Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)–based cervical screening will be introduced in the Netherlands in 2016. We assessed the 5-year cervical (pre)cancer risk of women with different combinations of HPV and cytology test results. Special attention was paid to risks for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and 2 or more (CIN3+/2+) of HPV-positive women with a negative triage test, because this determines the safety of a 5-year screening interval for HPV-positive, triage test–negative women. In addition, age-related effects were studied. A total of 25,553 women were screened by HPV testing and cytology in a screening setting. Women were managed on the presence of HPV and/or abnormal cytology. Five-year cumulative incidences for CIN3+/2+ were calculated. Five-year CIN3+(2+) risk was 10.0% (17.7%) among HPV-positive women. When stratified by cytology, the CIN3+(CIN2+) risk was 7.9% (12.9%) for women with normal cytology and 22.2% (45.3%) for women with equivocal or mildly abnormal (i.e., BMD) cytology. For HPV-negative women, the 5-year CIN3+(2+) risk was 0.09% (0.21%). Additional triage of HPV-positive women with normal cytology by repeat cytology at 12 months showed a 5-year CIN3+(2+) risk of 4.1% (7.0%). HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal cytology at baseline had comparable risks of 3.5% (7.9%). HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal baseline cytology and normal repeat cytology had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 0.42%. No age-related effects were detected. In conclusion, HPV-positive women with normal cytology and a negative triage test, either repeat cytology after 12 months or baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping, develop a non-negligible CIN3+ risk over 5 years. Therefore, extension of the screening interval over 5 years only seems possible for HPV screen–negative women. Cancer Prev Res; 8(6); 502–8. ©2015 AACR.

Data from clinical trials have shown that screening by HPV testing provides better protection against cervical cancer and high-grade precursors thereof, i.e., cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and 3 (CIN2/3), than cytology screening (1, 2). In the Netherlands, the Minister of Health has recently decided to convert the cytology-based screening program into an HPV-based screening program.

Because the HPV test has 2% to 4% lower specificity than cytology for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), management on the basis of HPV test results alone would lead to overreferral and overtreatment of patients. Thus, proper triage algorithms using additional tests for HPV-positive women are necessary. Previously, we have determined the risk within 36 months for CIN2+ and CIN3 or worse (CIN3+) in the VUSA-Screen cohort (3, 4). In this context, we have also evaluated several triage algorithms (5). Cytology testing at baseline and after 12 months was among the most attractive triage algorithms for HPV-positive women, along with HPV 16/18 genotyping and a combination of genotyping and repeat cytology. Still, long-term data are needed to evaluate the safety of a negative triage.

We evaluated 5-year CIN2+/3+ risks of women screened by HPV testing and cytology. Special attention was paid to the risk of HPV-positive women with negative triage tests, because this risk determines the safety of a 5-year screening interval for these women. In addition, we analyzed age-related effects.

Patients and procedures

The VUSA-Screen study is a population-based study designed to evaluate the effectiveness of combined cervical cytology screening with hrHPV testing by the HC2 hybridization assay (Qiagen). The study design is outlined in Fig. 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been described previously (3). Briefly, 25,871 women participating in the regular cervical screening program were offered an HPV test in addition to cytology. Women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD, corresponding to ASC-US/LSIL) cytology and a HPV-positive test result were directly referred for colposcopy, as were women with worse than BMD cytology (irrespective of their HPV status). Women with BMD and a negative HPV test result were offered repeat cytology at 6 and 18 months, and were referred for colposcopy in case of abnormal cytology. In earlier studies on VUSA-Screen, we have analyzed the cumulative CIN2/3 risk within 36 months after baseline, for HPV-positive women with normal cytology (n = 1,021) and age-matched HPV-negative women with normal cytology (n = 3,063). Women were evaluated by HPV-testing and cytology at 24 months after baseline (4). In the current study assessing the 5-year risk, the complete cohort of women was analyzed, consisting of 24,345 HPV-negative and 1,188 HPV-positive women. In case of abnormal results in follow-up (either HPV-positive or ≥BMD), women were referred for colposcopy. If colposcopic assessment showed suspect areas, biopsies were taken according to national and international guidelines (6, 7). Histology was classified as normal, CIN1, 2, or 3 or as invasive cancer according to international criteria (6, 8). Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix (ACIS) was counted as CIN3.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the intervention arm of the VUSA-Screen for women evaluated in this 5-year follow-up study. Women in the control group were excluded because they were only screened by cytology. Women with an inadequate sample or >BMD cytology were not included in this follow-up study. n = number of women; T0 = baseline; T12 = 12 months after baseline.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the intervention arm of the VUSA-Screen for women evaluated in this 5-year follow-up study. Women in the control group were excluded because they were only screened by cytology. Women with an inadequate sample or >BMD cytology were not included in this follow-up study. n = number of women; T0 = baseline; T12 = 12 months after baseline.

