Clinical evaluation of modifications to a human papillomavirus assay to optimise its utility for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: a diagnostic accuracy study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: HPV-based screen and treat is the recommended approach for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings, but quite low specificity of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, particularly in women living with HIV, leads to overtreatment. We evaluated whether HPV type restriction and more stringent cutoffs on Xpert HPV optimise performance characteristics of this assay for screen and treat. METHODS: We recruited HIV-negative and HIV-positive women aged 30-65 years from a primary care facility and a referral colposcopy clinic in Cape Town, South Africa. Women included had no history of any anogenital cancer or treatment for cervical dysplasia, had no hysterectomy, and were not pregnancy at the time of recruitment. All women had cervical samples collected for Xpert HPV (an assay that detects high-risk HPV types in five channels: HPV type 16; HPV types 18 or 45, or both; HPV types 31, 33, 35, 52, or 58, or more than one of these types; HPV types 51 or 59, or both; and HPV types 39, 56, 66, or 68, or more than one of these types) and underwent colposcopy and histological sampling with consensus pathology review. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate improvements in specificity attained by modifying cycle threshold cutoffs to define screen-positive results. RESULTS: We recruited 1121 women aged 30-65 years, 586 of whom were HIV-negative and 535 HIV-positive. Sensitivity of detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater in HIV-negative women using manufacturer-defined cycle threshold cutoffs for all channels was 88·7% (95% CI 83·1-94·3), and specificity was 86·9% (83·4-90·4). Sensitivity was 93·6% (90·0-97·3) and specificity 59·9% (54·1-65·7) in HIV-positive women. Cycle threshold values from channels detecting HPV type 16, HPV types 18 or 45 (or both), and HPV types 31, 33, 35, 52, or 58 (or more than one of these types) were informative to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater. Shifting cycle threshold cutoffs on these three channels allowing sensitivity to decline to 75-85%, led to specificities of 91·3-95·3% in HIV-negative women and 77·0-85·8% in HIV-positive women. INTERPRETATION: More stringent cycle threshold cutoffs on selected channels in Xpert HPV improve specificity with only modest losses in sensitivity, making this assay an optimal choice for HPV-based screen and treat in settings with a high prevalence of HIV. These modifications can be made from standard output with no need for new engineering. Decision making about performance characteristics of HPV testing can be shifted to programme implementers and cutoffs selected according to resource availability and community preferences. FUNDING: Supported by the National Cancer Institute UH2/3 CA189908.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a cohort of 1128 WLHIV, HPV testing achieved a sensitivity of 94.5% for detecting LSIL or worse, outperforming VIA (83.6%) and Pap smear (63.3%).
“In a cohort of 1128 WLHIV, HPV testing achieved a sensitivity of 94.5% for detecting LSIL or worse, outperforming VIA (83.6%) and Pap smear (63.3%).”
From HPV Screening in Women Living with HIV (WLHIV) in Karnataka, India: Can it be Integrated into ART Centres? (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Methods (Study population; page unavailable) report 535 women living with HIV, not 1128. The Results (page unavailable) give HPV-test sensitivity as 93.6% for CIN2+, not 94.5% for LSIL or worse; the paper does not report the claimed VIA and Pap-smear comparison. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe study supports the conclusion that manufacturer's Cq cutoffs for positivity in HPV assays should always be handled with caution, especially when performing research within different age categories, socioeconomic settings, or types of (self-)sampling.
“our study supports the assumption of other previous studies which concluded that the, often for specific circumstances validated and optimized, manufacturer’s Cq cutoffs for positivity in HPV assays should always be handled with caution, especially when performing research within different age categories (23), socioeconomic”
From Comparison between the Roche Cobas 4800 Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Abbott RealTime High-Risk HPV, Seegene Anyplex II HPV28, and Novel Seegene Allplex HPV28 Assays for High-Risk HPV Detection and Genotyping in Mocked Self-Samples (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHPV testing demonstrates superior sensitivity in detecting high-grade cervical lesions among WLHIV.
“HPV testing demonstrates superior sensitivity in detecting high-grade cervical lesions among women living with HIV (WLHIV).”
From HPV Screening in Women Living with HIV (WLHIV) in Karnataka, India: Can it be Integrated into ART Centres? (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Results (page unavailable) report 93.6% sensitivity for HPV DNA testing to detect CIN2+ in HIV-positive women. The Discussion (page unavailable) says cytology is less sensitive than HPV testing, but the paper does not report a direct comparison with cytology among women living with HIV. It therefore supports high sensitivity in this group, not the full claim of superior sensitivity within the group. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPap smear missed a substantial proportion of HSIL+ lesions.
“Although Pap smear showed the highest specificity (94.5%), it missed a substantial proportion of HSIL+ lesions, emphasizing the clinical advantage of HPV testing in this population [21, 22, 24, 25, 27].”
