REVIEW ARTICLES

Screeningul cancerului de col uterin în România: este timpul pentru o schimbare

 Cervical cancer screening in Romania: it is time to change

First published: 23 octombrie 2020

Editorial Group: MEDICHUB MEDIA

DOI: 10.26416/ObsGin.68.3.2020.4012

Abstract

Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent female cancers in the world, mainly in low-resource countries. It is preventable through vaccination before starting sexual activity. The progression from infection with high-risk (HR) strains of HPV to invasive cancer takes time, from 10 to 13 years or even longer. During this long natural history of precancer phase, the early detection and the local treatment of the screened population could stop the progression to invasive cancer and would make this infectious neoplasia a preventable disease. The highest incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the highest death rate due to this disease are encountered in low-resource countries, with no preventive care programs. The key of success is an organized screening program that could dramatically reduce the incidence and mortality from cervical cancer through early detection and local treatment of early precancer lesions. Romania has the highest rate of mortality due to cervical cancer in Europe, with no national screening program to prevent cervical cancer. The opportunist screening is substantial in urban area, but does not cover the rural zones. Romania urgently needs a nationwide screening program to detect precursor lesions of the cervical cancer.

Keywords
cervical cancer, HPV, cytology, screening, triage

Rezumat

Cancerul colului uterin este unul dintre cele mai frecvente cancere la femei în întreaga lume, dar mai ales în ţările cu resurse economice reduse. Acesta poate fi prevenit prin vaccinare înaintea începerii vieţii sexuale. Progresia de la infecţia cu tulpini de HPV cu risc înalt până la cancer invaziv durează între 10 şi 13 ani. În cursul acestei lungi perioade de istorie naturală, detecţia precoce şi tratamentul local, într-o populaţie supusă screeningului, pot opri progresia către cancer invaziv şi pot transforma această infecţie oncogenă într-o boală ce poate fi prevenită. Incidenţa cea mai mare a cancerului invaziv se regăseşte în ţările care nu au un program de prevenţie prin screening. Cheia succesului este organizarea unui program naţional de screening. România are cea mai mare rată de mortalitate prin cancer de col uterin din Europa şi nu are un program naţional de screening. Din acest motiv, România are nevoie urgentă de un program de detecţie a leziunilor precursoare ale cancerului colului uterin.

Introduction

Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent female cancers in the world, mainly in the lower-resource countries. It is preventable through vaccination before starting sexual activity. The progression from infection with high-risk (HR) strains of HPV to invasive cancer takes time, from 10 to 13 years or even longer. During this long natural history of precancer phase, the early detection and the local treatment of the screened population could stop the progression to invasive cancer and would make this infectious neoplasia a preventable disease.

In 2018, about 570,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer and 31,100 died due to this disease. The highest incidence of invasive cervical cancer (84%) and the highest death rate from the same disease are found in lower-resource countries, with no preventive care programs(1).

The key of success is an organized screening program that could dramatically reduce the incidence and mortality from cervical cancer through early detection and local treatment of early precancer lesions. A very convincing example is offered by the results of the national screening program in UK and Finland. In 1988, the national screening program for cervical cancer was introduced in UK. In 2017, the statistics showed a reduction by 24% of the incidence and a drop of mortality from 8/100,000 to 3/100,000 when compared to 1988(2).

More impressive figures are presented by Finland. After the introduction of the population-based screening, the incidence and mortality dropped by 80%, being nowadays 4/100,000 and 1/100,000, respectively(3).

Traditionally, the screening program was based on exfoliative cytology (Pap smear test). In the last de­c­ade, the traditional cytology screening was improved by liquid-based cytology. Also, within the last decade, major improvements in cervical cancer prevention have been registered thanks to the introduction of HPV DNA detection tests.

The value of exfoliative cytology in the cervical cancer screening

In recent years, a new technique was introduced, liquid-based cytology (LBC). The conventional cytology is progressively replaced by LBC, because the latter has more advantages. First, it is a semiautomated process, removing inflammatory cells, debris, erythrocytes and other artefacts, allowing a thin and uniform spread of epithelial cells on slide, facilitating the reading by machine and/or cytopathologists. This technique reduces the rate of unsatisfactory smears from 9.1% to 1.6% and even more, and the solution can be used for HPV DNA testing and for other markers(4).

A comparison of conventional and liquid-based cytology shoved that both have the same sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CIN2 or higher, excepting ASC-US, where LBC is less specific.

In the Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology, the majority of cervical cells anomalies are in squamous cells. The incidence of these abnormalities are: 3-5% ASC-US, 1-2% LSIL, and 0.5-1% HSIL. The abnormalities of glandular cells are less than 0.2% of all smears(5).

