Skip to main content

HPV and Pap Testing

What is cervical cancer screening?

Cervical cancer screening is an essential part of routine health care for anyone who has a uterine cervix. Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by infection with sexually transmitted oncogenic, or high-risk, types of human papillomavirus, or HPV. The primary goal of screening is to identify abnormal cervical cells with severe cell changes (also called precancerous lesions) caused by HPV so they can be removed to prevent invasive cancers from developing. A secondary goal is to find cervical cancers at an early stage, when they can usually be treated successfully. Routine cervical screening has been shown to greatly reduce both the number of cervical cancer cases and deaths from the disease.

For many years, cytology-based screening, known as the Pap test or Pap smear, was the only method of screening. Its use reduced cervical cancer incidence and deaths in countries where screening is common.

However, with the advent of the ability to test for HPV, cervical cancer screening now includes three approaches: HPV testing, which looks for the presence of high-risk HPV types in cervical cells; HPV/Pap cotesting, which checks the same cell sample for both high-risk HPV types and cervical cell changes; and Pap testing.


How is cervical cancer screening done?

Cervical cancer screening can be done in a medical office, a clinic, or a community health center. It is often done during a pelvic examination.

While a patient lies on an exam table, a health care professional inserts an instrument called a speculum into the vagina to widen it so that the upper portion of the vagina and the cervix can be seen. This procedure also allows the health care professional to take a sample of cells from the cervix and the area around it. The cells are taken with a wooden or plastic scraper and/or a cervical brush and placed in a vial of liquid preservative. The slide or vial is then sent to a laboratory where the cells are tested for the presence of high-risk types of HPV and/or examined under a microscope with a liquid-based Pap cytology test. When both tests are done using the same sample, this is referred to as “cotesting.” 

Researchers have found that screening may be less effective for obese women, possibly because of challenges in visualizing the cervix and obtaining a cell sample. Approaches to improve cervical visualization in obese women, including the use of larger speculum, may be helpful.

When should cervical cancer screening begin, and how often should someone be screened?

People should talk with their doctor about when to start screening and how often to be screened. In August 2018, updated screening guidelines were released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The updated guidelines are as follows:

  • Women ages 21 through 29 should be screened with a Pap test every 3 years
  • Women ages 30 through 65 should be screened with any of three tests:
    • every 5 years with high-risk HPV testing alone
    • every 5 years with Pap and high-risk HPV cotesting
    • every 3 years with a Pap test alone
  • Women with certain risk factors may need to have more frequent screening or to continue screening beyond age 65. These risk factors include:
  • Screening for cervical cancer is not recommended for:
    • women younger than 21 years
    • women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening, with normal results, and who are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer
    • women who have had a total hysterectomy (surgery to remove the uterus and cervix) and have no history of high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer

A joint statement released by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology noted that the updated guidelines are largely in line with their clinical guidance, with some differences in the details.

The screening intervals in the 2018 USPSTF guidelines reflect scientists’ evolving understanding of the natural history of HPV infection and cervical cancer. Although HPV infection of the cervix is very common, most infections will be controlled by the immune system over the course of 1 to 2 years. Because most HPV infections are transient and produce only temporary changes in cervical cells, overly frequent screening could detect HPV infections or cell changes that would never cause cancer. Treating abnormalities that would have gone away on their own can cause needless psychological stress. Follow-up tests and treatments can also be uncomfortable, and the removal of cervical tissue has the potential to weaken the cervix and may affect fertility or slightly increase the rate of premature delivery, depending on how much tissue is removed.

These screening intervals also limit false-negative results that would delay the diagnosis and treatment of a precancerous condition or cancer. With these intervals, if an HPV infection or cell changes are missed at one screening exam, chances are good that those changes will be detected at the next one, when they can still be treated successfully.

The success of cervical cancer screening is due, in part, to the repeat testing that women typically undergo over many years. A study of a large population of women receiving routine screening showed that women with a history of negative HPV/Pap cotest results have a very low risk of developing precancer or cancer even if a subsequent screening test reveals a new HPV infection or abnormal cervical cells.


How do the three testing options compare?

For people age 30 or older undergoing routine screening, both HPV/Pap cotesting and HPV testing alone (sometimes referred to as primary HPV testing) are more sensitive than Pap testing alone. Therefore, someone with a negative HPV test and normal Pap test—or just a negative HPV test—has a very low risk of developing precancerous cervical lesions over the next several years. It is for that reason that, when Pap and HPV cotesting or primary HPV testing are used, the recommended screening interval is 5 years: this longer interval (compared with 3 years for people receiving Pap testing alone) still allows abnormalities to be detected in time to treat them while reducing the detection of HPV infections that would be successfully controlled by the immune system.

Both Pap and HPV cotesting and primary HPV testing may also improve the detection of glandular cell abnormalities, including adenocarcinoma of the cervix (cancer of the glandular cells of the cervix). Glandular cells are mucus-producing cells found in the endocervical canal (the opening in the center of the cervix) or in the lining of the uterus. Glandular cell abnormalities and adenocarcinoma of the cervix are less common than squamous cell abnormalities and squamous cell carcinoma, but they are becoming relatively more common over time. Pap testing is not as good at detecting adenocarcinoma and glandular cell abnormalities as it is at detecting squamous cell abnormalities and cancers.


