TY - JOUR T1 - Challenges of false positive and negative results in cervical cancer screening JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037440 SP - 2020.03.17.20037440 AU - David Robert Grimes AU - Edward M.A. Corry AU - Talía Malagón AU - Ciaran O’Riain AU - Eduardo L. Franco AU - Donal J. Brennan Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/20/2020.03.17.20037440.abstract N2 - Objective To quantify the impact and accuracy of different screening approaches for cervical cancer, including liquid based cytology (LBC), molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and their combinations via parallel co-testing and sequential triage. The secondary goal was to predict the effect of differing coverage rates of HPV vaccination on the performance of screening tests and in the interpretation of their results.Design Modelling study.Main outcomes measured Different screening modalities were compared in terms of number of cases of Cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 and 3 detected and missed, as well as the number of false positives leading to excess colposcopy, and number of tests required to achieve a given level of accuracy. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of different modalities were simulated under varying levels of HPV vaccination.Results The model predicted that in a typical population, primary LBC screening misses 4.9 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.5-CIN 2 / 3 cases per 1000 women, and results in 95 (95% CI: 93-97%) false positives leading to excess colposcopy. For primary HPV testing, 2.0 (95% CI: 1.9-2.1) cases were missed per 1000 women, with 99 (95% CI: 98-101) excess colposcopies undertaken. Co-testing markedly reduced missed cases to 0.5 (95% CI: 0.3-0.7) per 1000 women, but at the cost of dramatically increasing excess colposcopy referral to 184 per 1000 women (95% CI: 182-188). Conversely, triage testing with reflex screening substantially reduced excess colposcopy to 9.6 cases per 1000 women (95% CI: 9.3 - 10) but at the cost of missing more cases (6.4 per 1000 women, 95% CI: 5.1 - 8.0). Over a life-time of screening, women who always attend annual and 3-year co-testing were predicted to have a virtually 100% chance of falsely detecting a CIN 2 / 3 case, while 5 year co-testing has a 93.8% chance of a false positive over screening life-time. For annual, 3 year, and 5 year triage testing (either LBC with HPV reflex or vice versa), lifetime risk of a false positive is 35.1%, 13.4%, and 8.3% respectively. HPV vaccination rates adversely impact the PPV, while increasing the NPV of various screening modalities. Results of this work indicate that as HPV vaccination rates increase, HPV based screening approaches result in fewer unnecessary colposcopies than LBC approaches.Conclusion The clinical relevance of cervical cancer screening is crucially dependent upon the prevalence of cervical dysplasia and/or HPV infection or vaccination in a given population, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of various modalities. Although screening is life-saving, false negatives and positives will occur, and over-testing may cause significant harm, including potential over-treatment.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo specific fundingAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesSupplied with paper ER -