CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2019; 79(02): 148-159
DOI: 10.1055/a-0818-5440
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Prevention of Cervical Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3 Level, AWMF Register Number 015/027OL, December 2017) – Part 1 with Introduction, Screening and the Pathology of Cervical Dysplasia

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Peter Hillemanns
1   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
Klaus Friese
2   Klinik Bad Trissl GmbH, Oberaudorf, Germany
Christian Dannecker
3   Klinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, München, Germany
Stefanie Klug
4   Lehrstuhl für Epidemiologie, Technische Universität München, München, Germany
Ulrike Seifert
5   Tumorepidemiologie, Universitäts KrebsCentrum (UCC), Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Thomas Iftner
6   Institut für Medizinische Virologie und Epidemiologie der Viruskrankheiten, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Juliane Hädicke
6   Institut für Medizinische Virologie und Epidemiologie der Viruskrankheiten, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Thomas Löning
7   Institut für Pathologie, Albertinen-Krankenhaus Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Lars Horn
8   Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Dietmar Schmidt
9   Institut für Pathologie, Referenzzentrum für Gynäkopathologie, Mannheim, Germany
Hans Ikenberg
10   CytoMol – MVZ für Zytologie und Molekularbiologie, Frankfurt, Germany
Manfred Steiner
11   Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Ihringen, Germany
Ulrich Freitag
12   Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Wismar, Germany
Uwe Siebert
13   Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i. T., Austria
14   Division of Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics, ONCOTYROL – Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
Gaby Sroczynski
13   Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i. T., Austria
Willi Sauerbrei
15   Institut für Med. Biometrie und Statistik (IMBI), Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Matthias W. Beckmann
16   Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
Marion Gebhardt
17   Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs, Forchheim, Germany
Michael Friedrich
18   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany
Karsten Münstedt
19   Frauenklinik, Ortenau Klinikum Offenburg-Gengenbach, Offenburg, Germany
Achim Schneider
20   Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum im Fürstenberg-Karree, Berlin, Germany
Andreas Kaufmann
21   Klinik für Gynäkologie, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
K. Ulrich Petry
22   Frauenklinik, Klinikum Wolfsburg, Wolfsburg, Germany
Axel P. A. Schäfer
23   Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Berlin, Germany
Michael Pawlita
24   Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany
Joachim Weis
25   Klinik für Tumorbiologie, Klinik für Onkologische Rehabilitation – UKF Reha gGmbH, Freiburg, Germany
Anja Mehnert
26   Abteilung für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Mathias Fehr
27   Gynäkologie & Geburtshilfe in Frauenfeld, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland
Christoph Grimm
28   Privatklinik Döbling, Wien, Austria
Olaf Reich
29   Privatklinik Graz Ragnitz, Graz, Austria
Marc Arbyn
30   Cancer Center, Sciensano, Brüssel, Belgium
Jos Kleijnen
31   Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, United Kingdom
Simone Wesselmann
32   Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Berlin, Germany
Monika Nothacker
33   AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, Marburg, Germany
Markus Follmann
34   Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie, Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Berlin, Germany
Thomas Langer
34   Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie, Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Berlin, Germany
Matthias Jentschke
1   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 21 August 2018
revised 03 December 2018

accepted 08 December 2018

Publication Date:
18 February 2019 (online)


Aims Annual opportunistic screening for cervical carcinoma has been carried out in Germany since 1971. The creation of this S3 guideline meets an important need, outlined in the National Cancer Plan, with regard to screening for cervical cancer, as the guideline aims to provide important information and support for planned organized screening for cervical cancer in Germany.

Methods With the financial support of German Cancer Aid, 21 professional societies developed evidence-based statements and recommendations (classified using the GRADE system) for the screening, management and treatment of precancerous conditions of the cervix. Two independent scientific institutes compiled systematic reviews for this guideline.

Recommendations The first part of this short summary presents the pathological basis and considers various questions related to screening for cervical cancer. As also reported in earlier reviews, the meta-analysis by Kleijnen Systematic Reviews showed that HPV-based screening offers better protection against invasive cervical cancer compared to cytology-based screening. The authors of this guideline therefore recommend – in accordance with the guideline of the Joint National Committee of Germany (Gemeinsamer Bundesauschuss, G-BA) – that women aged 35 and above should be examined at regular intervals (at least every 3 years) and undergo HPV-based screening. Co-testing can also be carried out. Women between the ages of 20 and 35 should have cytological screening every 2 years.