Close modal

Participants had a cytologic smear taken with a cytobrush (Rovers). After preparation of the smear on a glass slide for cytology, the brush was placed in a vial containing 1 mL UCM (Universal Collection Medium; Qiagen) for HPV testing. Cytology results were read according to the CISOE-A classification, which can be easily converted to the 2001 Bethesda system (9, 10). Cytologic results were grouped as normal, BMD, or >BMD.

High-risk HPV testing was performed by the HC2 high-risk HPV DNA test in an automated format on a rapid capture system according to the manufacturer's instructions (Qiagen). This test used a cocktail of probes to detect 13 high-risk HPV genotypes:16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68. Samples were considered positive if they had an HC2 outcome of ≥1 RLU/CO. HC2-positive samples were typed by reverse line blot hybridization (11). In the context of this study, HPV-positive women were classified into two groups of HPV 16/18-positive versus HPV 16/18-negative women (HPV-non 16/18-positive).

For this study, we collected long-term follow-up data from all women with normal cytology or BMD at baseline. Women with an inadequate sample (n = 213) were excluded. Women with >BMD at baseline (n = 125) were also excluded because they had been directly referred for colposcopy, irrespective of HPV status (12).

The VUSA-Screen study was approved by the Ministry of Public Health (2002/02-WBO; ISBN-10: 90-5549-452-6) and registered in the trial register (NTR215, ISRCTN64621295).

Data collection

The VUSA-Screen study was carried out between October 2003 and August 2005. Histo- and cytopathologic data from all 25,533 women with normal cytology and BMD cytology results at baseline were collected until December 2012, resulting in a follow-up period of at least 5 years. Within this time frame, all women should have had at least one follow-up visit, and therefore the risk within one round of the screening program can be determined. According to the screening program in the Netherlands, a subsequent screening round consisted of only cytology testing, and found place 5 years after the previous screening, irrespective of possible treatment and/or follow-up period. Follow-up results were retrieved from PALGA, the nationwide registry and network of all histopathologic and cytopathologic data (13). A total of 59,310 cytologic and histologic follow-up excerpts of gynecological origin were obtained. Noncervical data were discarded. In case of multiple histologic diagnoses in a single excerpt, the worst diagnosis was taken. Every woman contributed from recruitment to CIN2+ detection, hysterectomy, or last follow-up visit before the end of the study.

Statistical analysis

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of histologically confirmed CIN3+ lesions found during the time span from intake up to the last recorded result. The secondary outcome measure was the proportion of histologically confirmed CIN2+ lesions. Interval censoring was used in case of a CIN2+/CIN3+ event and right censoring otherwise. This is a variant of the Kaplan–Meier approach that accounts for the fact that women had a different number of follow-up moments, at various time points during the study. The lower bound of the interval was the time of last normal cytology test, upper bound was the time of histologic diagnosis CIN2+. In case the first cytology test was BMD, and immediately after that a CIN2+ was diagnosed, the lower bound was set to baseline.

Separate analyses were performed for women between the ages of 29 and 33 and women of 34 years or older. These two age groups correspond to the first screen in the program and later screens. The chosen strategies for triaging HPV-positive women included (i) cytology followed by repeat cytology testing at 12 months (range, 6–18 months); (ii) cytology with HPV 16/18 genotyping; and (iii) cytology with HPV 16/18 genotyping followed by repeat cytology testing at 12 months. The cumulative incidences of CIN2+/3+ and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with the “interval” package in the statistical software program R (version 3.0.1; ref. 14). Comparisons between curves were done using the R function IC test with default setting.

A total of 25,533 women met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Of these, 20,860 (81.7%) women had a follow-up visit. Among HPV-positive women, follow-up results were available for 905 of 1,021 (88.6%) women with normal cytology and 161 of 167 (96.4%) women with BMD cytology. Median follow-up time of these women was 62.0 (range, 2–78) and 63.0 (range, 2–105) months, respectively. Mean age at inclusion was 38.2 (range, 29–60) and 37.8 (range, 29–61) years, respectively. Furthermore, 19,794 of 24,345 (81.3%) HPV-negative women had follow-up results. Median follow-up time was 62.0 (range, 0–107) months. The mean age at inclusion was 43.3 (range, 29–61) years.

