Older women testing positive for HPV16/18 on cervical screening and risk of high-grade cervical abnormality

In Australia's HPV-based cervical screening program, we previously showed that risk of histological high-grade abnormality at 1 year post screening decreased with age in women with oncogenic HPV. In this study, we followed 878 HPV16/18 positive women aged 55 years and over for up to 3 years post screening test, to determine the proportion with histological high-grade abnormality (HGA, incorporating high-grade squamous intraepithelial abnormality (HSIL), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma) and to correlate risk of HGA with liquid-based cytology result and with prior screening history. HGA was detected in 7.8% at 1 year and 10.0% at 3 years, with no significant difference (P = .136), despite the number of women with follow-up information significantly increasing from 82.9% to 91.0% (P < .0001). The proportion of HPV16/18 positive women with HGA at 3 years was highest in those with an HSIL cytology result (79.0%) and lowest in those with negative cytology (6.2%). Women with an adequate screening history had fewer HGA than such women with inadequate prior screening (6.6% vs 16.0%, P = .001) or with a history of an abnormality (6.6% vs 14.4%, P = .001). HPV16/18 infection in women over 55 years may have a different natural history from that in younger women, in whom HGA are more common after HPV16/18 detection. In HPV-based cervical screening programs, management algorithms for screen-detected abnormalities based on risk stratification should include factors such as age, screening history and index cytology result, so that women receive appropriate investigation and follow-up.     

Assessing the Psychological Impact of Genetic Susceptibility Testing

The expanded use of genetic testing raises key ethical and policy questions about possible benefits and harms for those receiving disease‐risk information. As predictive testing for Huntington’s was initiated in a clinical setting, survey research posing hypothetical test scenarios suggested that the vast majority of at‐risk relatives wanted to know whether they carried a disease‐causing mutation. However, only a small minority ultimately availed themselves of this opportunity. Many at‐risk individuals concluded that a positive test result would be too psychologically overwhelming. A substantial literature suggests that individuals are often more resilient than anticipated in coping with many different health‐related stresses. Much of my own work in the field has been through the Risk Evaluation & Education for Alzheimer’s Disease study (REVEAL), a series of randomized clinical trials assessing the impact of genetic susceptibility testing on asymptomatic individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Our experience in developing and implementing four successive, multisite trials provides some potentially useful lessons for the field. More people will be asking for their personal genetic information. Better understanding will help us decide when access is appropriate and how best to disclose results in a manner that supports adjustment to test findings and promotes use of genetic information to improve human health.