Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

GP KFPs / SAQswomens-health

GP KFPs / SAQs · womens-health

Cervical screening (HPV-based program) — KFP-style written assessment

KFP-style staged scenarios on HPV-based cervical screening: result pathways by genotype, self-collection offers to under-screened women, symptom rules that override normal results, histology management trade-offs, and test of cure after treatment.

30 marks45 min3 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

RACGP KFPRACGP AKTMRCGP AKT
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

RACGP KFPRACGP AKTMRCGP AKT
Prompt
Cervical screening: genotype decides the pathway, symptoms decide the investigation, choice decides the swab

KFP 1 (10 marks)

A 34-year-old woman attends for her first-ever cervical screening test, anxious about the examination. She is well with no bleeding or discharge. You offer her the choice of clinician-collected or self-collected HPV testing; she chooses self-collection and completes the swab in privacy. The laboratory reports oncogenic HPV detected, type not 16/18; reflex liquid-based cytology predicts low-grade changes. [5][3]

  1. Why was she eligible for self-collection, and what does the swab test? (3) [5]
  2. State the correct pathway for her result with its evidence-based rationale. (4) [3][4]
  3. She asks whether the low-grade cytology means she has precancer. Answer precisely. (3) [3]

Model answers

  1. Since July 2022 every person eligible for screening can choose self-collection — a low vaginal swabs run on the same PCR platforms as clinician samples. Meta-analysis shows PCR-based sensitivity about 90% on self-collected versus 93% on clinician-collected specimens, both surpassing cytology's pooled 87%. It tests for oncogenic HPV; it does not provide cytology directly nor diagnose cancer. [5]
  2. Other oncogenic types (not 16/18) go to reflex LBC triage: high-grade prediction goes straight to colposcopy; low-grade or negative triage gets a repeat HPV test at 12 months, referring if any oncogenic type persists. The rationale is modelled cost-effectiveness: immediate colposcopy for this group needed over 650 extra colposcopies per additional cancer prevented versus 12-month surveillance, with 20-year cancer risk of about 1% either way. [3][4]
  3. No — low-grade cytology predictions do not mean precancer. In Australia's first-round national data, women with non-16/18 types and negative/low-grade cytology had low risk of serious disease (3.4% CIN3+, 0.02% cancer), which is exactly why they are followed rather than scoped immediately. [3]
General Practice Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this kfps / saq. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the General Practice fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References8ShowHide
  1. [1]Koliopoulos G et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017.PMID 28796882
  2. [2]Ogilvie GS et al. Effect of Screening With Primary Cervical HPV Testing vs Cytology Testing on High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia at 48 Months: The HPV FOCAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2018.PMID 29971397
  3. [3]Smith MA et al. National experience in the first two years of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening in an HPV vaccinated population in Australia: observational study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022.PMID 35354610
  4. [4]Simms KT et al. Optimal Management Strategies for Primary HPV Testing for Cervical Screening: Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation for the National Cervical Screening Program in Australia. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention, 2017.PMID 28095411
  5. [5]Phillips SA et al. Accuracy of HPV Self-Collection Compared with Clinician-Collected HPV Testing and Cytology: A Meta-analysis. Obstetrics and gynecology, 2025.PMID 40643571
  6. [6]Sultana F et al. Uptake and performance of self-collection offered through primary care to all eligible participants in a national cervical screening programme in Australia: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet. Public health, 2026.PMID 41611360
  7. [7]Athanasiou A et al. Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet. Oncology, 2022.PMID 35835138
  8. [8]Tan JHJ et al. Management and long-term outcomes of women with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: A retrospective study. Gynecologic oncology, 2020.PMID 31578727
General Practice Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete General Practice library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousBreast symptoms in general practice — KFP-style written assessmentwomens-healthNextContraception — KFP-style written assessmentwomens-health