ObjectivesThe objective of the present study is to assess the performance of a high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA test with individual HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping as a method for primary cervical cancer screening compared with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in a population of Greek women taking part in routine cervical cancer screening.MethodsThe study, conducted by the “HEllenic Real life Multicentric cErvical Screening” (HERMES) study group, involved the recruitment of 4,009 women, aged 25–55, who took part in routine cervical screening at nine Gynecology Departments in Greece. At first visit cervical specimens were collected for LBC and HPV testing using the Roche Cobas 4800 system. Women found positive for either cytology or HPV were referred for colposcopy, whereas women negative for both tests will be retested after three years. The study is ongoing and the results of the first screening round are reported herein.ResultsValid results for cytology and HPV testing were obtained for 3,993 women. The overall prevalence of HR-HPV was 12.7%, of HPV-16 2.7% and of HPV-18 1.4%. Of those referred for colposcopy, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was detected in 41 women (1.07%). At the threshold of CIN2+, cytology [atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse] and HPV testing showed a sensitivity of 53.7% and 100% respectively, without change between age groups. Cytology and HPV testing showed specificity of 96.8% and 90.3% respectively, which was increased in older women (≥30) in comparison to younger ones (25–29). Genotyping for HPV16/18 had similar accuracy to cytology for the detection of CIN2+ (sensitivity: 58.5%; specificity 97.5%) as well as for triage to colposcopy (sensitivity: 58.5% vs 53.7% for cytology).ConclusionHPV testing has much better sensitivity than cytology to identify high-grade cervical lesions with slightly lower specificity. HPV testing with individual HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping could represent a more accurate methodology for primary cervical cancer screening in comparison to liquid-based cytology, especially in older women.

In the present pilot study, the feasibility of a site-of-care cervicovaginal self-sampling methodology for HPV-based screening was tested in 346 women residing in underserved rural areas of Northern Greece. These women provided self-collected cervicovaginal sample along with a study questionnaire. Following molecular testing, using the cobas HPV Test, Roche, HPV positive women, were referred to colposcopy and upon abnormal findings, to biopsy and treatment. Participation rate was 100%. Regular pap-test examination was reported for 17.1%. Among hrHPV testing, 11.9% were positive and colposcopy/biopsy revealed 2 CIN3 cases. Non-compliance was the most prevalent reason for no previous attendance. Most women reported non-difficulty and non-discomfort in self-sampling (77.6% and 82.4%, respectively). They would choose self-sampling over clinician-sampling (86.2%), and should self-sampling being available, they would test themselves more regularly (92.3%). In conclusion, self-sampling is feasible and well-accepted for HPV-based screening, and could increase population coverage in underserved areas, helping towards successful prevention.