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ. et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401-406
  • 2 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF) – Ständige Kommission Leitlinien. AWMF-Regelwerk „Leitlinien“. 2012. Online: last access: 10.11.2015
  • 3 Gross G. et al. Impfprävention HPV-assoziierter Neoplasien. 2013. Online: last access: 29.10.2013
  • 4 Angstetra D, Tait T, Tan J. et al. Should liquid-based cytology be performed prior to colposcopy? A comparison of the accuracy, unsatisfactory rates and cost in a tertiary referral setting. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 681-684
  • 5 Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A. et al. Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 519-524
  • 6 Confortini M, Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP. et al. Comparing conventional and liquid-based smears from a consecutive series of 297 subjects referred to colposcopy assessment. Cytopathology 2004; 15: 168-170
  • 7 Confortini M, Carozzi F, Cortecchia S. et al. Technical evaluation of the new thin layer device CellSlide (Menarini Diagnostics). Diagn Cytopathol 2005; 33: 387-393
  • 8 Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P. et al. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003; 326: 733
  • 9 Ferenczy A, Franco E, Arseneau J. et al. Diagnostic performance of Hybrid Capture human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid assay combined with liquid-based cytologic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175 (3 Pt 1): 651-656
  • 10 Hussein T, Desai M, Tomlinson A. et al. The comparative diagnostic accuracy of conventional and liquid-based cytology in a colposcopic setting. BJOG 2005; 112: 1542-1546
  • 11 Jesdapatarakul S, Tangjitgamol S, Nguansangiam S. et al. Liqui-Prep(R) versus conventional Papanicolaou smear to detect cervical cells abnormality by split-sample technique: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Diagn Cytopathol 2011; 39: 22-27
  • 12 Longatto Filho A, Pereira SM, Di Loreto C. et al. DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-risk population with biopsy-based confirmation. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 97: 497-500
  • 13 Sykes PH, Harker DY, Miller A. et al. A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting. BJOG 2008; 115: 1375-1381
  • 14 Taylor S, Kuhn L, Dupree W. et al. Direct comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial. Int J Cancer 2006; 118: 957-962
  • 15 Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P. et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: Overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007; 335: 28-31
  • 16 Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM. et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009; 302: 1757-1764
  • 17 Klug SJ, Neis KJ, Harlfinger W. et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid-based cytology and computer assistance. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: 2849-2857
  • 18 Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I. et al. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer 2007; 111: 285-291
  • 19 Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM. et al. Detection of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and tumors using the AutoPap System: results of a primary screening clinical trial. Cancer 1999; 87: 354-358
  • 20 Wilbur DC, Parker EM, Foti JA. Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens: a potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 118: 399-407
  • 21 Confortini M, Bonardi L, Bulgaresi P. et al. A feasibility study of the use of the AutoPap screening system as a primary screening and location-guided rescreening device. Cancer 2003; 99: 129-134
  • 22 Stevens MW, Milne AJ, Parkinson IH. et al. Effectiveness of AutoPap system location-guided screening in the evaluation of cervical cytology smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 31: 94-99
  • 23 Passamonti B, Bulletti S, Camilli M. et al. Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS system performance in an Italian population-based screening of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol 2007; 51: 865-871
  • 24 Bowditch RC, Clarke JM, Baird PJ. et al. Results of an Australian trial using SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology with FocalPoint computer-assisted screening technology. Diagn Cytopathol 2012; 40: 1093-1099
  • 25 Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC. et al. A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 96-102
  • 26 Davey E, dʼAssuncao J, Irwig L. et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ (Clinical research ed ) 2007; 335: 31
  • 27 Halford JA, Batty T, Boost T. et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2010; 38: 318-326
  • 28 Wilbur DC, Black-Schaffer WS, Luff RD. et al. The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. Am J Clin Pathol 2009; 132: 767-775
  • 29 Levi AW, Chhieng DC, Schofield K. et al. Implementation of FocalPoint GS location-guided imaging system: experience in a clinical setting. Cancer Cytopathol 2012; 120: 126-133
  • 30 Stein MD, Fregnani JHTG, Scapulatempo C. et al. Performance and reproducibility of gynecologic cytology interpretation using the FocalPoint system: results of the RODEO Study Team. Am J Clin Pathol 2013; 140: 567-571
  • 31 Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B. et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol 2005; 123: 281-287
  • 32 Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K. Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 2006; 50: 309-311
  • 33 Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 104: 134-138
  • 34 Bolger N, Heffron C, Regan I. et al. Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system. Acta Cytol 2006; 50: 483-491
  • 35 Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E. et al. Introduction of the Thin Prep Imaging System (TIS): experience in a high volume academic practice. Cytojournal 2007; 4: 6
  • 36 Miller FS, Nagel LE, Kenny-Moynihan MB. Implementation of the ThinPrep imaging system in a high-volume metropolitan laboratory. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 213-217
  • 37 Papillo JL, St John TL, Leiman G. Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System: clinical experience in a low risk screening population. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36: 155-160
  • 38 Pacheco MC, Conley RC, Pennington DW. et al. Concordance between original screening and final diagnosis using imager vs. manual screen of cervical liquid-based cytology slides. Acta Cytol 2008; 52: 575-578