In total, 138 women were diagnosed with CIN3+, including 7 adenocarcinomas and 4 squamous cell carcinomas, and 256 with CIN2+.

Five-year cumulative incidences of CIN3+ and CIN2+ are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2. Five-year CIN3+ risk for HPV-negative women was 0.09% (95% CI, 0.04%–0.14%). For HPV-positive women, 5-year CIN3+ risk was 10.0% (95% CI, 7.1%–11.5%). This was significantly higher than the risk of HPV-negative women (P < 0.001). Stratified by cytology, risks were 7.9% (95% CI, 4.4%–10.1%) and 22.2% (95% CI, 16.0%–28.0%; P < 0.001) for HPV-positive women with normal or BMD cytology, respectively. When only evaluating cytology results (i.e., normal or BMD cytology), the 5-year CIN3+ risk was 0.42% (95% CI, 0.28%–0.51%) for women with normal cytology and 11.6% (95% CI, 7.6%–15.5%) for women with BMD cytology (P < 0.001). For CIN2+, comparable differences in risks were found (Table 1).

Figure 2.

Cumulative incidences for CIN3+. CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Figure 2.

Cumulative incidences for CIN3+. CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Close modal
Table 1.

Five-year cumulative incidences for CIN3+ and CIN2+

CIN3+CIN2+
nnCumulative incidence95% CInCumulative incidence95% CI
HPV-negative 19,794 26 0.09% 0.04%–0.14% 64 0.21% 0.13%–0.28% 
HPV-positive 1,066 112 10.0% 7.1%–11.5% 192 17.7% 14.8%–20.1% 
HPV-positive, normal cytology 905 72 7.9% 4.4%–10.1% 114 12.9% 9.6%–16.0% 
HPV-positive, BMD cytology 161 40 22.2% 16.0%–28.0% 78 45.3% 36.5%–51.6% 
Normal cytology 20,537 95 0.42% 0.28%–0.51% 172 0.72% 0.58%–0.83% 
BMD cytology 323 43 11.6% 7.6%–15.5% 84 24.1% 18.8%–28.8% 
CIN3+CIN2+
nnCumulative incidence95% CInCumulative incidence95% CI
HPV-negative 19,794 26 0.09% 0.04%–0.14% 64 0.21% 0.13%–0.28% 
HPV-positive 1,066 112 10.0% 7.1%–11.5% 192 17.7% 14.8%–20.1% 
HPV-positive, normal cytology 905 72 7.9% 4.4%–10.1% 114 12.9% 9.6%–16.0% 
HPV-positive, BMD cytology 161 40 22.2% 16.0%–28.0% 78 45.3% 36.5%–51.6% 
Normal cytology 20,537 95 0.42% 0.28%–0.51% 172 0.72% 0.58%–0.83% 
BMD cytology 323 43 11.6% 7.6%–15.5% 84 24.1% 18.8%–28.8% 

n = number of women.

We next evaluated the risk of HPV-positive women triaged by different strategies, with special attention to the risk of those with a negative triage result. The associated 5-year CIN3+ and CIN2+ risks are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3. First, 5-year risks of HPV-positive women with normal cytology triaged by repeat cytology testing were calculated. In case of a normal repeat cytology test, women had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 4.1% (95% CI, 0.44%–5.9%), which was significantly lower than the risk of HPV-positive women with normal cytology without repeat cytology testing (7.9%; 95% CI, 4.4%–10.1%; P = 0.007). Five-year risks of women with ≥BMD repeat cytology are shown in Table 2.

Figure 3.

Cumulative incidence curves for CIN3+ in HPV-positive women with normal cytology, triaged by HPV 16/18 genotyping and/or repeat cytology. CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; 1. HPV-positive, normal cytology with normal repeat cytology; 2. HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology; 3. HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology with normal repeat cytology; 4. HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology; 5. HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology with normal repeat cytology.

Figure 3.

Cumulative incidence curves for CIN3+ in HPV-positive women with normal cytology, triaged by HPV 16/18 genotyping and/or repeat cytology. CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; 1. HPV-positive, normal cytology with normal repeat cytology; 2. HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology; 3. HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology with normal repeat cytology; 4. HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology; 5. HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology with normal repeat cytology.

Close modal
Table 2.

