Objective
To develop recommendations for practising physicians
on the advisability of screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection
in asymptomatic women.
Burden of Suffering
In Canada in 1993 approximately 1300 new cases of invasive cervical
cancer were diagnosed, and about 400 deaths were expected to occur from
this disease. In the United States an estimated 13 000 new cases of cervical
cancer are diagnosed every year, with about 7000 deaths annually from prevalent
disease. In Canada the yearly overall cost of invasive disease and death
from cervical cancer has been estimated at $180 to $270 million.
Many of the epidemiologic features of HPV infection remain to be determined,
and precise estimates of the incidence, prevalence and natural history
of this infection are unavailable. Cases of condylomata acuminata (proliferative
HPV infection) are reportable in Britain, where it is the most frequently
diagnosed viral sexually transmitted disease (STD). Data from STD clinics
in Britain and Australia indicate a prevalence of 4% to 13% among clinic
attendees. These data, however, are based on visible condylomata and consequently
underestimate the true prevalence of HPV infection, since this condition
is commonly subclinical. It has been estimated that about 10% of people
infected with HPV have visible lesions, 20% have lesions demonstrable with
the use of colposcopy or a magnifying lens, and 70% have subclinical infection.
Subclinical infection can be detected only through clinical or laboratory
testing, including Papanicolaou smears.
Options
Visual inspection, Papanicolaou testing, colposcopy or cervicography,
use of HPV group-specific antigen, DNA hybridization, dot blot technique,
Southern blot technique or polymerase chain reaction followed by physical
or chemical therapeutic intervention
Outcomes
Evidence for a link between HPV infection and cervical cancer, sensitivity
and specificity of HPV screening techniques, effectiveness of treatments
for HPV infection, and the social and economic costs incurred by screening.
Evidence
MEDLINE was searched for articles published between January 1966 to
June 1993 with the use of the key words "papillomavirus," "cervix neoplasms,"
"mass screening," "prospective studies," "prevalence," "sensitivity," "specificity,"
"human" and "female." Studies were selected and evaluated to determine
the epidemiologic features and natural history of HPV infection, the relation
between HPV infection and cervical cancer, and the effectiveness of diagnostic
and therapeutic intervention.
Values
The 13-member Task Force of experts in family
medicine, geriatric medicine, pediatrics, psychiatry and epidemiology used
an evidence-based method for evaluating the effectiveness of preventive
health care interventions. Recommendations were not based on cost-effectiveness
of options. Patient preferences were not discussed.
Background papers providing critical appraisal
of the evidence and tentative recommendations prepared by the chapter author
were pre-circulated to the members. Evidence for this topic was presented
and deliberated upon in 1- to 2-day meetings. Consensus was reached on
final recommendations.
Benefits, Harms, and Costs
Potential benefits are to prevent cervical cancer and eliminate HPV
infection.
Although Papanicolaou testing alone has few adverse effects apart from usually minor discomfort, the need for repeat testing, colposcopy, various destructive therapies and possible surgery may have a negative impact on the individual. Most people with HPV infection are probably asymptomatic, and diagnosis of HPV infection may produce a significant labelling of otherwise healthy people as patients with a sexually transmitted disease, for which therapy is generally ineffective. Although it may be in a dormant state for many months or years, considerable distress may follow once an otherwise healthy person becomes a "patient."
A significant increase in the number of Papanicolaou smears and referrals
for colposcopy (on a population basis) would result in large financial
and other costs to society, including the increased depletion of resources
to deal with the necessary testing and treatment.
Recommendations
Recommendation grade [A, B, C, D, E] and level of evidence
[I, II-1, II-2, II-3, III] are indicated after each recommendation. Citations
in support of individual recommendations are identified in the guideline
text.