A cross‐sectional study on HPV testing with type 16/18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening in 11,064 Chinese women

Cytology‐based cervical cancer screening is restricted because of a lack of cytologists. Thus, HPV‐based instead of cytology‐based screening may be a more suitable strategy in China. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of HPV testing (Cobas(®) 4800 Test, Roche) and HPV‐based programs to detect high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer compared with cytology (Thinprep, Hologic) and cytology‐based programs through a cross‐sectional study in 11,064 Chinese women aged 21–65 years who were enrolled from Longyou County in Zhejiang Province, China. The rates of HPV positivity and cytology abnormality were 9.8% and 6.1%, respectively. The HPV positivity rate had two age peaks, 21–24 (15.4%) and 60–65 (14.4%) years. According to adjusted data, HPV testing demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) than cytology for detecting CIN2 or worse (90.0% vs. 66.7%, 99.9% vs. 99.5%), and there was an acceptable specificity (91.3%) and positive predictive value (PPV, 12.5%). Furthermore, primary HPV testing with type 16/18 genotyping showed the highest sensitivity (78.6%) and NPV (99.7%) among four screening strategies, and there was similar specificity (96.8%) and PPV (23.9%) compared with co‐testing screening to detect CIN2+, while there were fewer colposcopies (4.2) and tests (106.3) performed than with co‐testing and primary cytology screening to detect a case of high‐grade CIN. The differences in effectiveness were approximately similar when CIN3+ was the identifying target. Our findings suggest that primary HPV testing with type 16/18 genotyping has a higher sensitivity and NPV, possesses optimal cost/effectiveness in the first round of screening and is a feasible strategy of cervical cancer screening for Chinese women.