A negative impact of the cytology screening is the high incidence of false-negative results, estimated to 20-25%. Thirty percent of women attending regular screening have a false-negative result due to incorrect sampling or misinterpretation(6). Moreover, exfoliative cytology has limitations in the diagnosis of glandular intraepithelial neoplasia localized in the cervical canal(7). This is important because the incidence of adenocarcinoma of the cervix has increased in the last decades, representing 20% to 30% of all cervical cancers. This cancer has a delay in the diagnosis, being detected in more advanced stages, with a poor prognosis, partly reflecting the diagnostic delay.

The value of HPV DNA testing
in the primary cervical cancer screening

It is well known that the persistent infection with a high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) strain is necessary for the development of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-CIN or CIN3), adenocarcinoma in situ and invasive, and invasive squamous cervical cancer(8). When compared to conventional cytology, the molecular testing for HR-HPV has an increased sensitivity, but a lower specificity for the diagnosis of CIN 3+(9). HPV testing is recommended in Europe, alone, as primary screening method and for triage women with ASC-US, in the follow-up, after the treatment of CIN lesions(6). In the USA, HPV testing is recommended for triage women with ASC-US and as an additional test of cytology for women older than 30 years of age, this last indication being labeled as “co-testing”(10-12).

Today, many countries are using HPV primary screening for the detection of precursor lesions of cervical cancer, clearly proving that HPV primary screening, maintaining a high sensitivity, could reduce the cost and the complexity related to co-testing(13,14). Most of the countries using HPV primary screening do not use routine co-testing, therefore reducing the cost of the screening while maintaining a high sensitivity. Prospective randomized trials and even retrospective studies clearly showed that HPV primary screening has a higher sensitivity, when compared to cytology, in identifying earlier CIN3 and higher(9,15).

One of the questions waiting for an answer is the selection criteria for HPV-positive women who should be referred to colposcopy.

Convincing results about how to build a national screening program for the detection of cervical cancer, in a country that has not one yet, are offered by the results of the Athena study(16).

Three models of screening strategies were compared after more than 42,000 women ≥25 years old were screened during a three-year prospective study.

HPV primary screening strategy

Most of the tests used for HPV detection are PCR-based. Most amplified HPV-DNA tests detect a group of 13 HR-HPV types (HPV-HR 16, 18 and other HPV-HR: 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68).

If HR-HPV was negative, women were rescreened in three years. If HPV 16/18 was positive, the woman was referred to colposcopy. In case of a positive result for the other 12 HR-HPV, reflex cytology and colposcopy were offered if cytology was ASC-US or more than ASC-US. If cytology was negative, the woman was rescreened for HPV and cytology in one year.

Cytology strategy

The cytology strategy was based on liquid-based exfoliative cytology examination. HPV was tested only when cytology was ASC-US or more.

Hybrid strategy

The hybrid strategy consists in the association between HPV and cytology testing. If HR-HPV was positive and cytology was negative, the woman was rescreened in one year.

Comparative evaluation of the three screening strategies

In women ≥25 years old, HPV primary strategy is the best screening method for the detection of CIN3+, even better than hybrid strategy. It proved to be the best screening strategy at baseline, detecting with 37.8% more cases of CIN 3+ when compared to either hybrid or cytology strategy.

HPV primary strategy detected with 22.5% more cases of CIN3+ than cytology alone and with 64.2% more cases than hybrid strategy(16). These better results were associated with a higher number of colposcopies.

When analyzing the age group ≥30 years old, HPV primary strategy continued to offer better results compared to cytology, similar for women ≥25 years old. When compared to hybrid strategy, HPV primary method detected the same number of CIN3+, requiring the same number of colposcopies. HPV primary strategy has the advantage of detecting more cases at baseline when compared to hybrid strategy.

Discussion

There is a large number of prospective screening trials clearly proving that HPV primary screening is more sensitive than cytological screening(9,15,17,18).

HPV primary screening offers a 60% to 70% better protection against invasive cervical cancer in women ≥30 years old when compared to conventional cytology(7,19).

The advantage is clearly seen in glandular disease. High-risk HPV primary test is an objective test determined in central laboratories, with no need for technicians training, assuring a good quality control and the most credible results. All these strategies would allow longer screening intervals of 5 years compared to 3 years for cytology, and would reduce the number of unsatisfactory results.

High-risk HPV-DNA testing can be done on vaginal self-samples, which offers opportunities to include in population screened women who did not participate in the regular screening programs. Meta-analyses have shown that clinically validated PCR-based assays are as accurate on self-taken taken cervical samples when compared to clinician-taken cervical samples(20,21).

Co-testing is more expensive than HPV primary screening and offers minimal protection against evolution to CIN2+ or CIN3+(15,20,23). When compared to cytology, HPV primary screening detected more CIN3+ in women ≥25 years old (28.3% increased sensitivity) and ≥30 years old (24.3% increased sensitivity).

