Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

HPV testing in primary screening of older women

Open access
Cuzick, J, Beverley, E, Ho, L, Terry, G, Sapper, H, Mielzynska, I, Lorincz, A, Chan, W-K, Krausz, T, Soutter, P·1999·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Certain types of the human papilloma virus (HPV) are well established as the primary cause of cervical cancer. Several studies have shown that HPV testing can improve the detection rate of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), but these have been carried out primarily in younger women. In this study we evaluated the role of HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology in women aged 35 or over. An additional aim was to evaluate commercially available kits for HPV testing. A total of 2988 eligible women aged 34 or more attending for a routine smear in 40 general practitioner practices received HPV testing in addition to routine cytology, after having given written informed consent. Samples were assayed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and two versions of the Hybrid Capture test for HPV, and women were invited for colposcopy if there was any cytological abnormality (including borderline smears) or the PCR test was positive. Any apparent abnormality was biopsied and loop-excision was performed as necessary. CIN was judged by histology; 42 women had high-grade CIN, of which six were cytology negative (86% sensitivity for borderline or worse) and three had a borderline smear (79% sensitivity for mild dyskaryosis or worse). The positive predictive value of a borderline smear was only 3.1%. Eleven high-grade lesions were negative by the PCR HPV test (sensitivity 74%). The first generation Hybrid Capture II test had a similar sensitivity but an unacceptably high false positive rate (18.3%), while the newer Hybrid Capture II microtitre kit had a 95% sensitivity and a 2.3% positivity rate in normal women when used at a 2 pg ml(-1) cut-off (positive predictive value 27%). Cytology performed very well in this older cohort of women. The newer Hybrid Capture II microtitre test may be a useful adjunct, especially if the results reported here are reproducible in other studies. A combined screening test offers the possibility of greater protection and/or longer screening intervals, which could reduce the overall cost of the screening programme.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690730

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Cuzick, J., Beverley, E., Ho, L., Terry, G., Sapper, H., Mielzynska, I., Lorincz, A., Chan, W.-K., Krausz, T., & Soutter, P.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
1999-09-10
Volume
81
Issue
3
Pages
554-558
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2087659731
Cited by
268
References
0
FWCI
15.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: HPV testing in primary screening of older women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690730
The paper
Cuzick, J., Beverley, E., Ho, L., Terry, G., Sapper, H., Mielzynska, I., Lorincz, A., Chan, W.-K., Krausz, T., & Soutter, P. (1999). HPV testing in primary screening of older women. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690730

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.