Back

International Collaborative Study on Human Papillomavirus Analytical Thresholds for Sensitivity and Specificity in Cervical Screening

Yilmaz, E.; Murray, G. L.; Balgovind, P.; Garland, S. M.; Pereira, A. R.; Vanden Broeck, D.; Redzic, N.; Pretet, J.-L.; Lepiller, Q.; Silling, S.; Cocuzza, C.; Martinelli, M.; Campbell, A.; Brown, C.; Cuschieri, K.; Connor, L.; Ostrbenk, A.; Poljak, M.; Gultekin, M.; Kilic, Y.; Elfstrom, K. M.; Arroyo Mühr, L. S.; Dillner, J.

2026-02-04 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.02.03.26345438
Show abstract

BackgroundCervical screening using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is a pillar of global cervical cancer elimination. However, different HPV assays vary in both the HPV types they detect as well as the minimum amount of virus they detect. The aim of this collaborative study was to define which HPV type-specific analytical threshold of detection provides optimal sensitivity and specificity of cervical screening. Methods100 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) cases and 200 matched population-based controls were obtained at the Swedish National HPV Reference Laboratory and analyzed by 10 laboratories across 10 countries. Cumulative sensitivity (weighted according to the global HPV type distribution in invasive cervical cancer (ICC)) and specificity were estimated at varying analytical detection thresholds. ResultsConsensus results found HPV in 99/100 CIN2+ cases and 52/200 controls. HPV16 prevalence declined in HPV-vaccinated birth cohorts, among both cases and controls. Line plots of 1-specificity and ICC-weighted sensitivity found optimal analytical detection thresholds as 3 International Units (IU)/{micro}l for HPV16/18, 25 IU/{micro}l for HPV31/33/35/45/52/58 and 100 genome equivalents/{micro}l of HPV 39/51/56/59 resulting in 92.00% cumulative specificity and 90.08% ICC-weighted sensitivity. ConclusionAn international collaborative study has identified HPV analytical detection thresholds optimizing sensitivity and specificity of cervical screening.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 10%
30.8%
2
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 13%
8.5%
3
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 3%
6.5%
4
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 4%
2.7%
5
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 9%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 1%
2.6%
7
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 14%
2.0%
8
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 69%
1.8%
9
British Journal of Cancer
based on 22 papers
Top 3%
1.5%
10
PLOS Global Public Health
based on 287 papers
Top 16%
1.5%
11
Journal of Infection
based on 64 papers
Top 4%
1.5%
12
Journal of Personalized Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
13
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
14
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 13%
1.3%
15
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 14%
0.9%
16
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
17
JMIRx Med
based on 29 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
18
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
based on 24 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
19
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 6%
0.9%
20
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
21
BMJ Global Health
based on 95 papers
Top 11%
0.9%
22
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
23
Vaccine
based on 140 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
24
EClinicalMedicine
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Vaccines
based on 131 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
26
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
based on 166 papers
Top 11%
0.8%
27
JMIR Research Protocols
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
28
Preventive Medicine
based on 11 papers
Top 0.5%
0.8%
29
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 16%
0.8%