Evaluation of the efficacy of human papillomavirus screening compared with cytology screening in pregnant women (HOPER trial; Human papillomavirus testing for pregnant women: Pregnant women health initiative); Protocol for a prospective multicenter trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the overall number of cervical cancer cases is declining worldwide, the incidence of this type of cancer is increasing in regions with low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cancer screening rates. In such regions, screening pregnant women can help improve the overall screening rate. Worldwide, cervical cancer screening is shifting from cervical cytology to HPV testing, which reduces the incidence of cervical cancer and, when negative, allows for longer screening intervals. Although HPV-based screening has been shown to be at least as effective as cytology screening for lesion detection in the general population, its performance during pregnancy remains poorly characterized due to the exclusion of pregnant women in previous clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of an HPV testing protocol compared with that of a cervical cytology protocol for cervical cancer screening in pregnant women. METHODS: This study is a multicenter, nonrandomized, single-arm comparative trial. In total, 5000 pregnant women aged 30 years and older in their first trimester will undergo both cervical cytology and HPV testing, with follow-up at 1 year. The primary end point is to assess the noninferiority of the HPV testing protocol compared with the cytology protocol for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher, adenocarcinoma in situ, and invasive cervical cancer (CIN2+) in early pregnancy. In the cytology protocol, CIN2+ cases will be defined as those detected in cytology-positive participants. In the HPV protocol, CIN2+ cases will be defined as those detected in HPV-positive and cytology-positive participants. The primary end point analysis will use a one-sided 10% noninferiority test using the method by Tango, and with 5000 cases, the study can achieve a statistical power of at least 80%. Secondary end points will include an evaluation of the persistence of negative results post partum to determine the optimal screening interval in this population. RESULTS: The trial was funded in April 2024 and has already started. Data collection commenced in September 2024 and is scheduled to be completed by December 2026. As of March 2026, a total of 1906 participants have been recruited. Data analysis is currently planned to begin in December 2027, and the study findings are expected to be published in 2028. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial will clarify whether the HPV testing protocol should be adopted as the primary cervical cancer screening method for pregnant women or whether cervical cytology should remain the standard of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/86397.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".