CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchReproductive tract infections researchWomen's cancer prevention and management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Utility of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Open access
Bonde, Jesper H., Sandri, Maria-Teresa, Gary, Devin S., Andrews, Jeffrey C.·2020·Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
DOI 10.1097/lgt.0000000000000494PMC PMC6924950
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: Thirteen human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes are associated with the highest risk of cervical disease/cancer; however, the risk of disease progression and cancer is genotype dependent. The objective of this systematic review was to examine evidence for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN 3) risk discrimination using HPV genotyping. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of English and non-English articles through MEDLINE, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and abstracts presented at relevant professional society conferences were searched from 2000 to 2019. Search terms included: cervical cancer screening, HPV genotyping, CIN, HPV persistence, humans, and colposcopy; prospective, controlled trials, observational studies, and retrospective studies of residual specimens; evidence included HPV genotyping (beyond genotypes 16/18/45) results. Data were obtained independently by authors using predefined fields. Risk of bias was evaluated with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology facilitated overall quality of evidence evaluation for risk estimation. The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018091093). The primary outcome was CIN 3 or worse risk both at baseline and at different follow-up periods. Results: Of 236 identified sources, 60 full texts were retrieved and 16 articles/sources were included. Risk of bias was deemed low; the overall quality of evidence for CIN 3 or worse risk with negative for intraepithelial lesions or malignancies or low-grade squamous intraepithelial cytology was assessed as moderate; that with atypical squamous cells-undetermined significance and “all cytology” was assessed as high. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Human papillomavirus genotyping discriminated risk of CIN 3 or worse to a clinically significant degree, regardless of cytology result. Conclusions: The evidence supports a clinical utility for HPV genotyping in risk discrimination during cervical cancer screening.

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 · 10.1097/lgt.0000000000000494

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse risk values associated with individual HPV genotypes from previously described screening populations—regardless of cytology result. The x-axis represents time to follow-up in months or years (where indicated) and the y-axis represents increasing risk for CIN 3 or worse. Data were extracted from 7 articles that represent baseline results (Monsonego et al,22 2015; Vaughan et al,23 2018) and results at 36 months (Wheeler et al,24 2014; Schiffman et al,25 2016) 48 months (Naucler et al,26 2007), 72 months (Kitchener et al,27 2014), and 14 years (Smelov et al,28 2015) following baseline in each of the respective studies. Trend lines are superimposed across time points from baseline to 14 years to help visualize the increasing risk associated with long-term HPV infection. Abbreviation: BL, baseline.
FIGURE 1 Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse risk values associated with individual HPV genotypes from previously described screening populations—regardless of cytology result. The x-axis represents time to follow-up in months or years (where indicated) and the y-axis represents increasing risk for CIN 3 or worse. Data were extracted from 7 articles that represent baseline results (Monsonego et al,22 2015; Vaughan et al,23 2018) and results at 36 months (Wheeler et al,24 2014; Schiffman et al,25 2016) 48 months (Naucler et al,26 2007), 72 months (Kitchener et al,27 2014), and 14 years (Smelov et al,28 2015) following baseline in each of the respective studies. Trend lines are superimposed across time points from baseline to 14 years to help visualize the increasing risk associated with long-term HPV infection. Abbreviation: BL, baseline.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Individual genotype risk values in women with abnormal cytology. A–D, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse risk values associated with individual HPV genotypes from previously described ASC-US/LSIL screening populations. In all panels, the x-axis represents time to follow-up in months and the y-axis represents CIN 3 or worse risk associated with individual HPV genotypes. A–C, The baseline values were obtained from Wright et al26 (2019); the 18-month values were obtained from Berkhof et al32 (2006); the 24-month values were obtained from Wheeler et al33 (2006). D, The 36-month values were obtained from Schiffman et al30 (2015). aPooled HPV 33/58 result. bPooled HPV 35/39/68 result. cPooled HPV 56/59/66 result.