From HPV Screening in Women Living with HIV (WLHIV) in Karnataka, India: Can it be Integrated into ART Centres? (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Discussion (page not provided) says cytology is much less sensitive than HPV testing and cites a 53.3% sensitivity for liquid-based cytology in detecting CIN3+ in the U.S.-based ATHENA trial. This supports the general point that cytology can miss substantial disease, but the paper does not report how many HSIL+ lesions Pap smears missed in its study population. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPap smear showed the highest specificity (94.5%) in that cohort.
“Although Pap smear showed the highest specificity (94.5%), it missed a substantial proportion of HSIL+ lesions, emphasizing the clinical advantage of HPV testing in this population [21, 22, 24, 25, 27].”
From HPV Screening in Women Living with HIV (WLHIV) in Karnataka, India: Can it be Integrated into ART Centres? (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Results report specificity for the Xpert HPV assay, including 94.1% with modified cut-offs in HIV-negative women, not 94.5% for a Pap smear. The Discussion mentions cytology’s lower sensitivity but gives no Pap-smear specificity for this cohort. Searches for “Pap smear specificity 94.5%” and “cytology Papanicolaou Pap smear sensitivity specificity” found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The risk of HIV transmission after treatment is not significant in women on ART.
“The risk of HIV transmission after treatment is considered not significant in women on ART [24, 25, 27, 33–35].”
From HPV Screening in Women Living with HIV (WLHIV) in Karnataka, India: Can it be Integrated into ART Centres? (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Results section says that 79.9% of HIV-positive participants were on antiretroviral therapy, but reports cervical screening outcomes, not HIV transmission. A search for transmission risk after treatment found no passage in our copy addressing that claim; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Ronco, G., Dillner, J., Elfström, K. M., Tunesi, S., Snijders, P. J. F., Arbyn, M., Kitchener, H., Segnan, N., Gilham, C., Giorgi-Rossi, P., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62218-7 · Cited by 1,810 · see citing works
Denny, L., de Sanjose, S., Mutebi, M., Anderson, B. O., Kim, J., Jeronimo, J., Herrero, R., Yeates, K., Ginsburg, O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31795-0 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Self-citationVALGENT: a protocol for clinical validation of human papillomavirus assays
Arbyn, M., Depuydt, C., Benoy, I., Bogers, J., Cuschieri, K., Schmitt, M., Pawlita, M., Geraets, D., Heard, I., Gheit, T., et al. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Virology · doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2015.09.014 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- [2]Denny L, Quinn M, Sankaranarayanan R. Chapter 8: Screening for cervical cancer in developing countries. Vaccine. 2006; 24 Suppl 3: S3/71– 7. 16950020
- [3]Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Denny LE, De Souza M, Wright TC Jr., Kuhn L, Goldie SJ. The costs of reducing loss to follow-up in South African cervical cancer screening. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation: C/E. 2005; 3: 11. 16288646 PMC1308836
- [4]Denny L, De Sousa M, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wright TC Jr. Cervical cancer prevention - a paradigm shift? Gynecologic oncology. 2005; 99(3 Suppl 1): S12. 16450428
- [5]Laara E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet (London, England). 1987; 1(8544): 1247– 9. 2884378
- [6]WHO Comprehensive Cervical Cancer Control: A guide to essential practice. 2014; 2nd Edition. 25642554
- [7]Denny L, Kuhn L, De Souza M, Pollack AE, Dupree W, Wright TC Jr. Screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 294(17): 2173– 81. 16264158
- [8]Denny L, Kuhn L, Hu CC, Tsai WY, Wright TC Jr. Human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer prevention: long-term results of a randomized screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102(20): 1557– 67. 20884893
- [9]Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM, HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. The New England journal of medicine. 2009; 360(14): 1385– 94. 19339719
- [10]Paul P, Winkler JL, Bartolini RM, Penny ME, Huong TT, Nga le T, Screen-and-treat approach to cervical cancer prevention using visual inspection with acetic acid and cryotherapy: experiences, perceptions, and beliefs from demonstration projects in Peru, Uganda, and Vietnam. The oncologist. 2013; 18 Suppl: 6– 12. 24334477
- [11]Parham GP, Mwanahamuntu MH, Kapambwe S, Muwonge R, Bateman AC, Blevins M, Population-level scale-up of cervical cancer prevention services in a low-resource setting: development, implementation, and evaluation of the cervical cancer prevention program in Zambia. PloS one. 2015; 10(4): e0122169. 25885821 PMC4401717
- [12]Campbell C, Kafwafwa S, Brown H, Walker G, Madetsa B, Deeny M, Use of thermo-coagulation as an alternative treatment modality in a ‘screen-and-treat’ programme of cervical screening in rural Malawi. International journal of cancer. 2016; 139(4): 908– 15. 27006131 PMC5084797
- [13]Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 2001; 285(24): 3107– 15. 11427139
- [14]Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJ, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine. 2012; 30 Suppl 5: F88– 99. 23199969
- [16]Heard I Prevention of cervical cancer in women with HIV. Current opinion in HIV and AIDS. 2009; 4(1): 68– 73. 19339941