What do the results of cervical cancer screening tests mean?

A health care provider may simply describe Pap test results to a patient as “normal” or “abnormal.”

Likewise, HPV test results can either be “positive,” meaning that a patient’s cervical cells are infected with one or more of a group of high-risk HPV types (which is what most commercially available HPV tests detect), or “negative,” indicating that none of the high-risk HPV types were found. Most HPV tests also report results for some individual HPV types, including HPV16 and HPV18—the types that cause most cervical cancers.

People should follow up with their providers for information about their specific Pap and HPV test results and what follow-up tests might be needed. Most laboratories in the United States use a standard set of terms, called the Bethesda System, to report Pap test results. Under the Bethesda System, samples that have no cell abnormalities are reported as “negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy.” A negative Pap test report may also note certain benign findings, such as common infections or inflammation. Pap test results also indicate whether the specimen was satisfactory or unsatisfactory for examination. Guidelines committees are re-evaluating how results of cervical screening tests are reported, based on the most up-to-date research on the natural history of HPV infections.

The Bethesda System considers abnormalities of squamous cells and glandular cells separately. Squamous cell abnormalities are divided into the following categories, ranging from the mildest to the most severe.

  • Atypical squamous cells (ASC) are the most common abnormal finding in Pap tests. The Bethesda System divides this category into two groups, ASC-US and ASC-H:
    • ASC-US: atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. The cells do not appear completely normal, but the cause is unclear. The changes may be related to an HPV infection, but they can also be caused by other factors.
    • ASC-H: atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. ASC-H lesions may be at higher risk of being precancerous than ASC-US lesions.
  • Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) are considered mild abnormalities caused by HPV infection. LSILs often return to normal as the immune system controls the infection, especially in younger women.
  • High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs) are more severe abnormalities that have a higher likelihood of progressing to cancer if left untreated. 
  • Carcinoma in situ (CIS) refers to severely abnormal cells that resemble cancer cells but remain on the surface of the cervix and have not invaded more deeply or spread beyond the cervix. 
  • Squamous cell carcinoma is cervical cancer. The abnormal squamous cells have invaded more deeply into the cervix or into other tissues or organs. In a well-screened population, such as that in the United States, a finding of cancer during cervical screening is extremely rare.

Glandular cell abnormalities describe abnormal changes that occur in the glandular tissues of the cervix. The Bethesda system divides these abnormalities into the following categories:

  • Atypical glandular cells (AGC), meaning the glandular cells do not appear normal, but doctors are uncertain about what the cell changes mean.
  • Endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), meaning that severely abnormal cells are found but have not spread beyond the glandular tissue of the cervix.
  • Adenocarcinoma includes not only cancer of the endocervical canal itself but also, in some cases, endometrial, extrauterine, and other cancers.


What follow-up tests are done if cervical cancer screening results are abnormal?

According to updated consensus guidelines developed by 19 organizations (including medical professional societies, patient advocacy groups, and federal agencies) and released in 2019 by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP), appropriate follow-up testing after an abnormal cervical cancer screening result depends on the overall risk that the individual has, or is likely to develop, cervical precancer (also referred to as CIN3+). This risk is based not just on the specific screening result but also on the individual’s personal and medical history, including earlier screening test results and previous treatments for cervical cell changes.

The goal of the updated ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines is to personalize follow-up care by focusing on detecting and treating severe cervical cell changes that could develop into cervical cancer and decreasing testing and treatment for less severe conditions (low-grade cervical cell changes). 

Depending on the assessment of her risk, a woman with a positive (abnormal) cervical screening result may be advised to return for a repeat HPV test or HPV/Pap cotest in 1 or 3 years, to have a colposcopy and a biopsy, or to receive treatment.

The ASCCP guidelines were designed to be modified as new follow-up tests for risk assessment become available. One such test that is FDA approved, called a dual-stain test, checks the same sample as was used for the HPV test for the presence of two biomarkers, p16 and Ki-67. These biomarkers are present in HPV-infected cells that are turning into cancer and can help predict whether an HPV-positive woman will go on to develop cervical precancer within 5 years. Clinical trial data showed that testing negative on this test provides strong reassurance that an individual does not have severe abnormalities.

Extended HPV genotyping is another FDA-approved approach for risk assessment of people with certain abnormal cervical cancer screening results. This test, which can also be used in primary HPV testing (that is, HPV-alone testing for cervical cancer screening), identifies additional carcinogenic HPV types beyond HPV16 and HPV18, either alone or in groups, and allows for finer risk stratification by HPV risk group.

See the Next Steps After an Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Test: Understanding HPV and Pap Test Results page for more information about follow-up testing and procedures.

Can an HPV infection come back after a negative test?