Five-year cumulative incidences for CIN3+ and CIN2+ in HPV-positive women with normal cytology triaged with different triage strategies

CIN3+CIN2+
BaselineRepeat cytology (after 12 months)nnCumulative incidence95% CIncumulative incidence95% CI
HPV-positive, normal cytology — 905 72 7.9% 4.4%–10.1% 114 12.9% 9.6%–16.0% 
HPV-positive, normal cytology Normal cytology 407 15 4.1% 0.44%–5.9% 25 7.0% 3.3%–9.2% 
HPV-positive, normal cytology ≥BMD 72 23 31.1% 19.5%–40.9% 38 53.2% 39.3%–66.8% 
HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology — 259 48 18.1% 9.4%–33.9% 62 24.6% 16.7%–30.2% 
HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology Normal cytology 104 10 11.3% 0.00%–19.2% 12 13.4% 2.8%–21.0% 
HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology ≥BMD 32 14 40.9% 22.3%–59.1% 22 69.6% 50.3%–87.5% 
HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology — 646 24 3.5% 1.7%–5.3% 52 7.9% 5.7%–10.4% 
HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology Normal cytology 303 0.42% 0.00%–1.4% 13 3.5% 0.00%–6.2% 
HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology ≥BMD 40 23.3% 10.3%–38.7% 16 41.3% 23.1%–58.6% 
CIN3+CIN2+
BaselineRepeat cytology (after 12 months)nnCumulative incidence95% CIncumulative incidence95% CI
HPV-positive, normal cytology — 905 72 7.9% 4.4%–10.1% 114 12.9% 9.6%–16.0% 
HPV-positive, normal cytology Normal cytology 407 15 4.1% 0.44%–5.9% 25 7.0% 3.3%–9.2% 
HPV-positive, normal cytology ≥BMD 72 23 31.1% 19.5%–40.9% 38 53.2% 39.3%–66.8% 
HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology — 259 48 18.1% 9.4%–33.9% 62 24.6% 16.7%–30.2% 
HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology Normal cytology 104 10 11.3% 0.00%–19.2% 12 13.4% 2.8%–21.0% 
HPV 16/18-positive, normal cytology ≥BMD 32 14 40.9% 22.3%–59.1% 22 69.6% 50.3%–87.5% 
HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology — 646 24 3.5% 1.7%–5.3% 52 7.9% 5.7%–10.4% 
HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology Normal cytology 303 0.42% 0.00%–1.4% 13 3.5% 0.00%–6.2% 
HPV-non 16/18-positive, normal cytology ≥BMD 40 23.3% 10.3%–38.7% 16 41.3% 23.1%–58.6% 

n = number of women.

Second, 5-year risks of women triaged by HPV 16/18 genotyping at baseline were calculated. HPV 16/18-positive women with normal cytology had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 18.1% (95% CI, 9.4%–33.9%). When further triaging these women with cytology after 12 months, the 5-year CIN3+ risk after negative repeat cytology tended to be lower (11.3%; 95% CI, 0.00%–19.2%; P = 0.057). For CIN2+, the 5-year risk in HPV 16/18-positive women with normal cytology was significantly lower after a negative repeat cytology test (24.6%; 95% CI, 16.7%–30.2% vs. 13.4%; 95% CI, 2.8%–21.0%; P = 0.011).

Interestingly, HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal cytology at baseline had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 3.5% (95% CI, 1.7%–5.3%). This is comparable with the risk of women with a negative repeat cytology triage test result (4.1%; 95% CI, 0.44%–5.9%; P = 0.89). When these HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal cytology had a negative repeat cytology test at 12 months, 5-year CIN3+ risk became very low (0.42%; 95% CI, 0.00–1.4%), although this was not significantly lower (P = 0.11). For CIN2+, HPV-non 16/18-positive women had a borderline significantly lower 5-year risk after a negative repeat cytology test (7.9%; 95% CI, 5.7%–10.4% vs. 3.5%; 95% CI, 0.00%–6.2%; P = 0.049).