FIGURE 2 Individual genotype risk values in women with abnormal cytology. A–D, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse risk values associated with individual HPV genotypes from previously described ASC-US/LSIL screening populations. In all panels, the x-axis represents time to follow-up in months and the y-axis represents CIN 3 or worse risk associated with individual HPV genotypes. A–C, The baseline values were obtained from Wright et al26 (2019); the 18-month values were obtained from Berkhof et al32 (2006); the 24-month values were obtained from Wheeler et al33 (2006). D, The 36-month values were obtained from Schiffman et al30 (2015). aPooled HPV 33/58 result. bPooled HPV 35/39/68 result. cPooled HPV 56/59/66 result.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 Individual genotype risk values in women with abnormal cytology or from a colposcopy referral population. A–D, Relative risk ratios of individual genotypes to overall (any) HPV in women with abnormal baseline cytology or women referred to colposcopy after baseline screening. Baseline CIN 3 or worse risk values are shown from 3 prospective cervical cancer screening trials.22,29,31 The populations shown here include any abnormal cytology in (E) and (F) (Monsonego et al, 2015), ASC-US or LSIL cytology in (G) (Wright et al,26 2019); in (H), data were obtained from a colposcopy referral population (based on abnormal cytology or positive HPV status; Bonde et al,31 2019). The risk ratios for each, individual genotypes, relative to the risk value for any HPV result, are plotted along the x-axis. The vertical, hashed line at x = 1 represents: individual genotypes risk value = risk value for any HPV result.
FIGURE 3 Individual genotype risk values in women with abnormal cytology or from a colposcopy referral population. A–D, Relative risk ratios of individual genotypes to overall (any) HPV in women with abnormal baseline cytology or women referred to colposcopy after baseline screening. Baseline CIN 3 or worse risk values are shown from 3 prospective cervical cancer screening trials.22,29,31 The populations shown here include any abnormal cytology in (E) and (F) (Monsonego et al, 2015), ASC-US or LSIL cytology in (G) (Wright et al,26 2019); in (H), data were obtained from a colposcopy referral population (based on abnormal cytology or positive HPV status; Bonde et al,31 2019). The risk ratios for each, individual genotypes, relative to the risk value for any HPV result, are plotted along the x-axis. The vertical, hashed line at x = 1 represents: individual genotypes risk value = risk value for any HPV result.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse risk values associated with individual HPV genotypes in women with NILM cytology from previously described screening populations. The x-axis represents time to follow-up in months or years (where indicated) and the y-axis represents increasing risk for CIN 3 or worse. Data were extracted from 8 articles that represent baseline results (Monsonego et al,22 2015; Stoler et al,34 2019) and results at 16 months (Schiffman et al,30 [JCM], 2015) 18 months (Berkhof et al,32 2006), 36 months (Schiffman et al,25 2016; Wheeler et al,24 2014), 48 and 96 months (Thomsen et al,36 2015), and 136 months (Kjaer et al,37 2010) following baseline in each of the respective studies. Trend lines are superimposed across time points from baseline to 136 months to help visualize the increasing risk associated with long-term HPV infection. Abbreviation: BL, baseline.
