Introduction: The introduction of a screening programme for cervical carcinoma in Germany has led to a significant reduction in incidence of the disease. To date, however, diagnosis in Germany has been based solely on cervical cytology, which has been criticised because of a low sensitivity and consequently high rate of false negative results. Because an infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV) previously was found to be a necessary aetiological factor in the development of cervical cancer, there has been some discussion that HPV testing should be included in cervical cancer screening. Objectives: How do HPV tests compare to cytological tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity, and what are the effects of screening for cervical carcinoma in Germany? Is there health economic evidence that may foster an inclusion of HPV testing into national screening programms? Methods: A systematic literature review was performed, including studies that compared the HPV test to cervical cytology in terms of sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of CIN 2+ (CIN=Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia). In addition, a systematic review of the relevant health economic literature was performed to analyze cost-effectiveness in the German setting. Results: A total of 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One study consisted of three substudies. Hence, results of 26 comparisons of HPV and cytology are reported. In 25 of these, the HPV test was more sensitive than cytology, whereas cytology had better specificity in 21 studies. The combination of HPV test and cytology increased sensitivity. Variability in results was considerably larger for cytology than for HPV testing. Results of the economic meta-analysis suggest that in health care settings with already established PAP screening programms, cost-effectiveness strongly depends on screening intervals. In analyses comparing HPV screening to conventional PAP screening with two-yearly intervals, only 25% of the HPV strategies were found to be cost-effective, whereas in comparison with one-, three-, and five-yearly PAP screening, the percentage of overall cost-effective HPV strategies was 83%, 55%, and 92%, respectively. Results for annual screening intervals are based on the assumption of complete screening compliance, which has to be further evaluated in decision analyses in the future adapting to the German health care setting. Discussion: Including HPV testing in screening procedures for cervical carcinoma could lead to a reduction in false positive results. Doing so would involve one of the following approaches: a) combining the HPV test with cytology, or b) using cytology as triage in HPV-positive women. The most appropriate interval between screening tests and the best age to start or stop screening remains to be determined. At this point a formal health economic decision analyses may help in resolving those questions, additionally incorporating compliance and adherence within different screening scenarios. Conclusion: Considering medical evidence weighing the question whether HPV testing should be implemented into screening routine may not be if but how to do so. Open questions remain in setting the length of optimal screening intervals, the age range in which to screen, and the combination or sequence of existing cytology and HPV testing. Answers to those questions will be gathered in the very near future through large international clinical trials. Cost-effectiveness of implementing HPV testing is likely to exist in the management of borderline or unclear smears in triage treatment as well as in certain scenarios of primary screening within the German health care setting
