naber SK, Aitken CA, de Koning HJ, van Ballegooijen M, de Kok I. Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical screening based on first year results in The Netherlands: a modelling study. BJOG. 2021;128(3):573–82.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16400
12.
Bergeron C, Giorgi-Rossi P, Cas F, Schiboni, ML, Ghiringhello, B, Dalla Palma, P, et al. Informed cytology for triaging HPV-positive women: substudy nested in the NTCC randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(2):dju423.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju423
13.
Confortini M. Is the use of the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance category still necessary in cytological triage?Cytopathology. 2021;32(2):281–2.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.12927
14.
Gillio Tos A, Macrì L, Troni GM. La citologia di triage nei programmi di screening con HPV come test primario: indicazioni per l'Implementazione delle Linee Guida Europee 2015. Documento GISCi; 2019. Available from: https://www.gisci.it/documenti/documenti_gisci/LA_CITOLOGIA_DI_TRIAGE_NEI_PROGRAMMI_DI_SCREENING-2020.pdf.
15.
Carozzi F, Burroni E, Confortini M, Pompeo G, Bisanzi S, Cellai F, et al. Implementation of a centralized HPV-based cervical cancer screening programme in Tuscany: first round results and comparison with the foregoing Pap-based screening programme. J Med Screen. 2022;29(2):110–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413211067922
16.
Bouvard V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. A review of human carcinogens: Part B–biological agents. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(4):321–2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70096-8
17.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114–9.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.16.2114
18.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Pap Test and Bethesda 2014. “The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” (after a quotation from Mark Twain). Acta Cytol. 2015;59(2):121–32.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000381842
19.
Ronco G, Zappa M, Franceschi S, Tunesi S, Caprioglio A, Confortini M, et al. Impact of variations in triage cytology interpretation on human papillomavirus-based cervical screening and implications for screening algorithms. Eur J Cancer. 2016;68:148–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.09.008
20.
Cuzick J, Adcock R, Carozzi F, Gillio-Tos A, De Marco L, Del Mistro A, et al. Combined use of cytology, p16 immunostaining and genotyping for triage of women positive for high-risk human papillomavirus at primary screening. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(7):1864–73.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32973
21.
Giorgi Rossi P, Carozzi F, Ronco G, Allia E, Bisanzi S, Gillio-Tos A, et al. p16/ki67 E6/E7 mRNA accuracy and prognostic value in triaging HPV DNA-positive women [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Jul 17]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(3):292–300.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa105
22.
Wentzensen N, Clarke MA, Bremer R, Poitras, N, Tokugawa, D, Goldhoff, PE, et al. Clinical evaluation of human papillomavirus screening with p16/ki-67 dual stain triage in a large organized cervical cancer screening program. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):881–8.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0306
© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
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.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.