  • 39 Duby JM, DiFurio MJ. Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System in a tertiary military medical center. Cancer 2009; 117: 264-270
  • 40 Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G. et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 56-64
  • 41 Palmer TJ, Nicoll SM, McKean ME. et al. Prospective parallel randomized trial of the MultiCyte ThinPrep(®) imaging system: the Scottish experience. Cytopathology 2013; 24: 235-245
  • 42 Ha SY, Lee YK, Oh YL. Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System in the detection of abnormal cervicovaginal cytology: a practical experience in Korea. Acta Cytol 2013; 57: 159-163
  • 43 Budenholzer B. ACP Journal Club. Adding HPV testing to cytology screening reduced ≥ grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at 5 years. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: JC2-6 JC2-7
  • 44 Bulkmans NWJ, Rozendaal L, Snijders PJF. et al. POBASCAM, a population-based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high-risk HPV testing in cervical screening: design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women. Int J Cancer 2004; 110: 94-101
  • 45 Bulkmans NWJ, Bulk S, Ottevanger MS. et al. Implementation of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening without a concomitant decrease in participation rate. J Clin Pathol 2006; 59: 1218-1220
  • 46 Bulkmans NWJ, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L. et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 1764-1772
  • 47 Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L. et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: Final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 78-88
  • 48 Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Wheeler P. et al. HPV testing in routine cervical screening: cross sectional data from the ARTISTIC trial. Br J Cancer 2006; 95: 56-61
  • 49 Kitchener HC, Fletcher I, Roberts C. et al. The psychosocial impact of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening-a study within a randomized trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18: 743-748
  • 50 Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Thomson C. et al. HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 672-682 [Erratum in: Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 748]
  • 51 Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Gilham C. et al. ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. Health Technol Assess (Rockv) 2009; 13: 1-150 iii–iv
  • 52 Sargent A, Bailey A, Turner A. et al. Optimal threshold for a positive hybrid capture 2 test for detection of human papillomavirus: data from the ARTISTIC trial. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48: 554-558
  • 53 Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A. et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 864-871
  • 54 Giorgi-Rossi P, Segnan N, Zappa M. et al. The impact of new technologies in cervical cancer screening: results of the recruitment phase of a large randomised controlled trial from a public health perspective. Int J Cancer 2007; 121: 2729-2734
  • 55 Ronco G, Segnan N, Giorgi-Rossi P. et al. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 765-774
  • 56 Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F. et al. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology in primary screening of women younger than 35 years: results at recruitment for a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 547-555
  • 57 Ronco G, Cuzick J, Segnan N. et al. HPV triage for low grade (L-SIL) cytology is appropriate for women over 35 in mass cervical cancer screening using liquid based cytology. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43: 476-480
  • 58 Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F. et al. Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 492-501
  • 59 Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F. et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 249-257
  • 60 Elfgren K, Rylander E, Rådberg T. et al. Colposcopic and histopathologic evaluation of women participating in population-based screening for human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid persistence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (3 Pt 1): 650-657
  • 61 Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S. et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1589-1597 [Erratum in: N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1637. Note: Johansson, Bo (added)]
  • 62 Balasubramanian A, Hughes J, Mao C. et al. Evaluation of an ELISA for p 16INK4a as a screening test for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009; 18: 3008-3017
  • 63 Hovland S, Arbyn M, Lie AK. et al. A comprehensive evaluation of the accuracy of cervical pre-cancer detection methods in a high-risk area in East Congo. Br J Cancer 2010; 102: 957-965
  • 64 Depuydt CE, Makar AP, Ruymbeke MJ. et al. BD-ProExC as adjunct molecular marker for improved detection of CIN2+ after HPV primary screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 20: 628-637
  • 65 Wu R, Belinson SE, Du H. et al. Human papillomavirus messenger RNA assay for cervical cancer screening: the Shenzhen Cervical Cancer Screening Trial I. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010; 20: 1411-1414
  • 66 Monsonego J, Hudgens MG, Zerat L. et al. Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: The FASE study. Int J Cancer 2011; 129: 691-701
  • 67 Ratnam S, Coutlee F, Fontaine D. et al. Aptima HPV E6/E7 mRNA test is as sensitive as hybrid capture 2 assay but more specific at detecting cervical precancer and cancer. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49: 557-564
  • 68 Cuzick J, Cadman L, Mesher D. et al. Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population. Br J Cancer 2013; 108: 908-913
  • 69 Nieves L, Enerson CL, Belinson S. et al. Primary cervical cancer screening and triage using an mRNA human papillomavirus assay and visual inspection. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013; 23: 513-518
  • 70 Ikenberg H, Bergeron C, Schmidt D. et al. Screening for cervical cancer precursors with p 16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: Results of the PALMS study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 1550-1557
  • 71 Zhao FH, Jeronimo J, Qiao YL. et al. An evaluation of novel, lower-cost molecular screening tests for human papillomavirus in rural China. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2013; 6: 938-948