Yes. Sometimes, after many years of negative HPV tests, an infection that the immune system had previously controlled can become active again, resulting in an HPV-positive test result. Such reactivation of an old, previously undetectable HPV infection can happen due to age-related changes in the immune system. When an HPV test is positive, there is no way to tell whether it is a sign of a new infection or represents a reactivation of an old infection. It is also not yet known whether reactivated HPV infections are more likely to cause cell changes that lead to precancer and cancer compared with new infections.

Do people who have been vaccinated against HPV still need to be screened for cervical cancer?

Yes. Current HPV vaccines do not protect against all HPV types that cause cervical cancer, so it is important for vaccinated people to continue to undergo routine cervical cancer screening. 

What research is being done to improve cervical cancer screening in low-resource areas?

Researchers at NCI have developed an artificial intelligence approach called automated visual evaluation (AVE) that can analyze digital images of a woman’s cervix and accurately identify precancerous changes that require medical attention. The images can be taken with a cell phone or similar device outfitted with a camera, making this approach potentially useful for cervical screening in low-resource settings.

Another improvement that may be of particular importance where healthcare resources are limited is the ability to do self-sampling. Studies have found that HPV testing on samples collected by patients themselves is as accurate as testing on samples collected by providers.


Selected References
  1. Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, et al. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: Updated meta-analyses. BMJ 2018; 363:k4823.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  2. Castle PE, Kinney WK, Xue X, et al. Role of screening history in clinical meaning and optimal management of positive cervical screening results. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2019; 111(8):820–827.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  3. Clarke MA, Cheung LC, Castle PE, et al. Five-year risk of cervical precancer following p16/Ki-67 dual-stain triage of HPV-positive women. JAMA Oncology 2019; 5(2):181–186.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  4. Clarke MA, Fetterman B, Cheung LC, et al. Epidemiologic evidence that excess body weight increases risk of cervical cancer by decreased detection of precancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018; 36(12):1184–1191.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  5. Fuzzell LN, Perkins RB, Christy SM, Lake PW, Vadaparampil ST. Cervical cancer screening in the United States: Challenges and potential solutions for underscreened groups. Preventive Medicine 2021; 144:106400.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  6. Gage JC, Schiffman M, Katki HA, et al. Reassurance against future risk of precancer and cancer conferred by a negative human papillomavirus test. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2014; First published online: July 18, 2014. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju153

    [PubMed Abstract]
  7. González P, Hildesheim A, Rodríguez AC, et al. Behavioral/lifestyle and immunologic factors associated with HPV infection among women older than 45 years. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2010; 19(12):3044–3054. 

    [PubMed Abstract]
  8. Hu L, Bell D, Antani S, et al. An observational study of deep learning and automated evaluation of cervical images for cancer screening. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2019; 111(9):923–932.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  9. Inturrisi F, Aitken CA, Melchers WJG, et al. Clinical performance of high-risk HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician samples in routine primary HPV screening in the Netherlands: An observational study. Lancet Regional Health. Europe 2021; 11:100235.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  10. Katki HA, Kinney WK, Fetterman B, et al. Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: A population-based study in routine clinical practice. Lancet Oncology 2011; 12(7):663–672.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  11. Polman NJ, Ebisch RMF, Heideman DAM, et al. Performance of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse: a randomised, paired screen-positive, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncology 2019; 20(2):229–238.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  12. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014; 383(9916):524–532.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  13. Rositch AF, Burke AE, Viscidi RP, et al. Contributions of recent and past sexual partnerships on incident human papillomavirus detection: acquisition and reactivation in older women. Cancer Research 2012; 72(23):6183–6190. 

    [PubMed Abstract]
  14. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 2007; 370(9590):890–907.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  15. Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Perkins RB, Guido RS. An introduction to the 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease 2020; 24(2):87–89. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000531.

  16. Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Wacholder S, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011; 103(5):368–383.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  17. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Curry SJ, Krist AH, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2018; 320(7):674–686.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  18. Wentzensen N, Clarke MA, Bremer R, et al. Clinical evaluation of human papillomavirus screening with p16/Ki-67 dual stain triage in a large organized cervical cancer screening program. JAMA Internal Medicine 2019; 179(7):881–888.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  19. Wentzensen N, Lahrmann B, Clarke MA, et al. Accuracy and efficiency of deep-learning-based automation of dual stain cytology in cervical cancer screening. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2021; 113(1):72–79.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  20. Wheeler CM. Natural history of human papillomavirus infections, cytologic and histologic abnormalities, and cancer. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 2008; 35(4):519–536; vii.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  21. Wright TC Jr, Stoler MH, Ranger-Moore J, et al. Clinical validation of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology triage of HPV-positive women: Results from the IMPACT trial. International Journal of Cancer 2022; 150(3):461–471.

    [PubMed Abstract]
  • Reviewed:

If you would like to reproduce some or all of this content, see Reuse of NCI Information for guidance about copyright and permissions. In the case of permitted digital reproduction, please credit the National Cancer Institute as the source and link to the original NCI product using the original product's title; e.g., “HPV and Pap Testing was originally published by the National Cancer Institute.”