Finally, we stratified women into two age groups: women invited for screening for the first time (i.e., 29–33 years) and women who were invited previously (i.e., ≥34 years). Five-year CIN3+ and CIN2+ risks for these groups are shown in Table 3 and Supplementary Fig. S1. For younger women with a negative HPV test, the 5-year CIN3+ risk was 0.10% (95% CI, 0.0%–0.22%). This risk was comparable with the risk of their older counterparts 0.08% (95% CI, 0.02–0.14%). For CIN2+, a statistically significant difference between these age groups was found: 0.42% (95% CI, 0.06%–0.68%) versus 0.16% (95% CI, 0.08%–0.22%), respectively (P = 0.006). For younger and older women with a positive HPV test, no differences in 5-year CIN3+ risks were found. For those with normal cytology, 5-year CIN3+ risks were 9.5% (95% CI, 3.6%–12.8%) and 6.9% (95% CI, 3.5%–9.4%), respectively (P = 0.206). For those with BMD cytology, CIN3+ risks were 27.5% (95% CI, 13.7%–43.1%) and 20.0% (95% CI, 11.8%–26.4%), respectively (P = 0.243).

Table 3.

Five-year cumulative incidences for CIN3+ and CIN2+ in first-screened and previously screened women

CIN3+CIN2+
nnCumulative incidence95% CInCumulative incidence95% CI
First-screened women (29–33 y) 
 HPV-negative 3,227 0.10% 0.0%–0.22% 20 0.42% 0.06%–0.68% 
 HPV-positive, normal cytology 308 30 9.5% 3.6%–12.8% 44 14.6% 10.0%–19.4% 
 HPV-positive, BMD cytology 51 16 27.5% 13.7%–43.1% 28 49.0% 35.3%–62.8% 
Previously screened women (≥34 y) 
 HPV-negative 16,567 22 0.08% 0.02%–0.14% 44 0.16% 0.08%–0.22% 
 HPV-positive, normal cytology 597 42 6.9% 3.5%–9.4% 70 11.7% 7.8%–14.7% 
 HPV-positive, BMD cytology 110 24 20.0% 11.8%–26.4% 50 43.7% 34.8%–51.9% 
CIN3+CIN2+
nnCumulative incidence95% CInCumulative incidence95% CI
First-screened women (29–33 y) 
 HPV-negative 3,227 0.10% 0.0%–0.22% 20 0.42% 0.06%–0.68% 
 HPV-positive, normal cytology 308 30 9.5% 3.6%–12.8% 44 14.6% 10.0%–19.4% 
 HPV-positive, BMD cytology 51 16 27.5% 13.7%–43.1% 28 49.0% 35.3%–62.8% 
Previously screened women (≥34 y) 
 HPV-negative 16,567 22 0.08% 0.02%–0.14% 44 0.16% 0.08%–0.22% 
 HPV-positive, normal cytology 597 42 6.9% 3.5%–9.4% 70 11.7% 7.8%–14.7% 
 HPV-positive, BMD cytology 110 24 20.0% 11.8%–26.4% 50 43.7% 34.8%–51.9% 

n = number of women.

Immediate referral of HPV-positive women with ≥BMD (ASC-US/LSIL) for colposcopy is based on the high short-term CIN2+ risk (3-year risk, >20%). Here, we evaluated the 5-year CIN2+/3+ risk of HPV-positive women triaged by three different triage strategies, which has been shown to be acceptable in terms of safety and costs (5, 15). Highest 5-year risks were found for HPV-positive women. HPV-positive women with BMD (ASC-US/LSIL) cytology had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 22.2%, for those with normal cytology this risk was 7.9%. HPV-negative women displayed substantially lower CIN3+ risks, i.e., 0.09%. The 5-year risks found in our study imply that the presence of HPV, regardless of the associated cytology test result, indicates a high risk for the development of high-grade CIN lesions. This is in agreement with other studies (15, 16).

Colposcopy referral policies are determined based on short-term CIN 2/3+ risks. In the Netherlands, cytology at baseline and repeat cytology at 6–12 months have been shown to be a good and feasible triage strategy, with a short-term CIN3+ risk of <2% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of >20% (4, 5). Therefore, this algorithm will be used in the Netherlands after the implementation of primary HPV-based screening in 2016 (17). However, because the Netherlands maintains a 5-year screening interval for HPV-positive, triage test–negative women, it is important to know the 5-year CIN3+ risk of women who were HPV screen–positive, but were negative for the chosen triage strategy. Our study showed that HPV-positive women with normal cytology and normal repeat cytology after 12 months had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 4.1%. HPV-positive women with normal cytology and a negative baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping test had a comparable 5-year CIN3+ risk of 3.5%. This shows that HPV-positive women with normal cytology and a negative triage test, either repeat cytology or baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping still have a non-negligible 5-year CIN3 risk of about 4%. Therefore, these women must be followed-up in the next screening round. Given these data, extension of the screening interval over 5 years only seems possible for HPV screen–negative women who had a very low 5-year CIN3+ risk of 0.09%.