FIGURE 4 Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse risk values associated with individual HPV genotypes in women with NILM cytology from previously described screening populations. The x-axis represents time to follow-up in months or years (where indicated) and the y-axis represents increasing risk for CIN 3 or worse. Data were extracted from 8 articles that represent baseline results (Monsonego et al,22 2015; Stoler et al,34 2019) and results at 16 months (Schiffman et al,30 [JCM], 2015) 18 months (Berkhof et al,32 2006), 36 months (Schiffman et al,25 2016; Wheeler et al,24 2014), 48 and 96 months (Thomsen et al,36 2015), and 136 months (Kjaer et al,37 2010) following baseline in each of the respective studies. Trend lines are superimposed across time points from baseline to 136 months to help visualize the increasing risk associated with long-term HPV infection. Abbreviation: BL, baseline.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. 2004, Classification of papillomaviruses, Virology, 324, 17, 10.1016/j.virol.2004.03.033 · DOI
  2. 1983, Similarities of papillomavirus infections with tumor promoters, Princess Takamatsu Symp, 14, 147
  3. 2012, Human papillomaviruses, IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum, 100B, 255
  4. 2003, Comparison of HPV type distribution in high-grade cervical lesions and cervical cancer: a meta-analysis, Br J Cancer, 89, 101, 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601024 · DOI
  5. 2014, Individual detection of 14 high risk human papilloma virus genotypes by the PapType test for the prediction of high grade cervical lesions, J Clin Virol, 60, 44, 10.1016/j.jcv.2014.02.002 · DOI
  6. 2005, Re: A study of the impact of adding HPV types to cervical cancer screening and triage tests, J Natl Cancer Inst, 97, 938, 10.1093/jnci/dji159 · DOI
  7. 2015, HPV genotyping for triage of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results: a multicenter prospective study, Int J Clin Oncol, 20, 974, 10.1007/s10147-015-0789-4 · DOI
  8. 2014, Lineages of oncogenic human papillomavirus types other than type 16 and 18 and risk for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, J Natl Cancer Inst, 106, pii:dju270
  9. 2013, Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, Cd008054
  10. 2017, Comparison of triage strategies for HPV-positive women: Canadian cervical cancer screening trial results, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 26, 923, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0705 · DOI
  11. 2013, 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors, J Low Genit Tract Dis, 17, S1, 10.1097/LGT.0b013e318287d329 · DOI
  12. 2013, Five-year risks of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ among women with HPV-positive and HPV-negative LSIL Pap results, J Low Genit Tract Dis, 17, S43, 10.1097/LGT.0b013e3182854269 · DOI
  13. 2015, Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance, Gynecol Oncol, 136, 178, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.12.022 · DOI
  14. 2019, Accuracy of genotyping for HPV16 and 18 to triage women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: a pooled analysis of VALGENT studies, Expert Rev Mol Diagn, 19, 543, 10.1080/14737159.2019.1613890 · DOI
  15. 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med, 6, e1000097, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 2011, An international registry of systematic-review protocols, Lancet, 377, 108, 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 2015, Prevalence of high-risk human papilloma virus genotypes and associated risk of cervical precancerous lesions in a large U.S. screening population: data from the ATHENA trial, Gynecol Oncol, 137, 47, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.551 · DOI
  18. 2014, The influence of type-specific human papillomavirus infections on the detection of cervical precancer and cancer: a population-based study of opportunistic cervical screening in the United States, Int J Cancer, 135, 624, 10.1002/ijc.28605 · DOI
  19. 2016, A cohort study of cervical screening using partial HPV typing and cytology triage, Int J Cancer, 139, 2606, 10.1002/ijc.30375 · DOI
  20. 2007, HPV type-specific risks of high-grade CIN during 4 years of follow-up: a population-based prospective study, Br J Cancer, 97, 129, 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603843 · DOI
  21. 2014, The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds, Health Technol Assess, 18, 1
  22. 2015, Long-term HPV type-specific risks of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions: a 14-year follow-up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial, Int J Cancer, 136, 1171, 10.1002/ijc.29085 · DOI
  23. 2019, Risk detection for high-grade cervical disease using Onclarity HPV extended genotyping in women, >21 years of age, with ASC-US or LSIL cytology, Gynecol Oncol, 54, 360
  24. 2015, A study of HPV typing for the management of HPV-positive ASC-US cervical cytologic results, Gynecol Oncol, 138, 573, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.040 · DOI