HPV primary screening has the advantage that women with HPV 16/18 positive will be referred to colposcopy, allowing gynecologists to detect about 50% of all cases of CIN3+ lesions.

Screening guidelines recommend a balance between costs and benefits. One potential excess of HPV primary screening is an increased number of unnecessary colposcopies. These will increase the cost of screening and will generate patient anxiety. This is especially evident for women ≥25 years old, where 10.5% of them are transient HPV-positive, without a true carcinogenic potential, and could be referred for an unnecessary colposcopy or even unnecessary surgical interventions(10,24,25).

To improve specificity and reduce overreferral to colposcopy, triage tests are needed to identify the persistent infections and the potential association with the development of cancer.

A triage approach would include reflex cytology for all women positive for the other 12 HR-HPV (Cobas test) in order to select women who will be referred for colposcopy instead of sending all HR-HPV positive women. Without a triage approach, HPV primary screening would recommend approximately a double number of colposcopies compared to cytology.

Another limitation of HPV primary screening is the lack of follow-up for women with CIN2+ at baseline. Many studies offer reassuring results, showing that 20% of untreated CIN2+ regress after the first year of diagnosis and 60% after three years(24,26), while CIN3+ lesions infrequently regress(27).

As a prospective screening study, Athena clearly supports the use of HPV primary screening with triage of HPV-positive women, using an association of genotyping for HPV 16/18 and reflex cytology, and starting the action at the age of 25 years old. The results of this study strongly proved that HPV primary detects more CIN3+ than either cytology or hybrid strategy. A limitation of this study is represented by a higher number of colposcopies compared to cytology, but if the target is the detection of CIN3+, the number of colposcopies is the same as with hybrid screening.

Conclusions and recommendations

Romania has the highest rate of mortality due to cervical cancer in Europe and has no national screening program to prevent cervical cancer. The opportunist screening is substantial in urban area, but does not cover the rural areas. The explanations for this situation are represented by lack of coordinating infrastructure, the lack of human resources (cytopathologists), the subjective reading of cytology slides by cytopathologists, the lack of quality control, the lack of involvement of family doctors in screening, and the lack of report and data collection.

Romania urgently needs a nationwide screening program to detect precursor lesions of the cervical cancer.

The 2nd edition of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening established the principles of an organized screening program(6,28). These principles are: defining a target population (women of 25-65 years of age) and screening intervals (3-5 years if using cytology and 5-7 years if using HR-HPV-test); the use of a population-based registry and appropriate recruitment measures (personal invitations, place and date where the screening test is taken); the definition of the screening test; adequate facilities to perform this test; defined management algorithms, and the monitoring and evaluation of the process and of the impact of screening(28).

There are many examples proving that HPV primary screening could be preferred to the other models of screening. Among the advantages of HPV primary strategy, there can be mentioned: the test is automated and the interpretation is objective; it is cheaper than cytology; extended screening interval to 5 years; higher sensitivity; higher negative predictive value.

The old infrastructure based on the Pap smears is no more functional, there are fewer cytopathologists and no more public warning campaigns against cervical cancer. The best example of implementation of a successful screening program based on HPV primary testing is offered by Turkey(29-31).

The decision to implement a new policy of cervical cancer screening, replacing the existing one based on cytology, is a political one. The first step is to design and write a project describing the protocol of HPV primary screening.

One of the most important decisions is to have one or two nationwide centralized diagnostics laboratories and a sustainable agreement with the diagnosis industry.

Family doctors must be involved in the screening program and trained accordingly (theoretical training and hands-out practice).

Well-defined algorithms must be written in the protocol. A network of referral centers for colposcopy and treatment of precursors lesions must be established.

All the post-screening data (colposcopy, final pathology) must be collected in the institutional registry and sent to regional centers and then to the national registry for cancer. The success of a population-based screening program is grounded on the quality control of the program and particularly on high population coverage.

HPV primary population-based screening should be adopted as a national cervical cancer prevention program(13,14).

Bibliografie

  • 1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136:E359–E386.

  • 2. Cancer ResearchUK. Cervical cancer incidence statistics. Available at: https://www. cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancertype/ cervical-cancer/incidence. 

  • 3. Anttila A, Nieminen, P. Cervical cancer screening programme in Finland with an example on implementing alternative screening methods. Coll Antropol. 2007;31(2):17–22. 

  • 4. NICE. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. 2013. Available at: http:// www.nice.org.uk 

  • 5. Insinga RP, Glass AG, Rush BB. Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul; 191(1):105–113.

  • 6. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, Ronco G, Schenck U, Segnan N, et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second edition summary document. Ann Oncol. 2010 Mar;21(3):448–458.

  • 7.  Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomized controlled trials. Lancet. 2014 Feb;383(9916):524–532.