Triaging HPV-positive women with cytology and baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping has the advantage, compared with repeat cytology, that it identifies women with a high risk of underlying high-grade disease at baseline (5, 15, 18, 19). Therefore, no additional doctor's visit is required, and no associated risk of losing women to follow-up during triage is present (20, 21). A disadvantage of this triage algorithm is that previous studies, comparing triage strategies, show that baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping leads to a higher referral rate than repeat cytology does (43.3%–54.5% for HPV 16/18 genotyping and 33.4%–44.8% for repeat cytology; refs. 5, 15), resulting in higher costs and a greater risk of overtreatment and cervical morbidity. Also, in this study, the referral rate of HPV-positive women with normal cytology triaged by baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping was 28.6%, whereas this was 15.0% in case of repeat cytology triage (P < 0.001).

The acceptance of risks may vary between countries, and the preferred triage strategy will depend on the resources available.

Another point of discussion is whether HPV testing leads to overdiagnosis of high-grade CIN lesions in younger women (22). The CIN3+ and CIN2+ risks of HPV-positive women with both normal cytology or BMD cytology between younger and older women were comparable. This indicates that HPV screening does not lead to overdiagnosis in younger women, which is supported by results from previous studies (23, 24). However, younger HPV-negative women had a significantly higher CIN2+ risk than their older counterparts. We hypothesize that this difference can be explained by the fact that younger women are more likely to become infected with HPV and subsequently develop CIN2 lesions. However, for both younger and older HPV-negative women, risks were so low (0.42% vs. 0.16%) that they do not require different management. Furthermore, this study shows that HPV screen–negative women have a very low 5-year risk (i.e., 0.09% (0.21%) for CIN3+(2+). This is in line with results from other studies with even longer follow-up (23, 25–30) and supports further extension of the screening interval above 5 years for HPV-negative women.

In this study, there are a number of differences in comparison with the HPV-based screening program starting in the Netherlands in 2016. First, conventional cytology was used. Studies show that conventional cytology performs similar to liquid-based cytology in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, it is unlikely that this will have influenced the study results (31–33). Second, cytotechnicians in this study were blinded to the HPV test results. In a randomized trial where cytotechnicians were informed about HPV test results, this information had only a small effect on cytology assessment (34). In order to completely overcome this influence, we suggest the use of more objective tests, such as molecular markers (35).

The strengths of this study are the large size of the cohort of women, its setting within the regular screening program, making results easily convertible to the general population, and the relatively long follow-up. A disadvantage is the relatively low attendance rate at repeat testing of the HPV-positive women with normal cytology (i.e., 59.7% within 3 years). In the original design of the study, women with normal cytology were not informed about their HPV status, which was done to maximize attendance at repeat testing among HPV-negative women (4). Nevertheless, program compliance was fairly good, with an attendance at the next screening round of 81.7%.

In conclusion, HPV-positive women have a high risk for developing high-grade CIN lesions. Because the Netherlands maintains a 5-year screening interval for HPV-positive, triage test–negative women, it is important to know the 5-year CIN3+ risk of women who were HPV screen–positive, but were negative for the chosen triage strategy. Longitudinal analysis shows that HPV-positive women with normal cytology and a negative triage test, either repeat cytology after 12 months or baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping, develop a non-negligible CIN3+ risk over 5 years. Therefore, these women must be followed-up in the next screening round. Extension of the screening interval over 5 years only seems possible for HPV screen–negative women.

J. Berkhof reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Qiagen and is a consultant/advisory board member for DDL and Merck. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: M.H. Uijterwaal, P.J.F. Snijders, C.J.L.M. Meijer

Development of methodology: M.H. Uijterwaal, S. Van Den Haselkamp, B.I. Witte, C.J.L.M. Meijer

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): M.H. Uijterwaal, N.J. Polman, F.J. Van Kemenade, D. Rijkaart, P.J.F. Snijders, and C.J.L.M. Meijer

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): M.H. Uijterwaal, N.J. Polman, F.J. Van Kemenade, S. Van Den Haselkamp, B.I. Witte, J. Berkhof, C.J.L.M. Meijer

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M.H. Uijterwaal, N.J. Polman, F.J. Van Kemenade, S. Van Den Haselkamp, B.I. Witte, J. Berkhof, P.J.F. Snijders