  25. 2019, Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort, Gynecol Oncol, 154, 360
  26. 2006, Human papillomavirus type-specific 18-month risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with a normal or borderline/mildly dyskaryotic smear, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 15, 1268, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0764 · DOI
  27. 2006, Human papillomavirus genotypes and the cumulative 2-year risk of cervical precancer, J Infect Dis, 194, 1291, 10.1086/507909 · DOI
  28. 2019, Stratified risk of high-grade cervical disease using onclarity HPV extended genotyping in women, ≥25years of age, with NILM cytology, Gynecol Oncol, 153, 26, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.12.024 · DOI
  29. 2015, A study of genotyping for management of human papillomavirus-positive, cytology-negative cervical screening results, J Clin Microbiol, 53, 52, 10.1128/JCM.02116-14 · DOI
  30. 2015, Long-term risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse according to high-risk human papillomavirus genotype and semi-quantitative viral load among 33,288 women with normal cervical cytology, Int J Cancer, 137, 193, 10.1002/ijc.29374 · DOI
  31. 2010, Long-term absolute risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse following human papillomavirus infection: role of persistence, J Natl Cancer Inst, 102, 1478, 10.1093/jnci/djq356 · DOI
  32. 2018, The Valgent4 protocol: robust analytical and clinical validation of 11 HPV assays with genotyping on cervical samples collected in SurePath medium, J Clin Virol, 108, 64, 10.1016/j.jcv.2018.09.012 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 2017, Evaluation of the clinical performance of the HPV-risk assay using the VALGENT-3 panel, J Clin Microbiol, 55, 3544, 10.1128/JCM.01282-17 · DOI
  34. 2016, Cervical precancer and cancer risk by human papillomavirus status and cytologic interpretation: implications for risk-based management, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 25, 1595, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0330 · DOI
  35. 2013, Benchmarking CIN 3+ risk as the basis for incorporating HPV and Pap cotesting into cervical screening and management guidelines, J Low Genit Tract Dis, 17, S28, 10.1097/LGT.0b013e318285423c · DOI
  36. 2015, Comparison of onclarity human papillomavirus (HPV) assay with Hybrid Capture II HPV DNA assay for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and 3 lesions, J Clin Microbiol, 53, 2109, 10.1128/JCM.00246-15 · DOI
  37. 2018, Validation of an HPV DNA cervical screening test that provides expanded HPV typing, J Clin Microbiol, 56;pii, e01910
  38. 2016, The BD Onclarity HPV assay on samples collected in SurePath medium meets the International Guidelines for Human Papillomavirus Test Requirements for Cervical Screening, J Clin Microbiol, 54, 2267, 10.1128/JCM.00508-16 · DOI
  39. 2016, Clinical and analytical performance of the BD Onclarity™ HPV assay for detection of CIN2+ lesions on SurePath samples, Papillomavirus Res, 2, 31, 10.1016/j.pvr.2016.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 2004, Multiple high risk HPV infections are common in cervical neoplasia and young women in a cervical screening population, J Clin Pathol, 57, 68, 10.1136/jcp.57.1.68 · DOI
  41. 2010, Hierarchical clustering of human papilloma virus genotype patterns in the ASCUS-LSIL triage study, Cancer Res, 70, 8578, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1188 · DOI
  42. 2018, Relative performance of HPV and cytology components of cotesting in cervical screening, J Natl Cancer Inst, 110, 501, 10.1093/jnci/djx225 · DOI
  43. 2019, HPV testing compared with routine cytology in cervical screening: long-term follow-up of ARTISTIC RCT, Health Technol Assess, 23, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 149

Metadata

Authors
Bonde, J. H., Sandri, M.-T., Gary, D. S., & Andrews, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
  • Laboratory Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
  • Becton Dickinson (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Andrews, Jeffrey C.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2019-11-12
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 1089-2591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-0976
DOI
10.1097/lgt.0000000000000494
PMC
PMC6924950
OpenAlex
W2984284967
Cited by
149
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
HPV genotyping, cervical cancer screening, high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, risk discrimination, persistent HPV infection, colposcopy
MeSH terms
Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Papillomaviridae, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult, Genotyping Techniques, Neoplasm Grading

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: Clinical Utility of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/lgt.0000000000000494
The paper
Bonde, J. H., Sandri, M.-T., Gary, D. S., & Andrews, J. C. (2020). Clinical Utility of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. https://doi.org/10.1097/lgt.0000000000000494