Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted disease and can cause cell changes that lead to cervical cancer. Each year around 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer in the US, however this number has declined significantly over the past 30 years due to widespread screening with pap smears. Screening for HPV can detect potential cases earlier in the progression of these cell changes. In theory, earlier detection and treatment could lead to fewer downstream cases of cervical cancer. However, very few positive HPV cases actually lead to cervical cancer so catching more HPV-positive screens means having to do additional tests and treatments on women who would never end up progressing to cancer anyway.
This story reports on the results from a large new study out of Italy published in Lancet Oncology comparing HPV DNA testing to traditional pap smears for cervical cancer screening. The study found that indeed the HPV DNA had a very high "callback" rate, that is the number of women testing positive and needing additional testing/treatment. In the first round of screening, similar numbers of women were found to have cancer in the two groups. However, by the second round of screening, the women in the HPV DNA group had fewer cancers than the pap smear group, presumbly because those positive for HPV had been treated earlier on in the first round. The results were statistically significant (18 cancers in the pap smear group vs 7 in the HPV DNA group).
This story does a good job of describing the current study and quotes several experts who provide valuable perspective. Most importantly, the story highlights the high false positive rate – or the high number of tests that come back positive that would never progress on to cancer. Positive results require additional testing and follow-up, which in itself isn’t particularly dangerous, but could cause anxiety and requires time off work and additional costs.
The story could have been improved by discussing the costs of the tests or mentioning the costs of the additional colposcopies that result from the higher callback rate from HPV testing. Although the story claims that the HPV testing strategy is "cost-effective", it provides no evidence to support this claim. Finally, the story doesn’t really quantify the benefits of HPV DNA testing in terms that are particularly useful to consumers.
It is clear that screening with HPV DNA tests will result in observing and treating more women at an earlier point in the progression from cell changes to cervical cancer. However, what is less clear is if the additional testing and treatment is worth it, not just in the cost of the tests and treatments themselves (and time off from work), but in the human cost of the anxiety it provokes.
The story does not discuss the costs of the tests or mention the costs of the additional colposcopies that result from the higher callback rate from HPV testing. Although the story claims that the HPV testing strategy is "cost-effective", it provides no evidence to support this claim.
The story doesn’t really quantify the benefits of HPV DNA testing in terms that are particularly useful to consumers. The story describes the "callback rate", or the number of women who will need additional testing after the initial screening, which makes HPV DNA testing appear as though it catches many more cancers than pap smears. However, according to the study, the number of cancers found in the first round of screening was similar in both groups (7 in the HPV DNA group, 9 in the pap smear group). It was in the second round of screening two years later that HPV DNA testing appeared to prevent cases of cervical cancer relative to pap smears (7 cancers in the HPV DNA group versus 18 in the pap smear group).
The story describes the potential harms of HPV DNA testing, most notably the high false positive rate – or the high number of tests that come back positive that would never progress on to cancer. Positive results require additional testing and follow-up, which in itself isn’t particularly dangerous, but could cause anxiety and requires time off work and additional costs.
The story does a good job of describing the current study and the strength of the evidence.
The story doesn’t exaggerate the prevalence or seriousnes of cervical cancer. The story appropriately mentions that the rate of the cancer has declined in the last 30 years.
The story quotes several sources who provide valuable perspectives.
The story does a good job of describing the pros and cons of HPV DNA testing to pap smears, even indicating how HPV could be particularly useful in resource-poor countries.
Clearly the HPV DNA test and pap tests are both available in the US.
The story accurately represents the novelty of HPV DNA testing, which is not a new idea but as of yet in the US has not been the standard of care for cervical cancer screening on a national basis.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, it does not appear to rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like