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): M.H. Uijterwaal, S. Van Den Haselkamp, D. Rijkaart, C.J.L.M. Meijer

Study supervision: M.H. Uijterwaal, C.J.L.M. Meijer

M.H. Uijterwaal was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (grant KWF VU 2009-4413).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Arbyn
M
,
Ronco
G
,
Anttila
A
,
Meijer
CJLM
,
Poljak
M
,
Ogilvie
G
, et al
Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer
.
Vaccine
2012
;
30
Suppl 5
:
F88
F99
.
2.
Ronco
G
,
Dillner
J
,
Elfstrom
KM
,
Tunesi
S
,
Snijders
PJF
,
Arbyn
M
, et al
Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials
.
Lancet
2014
;
383
:
524
32
.
3.
Rijkaart
DC
,
Berkhof
J
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Verheijen
RHM
,
Bulk
S
, et al
Comparison of HPV and cytology triage algorithms for women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-screen study)
.
Int J Cancer
2010
;
126
:
2175
81
.
4.
Rijkaart
DC
,
Berkhof
J
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Coupe
VMH
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Heideman
DAM
, et al
HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications
.
Br J Cancer
2012
;
106
:
975
81
.
5.
Rijkaart
DC
,
Berkhof
J
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Coupe
VMH
,
Hesselink
AT
,
Rozendaal
L
, et al
Evaluation of 14 triage strategies for HPV DNA-positive women in population-based cervical screening
.
Int J Cancer
2012
;
130
:
602
10
.
6.
Hopman
EH
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Voorhorst
FJ
,
Walboomers
JM
,
Kenemans
P
,
Helmerhorst
TJ
. 
High risk human papillomavirus in women with normal cervical cytology prior to the development of abnormal cytology and colposcopy
.
BJOG
2000
;
107
:
600
4
.
7.
Luesley
D
,
Leeson
S
. 
Colposcopy and programme management: guidelines for the NHS cervical screening programme 2010, NHSCSP 20 (2nd ed.)
.
Sheffield, United Kingdom
:
NHS Cancer Screening Programmes
.
8.
Wright
TC
,
Kurman
RJ
,
Ferenczy
A
. 
Precancerous lesions of the cervix. In: Kurman RJ, editor. Blaustein's pathology of the female genital tract
. 5th ed.
New York
:
Springer Verlag
; 
2002
. p.
253
93
.
9.
Bulk
S
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Meijer
CJ
. 
The Dutch CISOE—a framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996
.
J Clin Pathol
2004
;
57
:
388
93
.
10.
Solomon
D
,
Davey
D
,
Kurman
R
,
Moriarty
A
,
O'Connor
D
,
Prey
M
, et al
The 2001 Bethesda system: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology
.
JAMA
2002
;
287
:
2114
9
.
11.
van den Brule
AJC
,
Pol
R
,
Fransen-Daalmeijer
N
,
Schouls
LM
,
Meijer
CJLM
,
Snijders
PJF
. 
GP5+/6 +PCR followed by reverse line blot analysis enables rapid and high-throughput identification of human papillomavirus genotypes
.
J Clin Microbiol
2002
;
40
:
779
87
.
12.
Bulkmans
NW
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Snijders
PJ
,
Voorhorst
FJ
,
Boeke
AJ
,
Zandwijken
GR
, et al
POBASCAM, a population-based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high-risk HPV testing in cervical screening: design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women
.
Int J Cancer
2004
;
110
:
94
101
.
13.
Casparie
M
,
Tiebosch
AT
,
Burger
G
,
Blauwgeers
H
,
van de
PA
,
van Krieken
JH
, et al
Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive
.
Cell Oncol
2007
;
29
:
19
24
.
14.
R Development Core team
. 
R: a language and environment for statistical Computing
.
Vienna, Austria
:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing
(http://www.R-project.org/).
15.
Dijkstra
MG
,
van Niekerk
D
,
Rijkaart
DC
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Heideman
DAM
,
Snijders
PJF
, et al
Primary hrHPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: how to manage screen-positive women? A POBASCAM trial substudy
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2014
;
23
:
55
63
.
16.
Wright
TCJ
,
Denny
L
,
Kuhn
