RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Accuracy of screening tests for cervical pre-cancer in women living with HIV in low-resource settings: a paired prospective study in Lusaka, Zambia
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.05.31.23290779
DO 10.1101/2023.05.31.23290779
A1 Taghavi, Katayoun
A1 Moono, Misinzo
A1 Mwanahamuntu, Mulindi
A1 Roumet, Marie
A1 Limacher, Andreas
A1 Kapesa, Herbert
A1 Madliwa, Thamsanqa
A1 Rutjes, Anne
A1 Basu, Partha
A1 Low, Nicola
A1 Manasyan, Albert
A1 Bohlius, Julia
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/01/2023.05.31.23290779.abstract
AB Introduction To provide evidence to improve cervical screening for women living with HIV (WLHIV), we assessed the accuracy of screening tests that can be used in low-resource settings and give results at the same visit.Methods We conducted a paired, prospective study among consecutive eligible WLHIV, aged 18–65 years, receiving cervical cancer screening at one hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. The histopathological reference standard was multiple biopsies taken at two time points. The target condition was high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). The index tests were high-risk human papillomavirus detection (hrHPV, Xpert HPV, Cepheid), portable colposcopy (Gynocular, Gynius), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Accuracy of stand-alone and test combinations were calculated as the point estimate with 95% confidence intervals. A sensitivity analysis considered disease when only visible lesions were biopsied.Results Among 371 participants with histopathological results, 27% (101/371) women had CIN2+ and 23% (23/101) was not detected by any index test. Sensitivity and specificity for stand-alone tests were: hrHPV, 67.3% (95% CI: 57.7–75.7) and 65.3% (59.4–70.7); Gynocular 51.5% (41.9–61.0) and 80.0% (74.8–84.3); and VIA 22.8% (15.7–31.9) and 92.6% (88.8–95.2), respectively. The combination of hrHPV testing followed by Gynocular had the best balance of sensitivity (42.6% [33.4–52.3]) and specificity (89.6% [85.3–92.7]). All test accuracies improved in sensitivity analysis.Conclusion The low accuracy of screening tests assessed might be explained by our reference standard, which reduced verification and misclassification biases. Better screening strategies for WLHIV in low-resource settings are urgently needed.Registration number The trial was registered prospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov (ref: NCT03931083). The study protocol has been previously published, and the statistical analysis plan can be accessed on ClinicalTrials.gov.What is already known on this topic The 2021 World Health Organization guidelines recommend that women living with HIV (WLHIV) receive screening for high risk human papillomavirus high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotypes at three- to five-year intervals, followed by a triage test to determine whether treatment is needed but this is based on low and moderate certainty evidence.What this study adds This study among WLHIV in Lusaka, Zambia evaluated three screening tests that allow same-day treatment; hrHPV test, portable colposcopy (Gynocular), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), using strict methods to reduce verification and misclassification biases. The test accuracy of the different screening was poor, with sensitivities and specificity for stand-alone tests: hrHPV, 67.3% and 65.3%; Gynocular 51.5% and 80.0%; and VIA 22.8% and 92.6%; respectively.How this study might affect research, practice or policy Our findings have implications for research and cervical cancer screening policies among WLHIV if test-accuracy in this high-risk population has been overestimated from a majority of exsisting studies that are affected by verification and misclassification biases. Methodologically robust studies are crucial to inform cervical cancer screening practices and policies for the successful implementation of a cervical cancer elimination plan in sub-Saharan Africa, where 85% of women with cervical cancer and HIV live.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03931083 Funding StatementThis work was supported by Swiss Cancer Research, grant number KFS-4156-02-2017, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, grant number U01AI069924, and ESTHER Switzerland foundation, grant number 171222.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:National Health Research Authority of University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee gave ethical approval for this work (ref: 014-09-18). The Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority gave ethical approval for this work (ref: DMS/7/9/22/CT/084). The International Agency for Research on Cancer gave ethical approval for this work(IEC project number 18-15). Swissethics gave ethical approval for this work (ref: 2018-01399).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe study protocol and statistical analysis plan are available upon request to the corresponding author. They can also be accessed on ClinicalTrials.gov (ref: NCT03931083). In accordance with FAIR principles, anonymised individual participant data or aggregate data will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author (katayoun.taghavi{at}unibe.ch), and with approval from all investigators.