Randomised Evaluation of New Technologies within the Population‐Based Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Finland: Cross‐Sectional Performance and Validity

A randomised and population-based screening design with new technologies has been applied to the organised cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. In this experiment the women invited to routine five-yearly screening are individually randomised to be screened with automation-assisted cytology, human papillomavirus (HPV) test or conventional cytology. By using the randomised design, the ultimate aim is to assess and compare the long-term outcomes of the different screening regimens. The primary aim of the current study was to evaluate, based on the material collected during the implementation phase of the Finnish randomised screening experiment, the cross-sectional performance and validity of automation-assisted cytology (Papnet system) and primary HPV DNA testing (Hybrid Capture II assay for 13 oncogenic HPV types) within service screening, in comparison to conventional cytology. The parameters of interest were test positivity rate, histological detection rate, relative sensitivity, relative specificity and positive predictive value. Also, the effect of variation in performance by screening laboratory on age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence was assessed. Based on the cross-sectional results, almost no differences were observed in the performance of conventional and automation-assisted screening. Instead, primary HPV screening found 58% (95% confidence interval 19-109%) more cervical lesions than conventional screening. However, this was mainly due to overrepresentation of mild- and moderate-grade lesions and, thus, is likely to result in overtreatment since a great deal of these lesions would never progress to invasive cancer. Primary screening with an HPV DNA test alone caused substantial loss in specificity in comparison to cytological screening. With the use of cytology triage test, the specificity of HPV screening improved close to the level of conventional cytology. The specificity of primary HPV screening was also increased by increasing the test positivity cutoff from the level recommended for clinical use, but the increase was more modest than the one gained with the use of cytology triage. The performance of the cervical cancer screening programme varied widely between the screening laboratories, but the variation in overall programme effectiveness between respective populations was more marginal from the very beginning of the organised screening activity. Thus, conclusive interpretations on the quality or success of screening should not be based on performance parameters only. In the evaluation of cervical cancer screening the outcome should be selected as closely as possible to the true measure of programme effectiveness, which is the number of invasive cervical cancers and subsequent deaths prevented in the target population. The evaluation of benefits and adverse effects of each new suggested screening technology should be performed before the technology becomes an accepted routine in the existing screening programme. At best, the evaluation is performed randomised, within the population and screening programme in question, which makes the results directly applicable to routine use.