L
,
Pollack
A
,
Lorincz
A
. 
HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer
.
JAMA
2000
;
283
:
81
6
.
17.
Gezondheidsraad
. 
Screening op baarmoederhalskanker
.
Den Haag
:
Gezondheidsraad
; 
2011
.
18.
Wright
TCJ
,
Stoler
MH
,
Sharma
A
,
Zhang
G
,
Behrens
C
,
Wright
TL
. 
Evaluation of HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping for the triage of women with high-risk HPV+ cytology-negative results
.
Am J Clin Pathol
2011
;
136
:
578
86
.
19.
Khan
MJ
,
Castle
PE
,
Lorincz
AT
,
Wacholder
S
,
Sherman
M
,
Scott
DR
, et al
The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2005
;
97
:
1072
9
.
20.
Gok
M
,
Heideman
DAM
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Berkhof
J
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Spruyt
JWM
, et al
HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study
.
BMJ
2010
;
340
:
c1040
.
21.
Gok
M
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Heideman
DAM
,
Berkhof
J
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Spruyt
JWM
, et al
Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program
.
Int J Cancer
2012
;
130
:
1128
35
.
22.
Ronco
G
,
Giorgi-Rossi
P
,
Carozzi
F
,
Confortini
M
,
Dalla Palma
P
,
Del Mistro
A
, et al
Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2010
;
11
:
249
57
.
23.
Bulkmans
NWJ
,
Berkhof
J
,
Rozendaal
L
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Boeke
AJP
,
Bulk
S
, et al
Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial
.
Lancet
2007
;
370
:
1764
72
.
24.
Rijkaart
DC
,
Berkhof
J
,
Rozendaal
L
,
van Kemenade
FJ
,
Bulkmans
NWJ
,
Heideman
DAM
, et al
Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2012
;
13
:
78
88
.
25.
Katki
HA
,
Kinney
WK
,
Fetterman
B
,
Lorey
T
,
Poitras
NE
,
Cheung
L
, et al
Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice
.
Lancet Oncol
2011
;
12
:
663
72
.
26.
Dillner
J
,
Rebolj
M
,
Birembaut
P
,
Petry
KU
,
Szarewski
A
,
Munk
C
, et al
Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study
.
BMJ
2008
;
337
:
a1754
.
27.
Cuzick
J
,
Szarewski
A
,
Mesher
D
,
Cadman
L
,
Austin
J
,
Perryman
K
, et al
Long-term follow-up of cervical abnormalities among women screened by HPV testing and cytology—results from the Hammersmith study
.
Int J Cancer
2008
;
122
:
2294
300
.
28.
Mesher
D
,
Szarewski
A
,
Cadman
L
,
Cubie
H
,
Kitchener
H
,
Luesley
D
, et al
Long-term follow-up of cervical disease in women screened by cytology and HPV testing: results from the HART study
.
Br J Cancer
2010
;
102
:
1405
10
.
29.
Elfstrom
KM
,
Smelov
V
,
Johansson
ALV
,
Eklund
C
,
Naucler
P
,
Arnheim-Dahlstrom
L
, et al
Long term duration of protective effect for HPV negative women: follow-up of primary HPV screening randomised controlled trial
.
BMJ
2014
;
348
:
g130
.
30.
Castle
PE
,
Glass
AG
,
Rush
BB
,
Scott
DR
,
Wentzensen
N
,
Gage
JC
, et al
Clinical human papillomavirus detection forecasts cervical cancer risk in women over 18 years of follow-up
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
3044
50
.
31.
Arbyn
M
,
Bergeron
C
,
Klinkhamer
P
,
Martin-Hirsch
P
,
Siebers
AG
,
Bulten
J
. 
Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Obstet Gynecol
2008
;
111
:
167
77
.
32.
Siebers
AG
,
Klinkhamer
PJJM
,
Arbyn
M
,
Raifu
AO
,
Massuger
LFAG
,
Bulten
J
, et al
Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial
.
Obstet Gynecol
2008
;
112
:
1327
34
.
33.
Siebers
AG
,
Klinkhamer
PJJM
,
Grefte
JMM
,
Massuger
LFAG
,
Vedder
JEM
,
Beijers-Broos
A
, et al
Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial
.
JAMA
2009
;
302
:
1757
64
.
34.
Leinonen
M
,
Nieminen
P
,
Kotaniemi-Talonen
L
,
Malila
N
,
Tarkkanen
J
,
Laurila
P
, et al
Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2009
;
101
:
1612
23
.
35.
Cuzick
J
,
Bergeron
C
,
von Knebel Doeberitz
M
,
Gravitt
P
,
Jeronimo
J
,
Lorincz
AT
, et al
New technologies and procedures for cervical cancer screening
.
Vaccine
2012
;
30
Suppl 5
:
F107
F116
.