- [17]Mapanga W, Girdler-Brown B, Feresu SA, Chipato T, Singh E. Prevention of cervical cancer in HIV-seropositive women from developing countries through cervical cancer screening: a systematic review. Systematic reviews. 2018; 7(1): 198. 30447695 PMC6240280
- [18]Akbari A, Vanden Broeck D, Benoy I, Padalko E, Bogers J, Arbyn M. Validation of intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the Xpert HPV assay according to the international guidelines for cervical cancer screening. Virology journal. 2018; 15(1): 166. 30373616 PMC6206920
- [19]Cubie HA, Morton D, Kawonga E, Mautanga M, Mwenitete I, Teakle N, HPV prevalence in women attending cervical screening in rural Malawi using the cartridge-based Xpert((R)) HPV assay. Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology. 2017; 87: 1– 4. 27984765
- [20]Mbulawa ZZA, Wilkin TJ, Goeieman B, Swarts A, Williams S, Levin S, Xpert human papillomavirus test is a promising cervical cancer screening test for HIV-seropositive women. Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2016; 2: 56– 60. PMC5886871 29074186
- [21]Toliman PJ, Kaldor JM, Badman SG, Gabuzzi J, Silim S, Kumbia A, Performance of clinical screening algorithms comprising point-of-care HPV-DNA testing using self-collected vaginal specimens, and visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid, for the detection of underlying high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in Papua New Guinea. Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2018; 6: 70– 6. PMC6250751 30391365
- [22]Rabaan AA, Alfaraj SA, Alkhalifah MA. Comparison of the Cepheid Xpert HPV test and the HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test for detection of high-risk HPV infection in cervical smear samples in SurePath preservative fluid. Journal of medical microbiology. 2018. PMC5994697 29580367
- [23]Einstein MH, Smith KM, Davis TE, Schmeler KM, Ferris DG, Savage AH, Clinical evaluation of the cartridge-based GeneXpert human papillomavirus assay in women referred for colposcopy. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2014; 52(6): 2089– 95. 24719440 PMC4042758
- [24]Meijer CJ, Berkhof H, Heideman DA, Hesselink AT, Snijders PJ. Validation of high-risk HPV tests for primary cervical screening. Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology. 2009; 46 Suppl 3: S1– 4. 20129067
- [25]Arbyn M, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, Cuschieri K, Kocjan BJ, Which high-risk HPV assays fulfil criteria for use in primary cervical cancer screening? Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2015; 21(9): 817– 26. 25936581
- [27]Campos NG, Lince-Deroche N, Chibwesha CJ, Firnhaber C, Smith JS, Michelow P, Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening in Women Living With HIV in South Africa: A Mathematical Modeling Study. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999). 2018; 79(2): 195– 205. 29916959 PMC6143200
- [28]Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, Castle PE, Hesselink AT, Franco EL, Ronco G, Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older. International journal of cancer. 2009; 124(3): 516– 20. 18973271 PMC2789446
- [29]Castle PE, Stoler MH, Wright TC Jr., Sharma A, Wright TL, Behrens CM. Performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25 years and older: a subanalysis of the ATHENA study. The Lancet Oncology. 2011; 12(9): 880– 90. 21865084
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bell, M., Verberckmoes, B., Devolder, J., Vermandere, H., Degomme, O., Guimarães, Y. M., Godoy, L. R., Ambrosino, E., Cools, P., & Padalko, E. (2023) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.00081-23 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“As such, our study supports the assumption of other previous studies which concluded that the, often for specific circumstances validated and optimized, manufacturer’s Cq cutoffs for positivity in HPV assays should always be handled with caution, especially when performing research within different age categories (23)…”
ResultRao, S., R, S., Sarma, D., Nath, A., R, A., Jagannathan, L., Rao, A., Suhas, G., Iyengar, S., V, R., et al. (2025) · Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.31557/apjcp.2025.26.12.4513
“This strategy was implemented using a portable digital colposcope for triaging and guiding biopsies, followed immediately by treatment with thermal ablation or LLETZ where appropriate [27].”
Influential
- Authors
- Kuhn, L., Saidu, R., Boa, R., Tergas, A., Moodley, J., Persing, D., Campbell, S., Tsai, W.-Y., Wright, T. C., & Denny, L.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- University of Cape Town (ZA)
- South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
- Cepheid (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuhn, Louise
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Global Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e296-e304
- ISSN
- 2214-109X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8720235
- OpenAlex
- W3001537731
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8
- FWCI
- 6.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (UH2/3 CA189908)
- Department of Health, Western Cape Government
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Keywords
- HPV testing, cervical cancer screening, screen-and-treat, diagnostic accuracy, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, women living with HIV, resource-limited settings, colposcopy, overtreatment, South Africa, Cape Town, HPV16, HPV 18
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Poverty Areas, South Africa, HIV Infections, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review