  • 8. Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Wacholder S, Kinney W, Gage JC, Castle PE. Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Mar;103(5):368–383.

  • 9. Whitlock EP, Vesco KK, Eder M, Lin JS, Senger CA, Burda BU. Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:687–97.

  • 10. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology Screening Guidelines for the Prevention and Early Detection of Cervical Cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137:516–42.

  • 11. American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians. Practice Bulletin No. 140: Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening test results and cervical cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1338–67.

  • 12. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 Updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;17(5):S1-S27.

  • 13. National Cervical Screening Program; 2014 (Accessed October 14, 2014).

  • 14. Cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands; 2014 (Accessed October 14, 2014).

  • 15. Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine. 2012;30(5):F88–99.

  • 16. Wright TC, Stoler MH, Behrens CM, et al. Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: End of study results from Athena study using HPV as first-line screening test. Gynecologic Oncology. 2015 Feb;136(2):189-197.

  • 17. Leinonen M, Nieminen P, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, et al. Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1612–23.

  • 18. Moscicki AB, Ma Y, Wibbelsman C, et al. Rate of and risks for regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in adolescents and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;116(6):1373–80. 

  • 19. Koliopoulos G, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Kyrgiou M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jan;104(1):232–246.

  • 20. Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Suonio E, Dillner L, et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician collected samples: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):172–183.

  • 21. Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self-samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018 Dec 5;363:k4823.

  • 22. Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Mar;11(3):249–57.

  • 23. Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A, 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 Apr;47(6):864–71.

  • 24. Moscicki AB, Ma Y, Wibbelsman C, et al. Rate of and risks for regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in adolescents and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec; 116(6):1373–80.  

  • 25. Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jun;156(12):880–91 (W312).

  • 26. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Solomon D. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;113(1):18–25.

  • 27. Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, van Kemenade FJ, et al. HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications. Br J Cancer. 2012 Feb;106(5):975–81.

  • 28. Kyrigiou M, Arbyn M, Bergeron C, et al. Cervical screening: ESGO-EFC position paper of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Federation of Colposcopy (EFC). British Journal of Cancer. 2020 Jun;123(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0920-9.

  • 29. Gultekin M, Karaca MZ, Kucukyildiz I, et al. Initial results of population based cervical cancer screening program using HPV testing in one million Turkish women. Int J Cancer. 2018 May 1;142(9):1952-1958.

  • 30. Gultekin M, Karaca MZ, Kucukyildiz I, et al. Mega HPV laboratory for cervical cancer control: challenges and recommendations from a case study of Turkey. Papillomavirus Research. 2019;7:118-122.

  • 31. Gultekin M, Dundar S, Keskinkilic B, et al. How to triage HPV-positive cases. Results of a four millions females. Gyn Oncol. 2020;158(1):105-111.

Articole din ediţiile anterioare

REVIEW ARTICLES | Ediţia 4 67 / 2019

Noi tratamente sistemice în infecţia cu HPV

Florica Şandru, Anda Dragodan, Aida Petca, Răzvan Petca, Ana Maria Alexandra Stănescu, Mihai Cristian Dumitraşcu

Infecţia umană cu diferite genotipuri ale virusului papiloma uman (HPV) este una dintre cele mai frecvente infecţii virale cu transmitere sexuală. ...

20 decembrie 2019
REVIEW ARTICLES | Ediţia 1 68 / 2020

Actualităţi în managementul afecţiunilor tiroidiene la femei în perioada sarcinii

Teodora Turtă, Melinda Matyas, Lucia Procopciuc, Daniel Mureşan, Gabriela Caracostea

Afecţiunile tiroidiene sunt printre cel mai frecvent întâlnite patologii la femeile aflate la vârsta fertilă. Homeostazia tiroidiană este important...

16 martie 2020
ORIGINAL ARTICLES | Ediţia 1 68 / 2020

Valoarea predictivă a indicilor Doppler ai arterei uterine la 11-14 săptămâni pentru complicaţiile hipertensive ale sarcinii

V. Daşcău, G. Furău, Cristina Onel, Maria Puşchiţa

Introducere. Complicaţiile hipertensive ale sarcinii pot duce adesea la situaţii grave, chiar cu potenţial letal pentru mamă şi făt. Ecografia Dopp...

16 martie 2020
CASE REPORTS | Ediţia 4 67 / 2019

Rezultat fatal într-un caz de inserţie velamentoasă de cordon la o sarcină gemelară bicorionică

Aida Petca, Oana Calo, Florica Şandru, Răzvan Petca, Nicoleta Măru, Mihai Cristian Dumitraşcu

Inserţia velamentoasă presupune inserţia cordonului ombilical pe membrane, în afara plăcii coriale, la distanţă de marginea placentei. Lipsa gelati...

17 decembrie 2019