Population-based study demonstrates lower cancer risk after negative HPV tests than cytology in screened women, indicating support for extended screening intervals.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that hrHPV-testing provides better protection against cervical cancer than cytology. However, long-term assessment of programme sensitivity remains essential. In the Netherlands, hrHPV-screening replaced cytology in 2017. We estimated the long-term cervical cancer risk following negative results in hrHPV- versus cytology-based screening. METHODS: Screening and histology data from the nationwide Dutch pathology databank (Palga) were used to identify 469,116 women without referral in 2014 (cytology-based) and 362,128 in 2017 (hrHPV-based), representing 4,071,690 person-years. Cervical cancer risk following non-referral, including interval cancers (IC) and those detected in the next screening round were analysed. FINDINGS: The incidence rate per 100,000 person-years was 3.3 IC following non-referral in cytology-based versus 2.7 following non-referral in hrHPV-based screening. Including next-round cancers, these numbers increase to 5.7 and 4.5. HrHPV-test negative women had a 50 % lower IC risk compared to those with normal cytology (HR 0.5; 95 % CI: 0.3-0.8), and 60 % lower when including next-round cancers (HR 0.4; 95 % CI: 0.3-0.5). HrHPV-positive women without referral had the highest cancer risk: 24 IC per 100,000 person-years, rising to 45 when including next-round cancers. Their risk was 3.4 times higher than for women with positive primary cytology without referral (HR: 3.4; 95 % CI: 1.1-8.1 for IC and HR: 3.4; 95 % CI: 1.4-8.1 including next-round cancers). INTERPRETATION: A negative hrHPV test was linked to lower long-term risk of cervical cancer than normal cytology, supporting longer screening intervals for hrHPV-negative women. However, hrHPV-positivity with negative cytology was associated with increased risk, suggesting the possible need for alternative triage guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schevenhoven et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: