The APTIMA HPV assay versus the hybrid capture 2 test in triage of women with ASC‐US or LSIL cervical cytology: A meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy

Testing for DNA of 13 high‐risk HPV types with the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test has consistently been shown to perform better in triage of women with cervical cytology results showing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US) but often not in triage of low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) detected in cervical cancer screening. In a meta‐analysis, we compared the accuracy of the APTIMA HPV test, which identifies RNA of 14 high‐risk HPV types, to HC2 for the triage of women with ASC‐US or LSIL. Literature search‐targeted studies where the accuracy of APTIMA HPV and HC2 for detection of underlying CIN2/3+ was assessed concomitantly including verification of all cases of ASC‐US and LSIL. HSROC (Hierarchical Summary ROC) curve regression was used to compute the pooled absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity. Eight studies, comprising 1,839 ASC‐US and 1,887 LSIL cases, were retrieved. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of APTIMA to triage ASC‐US to detect underlying CIN3 or worse was 96.2% (95% CI = 91.7–98.3%) and 54.9% (95% CI = 43.5–65.9%), respectively. APTIMA and HC2 showed similar pooled sensitivity; however, the specificity of the former was significantly higher (ratio: 1.19; 95% CI = 1.08–1.31 for CIN2+). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of APTIMA to triage LSIL were 96.7% (95% CI = 91.4–98.9%) and 38.7% (95% CI = 30.5–47.6%) for CIN3+. APTIMA was as sensitive as HC2 but more specific (ratio: 1.35; 95% CI = 1.11–1.66). Results were similar for detection of CIN2 or worse. In both triage of ASC‐US and LSIL, APTIMA is as sensitive but more specific than HC2 for detecting cervical precancer.     

The clinical performance of APTIMA human papillomavirus and Hybrid Capture 2 assays in the triage of lesser abnormal cervical cytologies

Objective

This study was performed to evaluate the clinical performance of APTIMA human papillomavirus (AHPV) assay and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay in screening for cervical disease, especially in women with atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL).

Methods

A total of 411 women diagnosed with ASC-US or LSIL were referred and further triaged by HC2 test. Prior to colposcopy, liquid-based cytology specimens were collected for the AHPV assay. Sensitivity and specificity were established based on the histological findings of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

Results

In all 411 subjects, the positive detection rate of AHPV assay was 70.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.4 to 75.2), which was significantly lower than the positive detection rate of 94.9% obtained using HC2 test (95% CI, 92.3 to 96.8). Only one CIN 3-positive case was detected among the 120 AHPV-negative women, which was then confirmed by Pap smear test to be LSIL. The sensitivities of AHPV and HC2 for CIN 3 were similar (94.1% and 100%, respectively). However, AHPV showed a significantly higher specificity than HC2 test (30.2% and 5.3%, respectively; p<0.001).

Conclusion

AHPV assay is effective in identifying CIN 3-positive cases because of its high specificity and lower false-negative rate. The use of AHPV for the triage of ASC-US and LSIL might help to reduce the referral rate of colposcopy during cervical cancer screening.     

Eight-type human papillomavirus E6/E7 oncoprotein detection as a novel and promising triage strategy for managing HPV-positive women

The management of HPV-positive women becomes particularly crucial in cervical cancer screening. Here we assessed whether detection of E6 or E7 oncoproteins targeting eight most prevalent HPV types could serve as a promising triage option. Women (N = 1,416) aged 50–60 from Shanxi, China underwent screening with HPV testing and liquid-based cytology (LBC), with any positive results referring to colposcopy and biopsy if necessary. Women with HPV-positive results received further tests using DNA-based genotyping, E6 or E7 oncoprotein detection targeting HPV16/18 (for short: E6 (16/18) Test) or HPV16/18/31/33/35/45/52/58 (for short: E6/E7 (8 types) Test), respectively. Among HPV-positive women, E6/E7 (8 types) oncoproteins had lower positivity (17.37%) compared to DNA-based genotyping for same eight types (58.30%) and LBC with ASC-US threshold (50.97%); HPV16 was the genotype showing the highest frequency (8.49%) for oncoprotein detection followed by HPV52 (3.47%), 58 (2.32%), 33 (1.54%), 18 (1.16%), 45 (0.77%), 35 (0.39%) and 31 (0%). For detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), E6/E7 (8 types) Test had similar sensitivity (100.00%) and superior specificity (85.94%) as well as positive predictive value (PPV, 22.22%) compared to both LBC and DNA-based genotyping (8 types); For detection of CIN2+, E6/E7 (8 types) Test was less sensitive (67.74%) but still more specific (89.47%) and risk predictive with PPV of 46.67%. Notably, E6/E7 (8 types) Test remarkably decreased the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+ and CIN3+ (2.14 and 4.50). E6/E7 oncoprotein detection showed a good “trade-off” between sensitivity and specificity with more efficient colposcopy referrals, which is of great importance to maximize the benefits of HPV-based screening program, especially applicable for the areas with high HPV prevalence and low-resources.     

A daunting challenge: Human Papillomavirus assays and cytology in primary cervical screening of women below age 30 years

We compared cytology with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), cobas, CLART and APTIMA Human Papillomavirus (HPV) assays in primary cervical screening at age 23–29 years based on data from the Danish Horizon study. SurePath samples were collected from 1278 women undergoing routine cytology-based screening. Abnormal cytology was managed according to the routine recommendations, and women with cytology-normal/HPV-positive samples were invited for repeated cytology and HPV testing in 1.5 years. Loss to follow-up was similar between HPV assays. ⩾CIN3 was detected in 44 women. The sensitivity of HC2 for ⩾CIN3 was 95% (95% confidence interval (CI): 85–99), of cobas 98% (95% CI: 88–100), of CLART 100% (95% CI: 92–100), of APTIMA 82% (95% CI: 67–92), and of cytology 59% (95% CI: 43–74). Specificity for ⩾CIN3 varied between 61% (95% CI: 59–64) for cobas and 75% (95% CI: 73–78) for APTIMA, and was 94% (95% CI: 93–96) for cytology. Similar results were observed for ⩾CIN2 (N = 68). HPV screening with cytological triage doubled the number of colposcopies compared to cytology screening, and increased the frequency of repeated testing by four (APTIMA) to seven (cobas) times. The positive predictive value of a referral for colposcopy was relatively high for all screening tests (⩾30% for ⩾CIN3, and ⩾50% for ⩾CIN2). CIN1 was detected by cytology in ∼1% of women, and in ∼2% by any of the four HPV assays. Although highly sensitive, HPV-based screening of young Danish women should be approached cautiously, as it resulted in large reductions in specificity, and increased the demand for additional testing.     

Test positivity cutoff level of a high risk human papillomavirus test could be increased in routine cervical cancer screening

We present data on test positivity, relative sensitivity, rates of detection and relative specificity for primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing with different cutoff levels for test positivity, in comparison to conventional cytology. In 2003-2004, 18,438 women were screened primarily with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC 2) assay, a test for oncogenic HPV DNA, and 21,446 with conventional cytology within the organised screening programme in Finland. A cytological triage test was performed for the HPV positives. Women with cytology equal to low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or worse were referred for colposcopy. The relative sensitivity measured as relative risk (RR) of any cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer was 1.58 for the HPV test at the relative light units (rlu) ratio cutoff 1.00, in comparison to cytology. With the cutoff 3.00, all CIN 2+ lesions were detected. With cutoff 10.00, 2 of the 22 CIN 3+ lesions were missed. Relative specificity for HPV screening for any CIN was 92.6% at cutoff 1.00, 94.6% at cutoff 3.00 and 96.3% at cutoff 10.00. For CIN 3+ specificity estimates for these cutoffs were 92.1%, 94.1% and 95.8%, respectively. Used for routine screening as the sole test, the HPV test cutoff can be increased from the level recommended for clinical use. With HC 2, the detection rate at rlu ratio cutoff 10.00 is still at the level of high-quality conventional screening. At that level, the false positive rate is reduced by about half and the specificity of the HPV test becomes equal to the average specificity of conventional cytology.     

cobas 4800 HPV检测在宫颈癌筛查中的应用价值

  目的  评价cobas 4800 HPV检测技术在宫颈癌及癌前病变筛查中的可行性及应用价值。  方法  对河南省新密市856例年龄 > 21岁有性生活的妇女进行宫颈癌筛查。每位妇女均接受了cobas 4800 HPV检测、高危型HPV第二代杂交捕获试验(hy brid capture 2 technology, HC2)检测、ThinPrep液基细胞学和阴道镜检查。阴道镜下在可见病变处直接取活检; 任意筛查结果阳性但无可见病变时, 于宫颈外口鳞柱交界处行四象限随机活检和宫颈管搔刮术(endocervical curettage, ECC)。  结果  cobas 4800HPV检测与HC2检测对宫颈上皮内瘤变(cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN)2级以上(CIN2、CIN3及宫颈癌)患者的灵敏度均为94.4%(34/36), 特异度分别为63.2%(516/817)和63.9%(522/817);一致率为83.4%(711/853), 两者具有高度一致性(Kappa=0.65)。cobas 4800 HPV检测对于液基细胞学检查漏诊的患者具有100%检出率。cobas 4800 HPV16及18分型检测对于CIN2以上患者的阳性预测值21.9%为HC2检测10.3%的2.13倍。妇女感染HPV16及18型患CIN2以上病变的年龄比感染其他类型平均小5.4岁。  结论  cobas 4800 HPV检测与HC2检测具有相似的准确性和良好的一致性, 比ThinPrep液基细胞学检查更为灵敏, 并且能鉴别HPV16及18两种高风险类型HPV感染, 利于医生更有针对性地随访宫颈病变中的高危病例。      

Cervical cancer screening

There is abundant evidence that cervical cancer screening with conventional cytology(CC)has reduced mortality from cervical cancer. Based on the evidence, CC has been implemented as a modality of the population-based screening for the last several decades in Japan. Several issues are currently faced during screening. For instance, very low coverage is one of the greatest unsolved problems. At the same time, a reliable system is required to monitor specimen adequacy and to calculate detection rates of not only invasive cancer, but also cervical intraepithelial neoplasia(CIN), for the quality control and evaluation of screening efficacy. Recently, two new modalities may be applicable for cervical cancer screening. One is liquid-based cytology(LBC)and the other is the HPV test. LBC and CC did not differ significantly in terms of sensitivity and specificity for detection of CIN2+or CIN3+. HPV tests are superior to CC in sensitivity but are inferior in specificity for detection of CIN2+or CIN3+. Because there is a possibility reducing mortality from and incidence of invasive cervical cancer, implementation of these modalities to Japan should be taken into consideration. Prior to this, however, it is necessary to organize a system to compare performance indicators reflecting the effectiveness of the new modalities to those of CC in a population-based screening. Also, these results must be disclosed for a steady perspective on the cervical cancer screening in Japan.     

HPV for cervical cancer screening (HPV FOCAL): Complete Round 1 results of a randomized trial comparing HPV‐based primary screening to liquid‐based cytology for cervical cancer

Complete Round 1 data (baseline and 12‐month follow‐up) for HPV FOCAL, a randomized trial establishing the efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage as a primary screen for cervical cancer are presented. Women were randomized to one of three arms: Control arm – Baseline liquid‐based cytology (LBC) with ASCUS results triaged with HPV testing; Intervention and Safety arms – Baseline HPV with LBC triage for HPV positives. Results are presented for 15,744 women allocated to the HPV (intervention and safety combined) and 9,408 to the control arms. For all age cohorts, the CIN3+ detection rate was higher in the HPV (7.5/1,000; 95%CI: 6.2, 8.9) compared to the control arm (4.6/1,000; 95%CI: 3.4, 6.2). The CIN2+ detection rates were also significantly higher in the HPV (16.5/1,000; 95%CI: 14.6, 18.6) vs. the control arm (10.1/1,000; 95%CI: 8.3, 12.4). In women ≥35 years, the overall detection rates for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were higher in the HPV vs. the control arm (CIN2+:10.0/1,000 vs. 5.2/1,000; CIN3+: 4.2/1,000 vs. 2.2/1,000 respectively, with a statistically significant difference for CIN2+). HPV testing detected significantly more CIN2+ in women 25–29 compared to LBC (63.7/1,000; 95%CI: 51.9, 78.0 vs. 32.4/1,000; 95%CI: 22.3, 46.8). HPV testing resulted in significantly higher colposcopy referral rates for all age cohorts (HPV: 58.9/1,000; 95%CI: 55.4, 62.7 vs. control: 30.9/1,000; 95%CI: 27.6, 34.6). At completion of Round 1 HPV‐based cervical cancer screening in a population‐based program resulted in greater CIN2+ detection of across all age cohorts compared to LBC screening.     

Triage options to manage high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women: A population-based cross-sectional study from rural China

Improvement in managing HPV-positive women is urgently needed. Based on a population-based study which included 2112 women aged 49 to 69 from Shanxi, China, we aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of multiple triage strategies based on liquid-based cytology (LBC), p16^INK4a, viral load and partial genotyping, as a single or combined strategy for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or higher (CIN2+/CIN3+) in women who tested positive by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2). Among 452 HC2-positive women, the test positivity of LBC (ASC-US+), p16^INK4a, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 were 39.6%, 38.5%, 18.0% and 40.0%, respectively. Compared to LBC (ASC-US+) triage, a single triage strategies using p16^INK4a or extended genotyping (SureX HPV16/18/31/33/45) achieved comparable sensitivity (relative sensitivity: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.26 and 0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.22) and specificity (relative specificity: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.14 and 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.14) for CIN3+. Viral load triage using a ≥50 RLU/CO cut-point also yielded similar results with LBC (ASC-US+). Among combined triage strategies, HPV16/18 genotyping with reflex p16^INK4a showed higher sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than LBC (ASC-US+) for CIN3+ detection, however, the differences were not statistically significant. Of note, after a negative result by p16^INK4a or LBC among HPV16/18 negative women, the posttest probability of CIN3+ was lower than 1%. Our study suggested that p16^INK4a, extended genotyping and increased viral load cut-point could be promising alternatives to cytology triage. Combined triage algorithms of HPV16/18 with reflex p16^INK4a or cytology, if negative, are associated with the substantial low posttest risk sufficient to release women to next screening round.     

Combined use of cytology,p16 immunostaining and genotyping for triage of women positive for high-risk human papillomavirus at primary screening

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is very sensitive for primary cervical screening but has low specificity. Triage tests that improve specificity but maintain high sensitivity are needed. Women enrolled in the experimental arm of Phase 2 of the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer randomized controlled cervical screening trial were tested for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) and referred to colposcopy if positive. hrHPV-positive women also had HPV genotyping (by polymerase chain reaction with GP5+/GP6+ primers and reverse line blotting), immunostaining for p16 overexpression and cytology. We computed sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for different combinations of tests and determined potential hierarchical ordering of triage tests. A number of 1,091 HPV-positive women had valid tests for cytology, p16 and genotyping. Ninety-two of them had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) histology and 40 of them had CIN grade 3+ (CIN3+) histology. The PPV for CIN2+ was >10% in hrHPV-positive women with positive high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (61.3%), positive low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL+) (18.3%) and positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (14.8%) cytology, p16 positive (16.7%) and, hierarchically, for infections by HPV33, 16, 35, 59, 31 and 52 (in decreasing order). Referral of women positive for either p16 or LSIL+ cytology had 97.8% sensitivity for CIN2+ and women negative for both of these had a 3-year CIN3+ risk of 0.2%. Similar results were seen for women being either p16 or HPV16/33 positive. hrHPV-positive women who were negative for p16 and cytology (LSIL threshold) had a very low CIN3+ rate in the following 3 years. Recalling them after that interval and referring those positive for either test to immediate colposcopy seem to be an efficient triage strategy. The same applies to p16 and HPV16.     

A Descriptive Study of Different Methods of Cervical Cancer Screening among Ever-Married Women in 35-Year and 45-Year Cohorts in Kalutara District,Sri Lanka

Objective: Screening for cervical cancer in Sri Lankan females with Pap smears (conventional cytology) has shown no marked reduction in cervical cancer incidence over the past two decades. The study aims to compare the efficacy of Pap smear, with other screening tools such as Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) and Human Papilloma Virus/deoxyribonucleic acid (HPV/DNA) (using cobas 4800) in detection of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer among 35 and 45 year old ever married women in Kalutara districtin Sri Lanka. Methods: Women from 35-year cohort and 45-year cohort were selected from all Public Health Midwife areas (n=413) in Kalutara district by random sampling. Pap smear, LBC, and HPV/DNA specimen were collected s from women who attended the Well Woman Clinics (WWC) . Women with positive results from any method were confirmed by colposcopy.  Results: Of the, 510 and 502 women in the 35-year cohort and 45-year cohort, respectively, included in the analysis, nine women among 35-year cohort (1.8%) and 7 women among 45-year cohort (1.4%) had cytological abnormality (positive results) with Pap smears. Thirteen women among 35-year cohort (2.5%) and 10 women among 45-year cohort (2%) age groups had cytological abnormality (positive results) with Liquid Based Cytology reports. Total of 32 women among 35-year cohort (6.2%) and 24 women among 45-year cohort (4.8%)  were positive for HPV/DNA test. Of  the women tested positive on screening, colposcopy revealed that HPV/DNA method was superior to Pap and LBC for detecting CIN while the results of latter two were comparable. Conclusions and Recommendations: The CIN detection rate by colposcopy was high with HPV/DNA screening with cobas 4800, whereas the detection rate by LBC was insignificantly higher than Pap smears.     

HPV prevalence and accuracy of HPV testing to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Concern was raised on using testing for high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical cancer screening in populations where HPV prevalence is high. The impact of HR HPV prevalence on the efficiency of HPV test-based screening has never been directly evaluated. A meta-regression of the relationship between HR HPV prevalence and the specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of HPV DNA testing for the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was performed. Only studies that used Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) were included. Country income (low-medium vs. high) was used as a proxy of previous screening. Twenty-six populations from 20 studies were included. For a 10% increase in HR HPV prevalence, HC2 specificity decreased by 8.41% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.02-8.81], whereas PPV increased by 4.74% (95% CI: 2.45-7.03). HR HPV prevalence explained 98% of the variability in HC2 specificity and 38% of the variability in PPV. Country income did not affect specificity, but low-medium income was associated with higher PPV (3.81%; 95% CI: 1.53-6.10) after adjustment for HR HPV prevalence. When HR HPV prevalence is high, the specificity of HPV testing for CIN2+ decreases, but PPV does not decrease and it is high in inadequately screened populations. The number of HPV-positive women needing further assessment or treatment per CIN2+ case detected will therefore decrease and screening efficiency will improve. This is explained by the fact that HR HPV causes CIN2+: an increase in HR HPV prevalence is inevitably accompanied by an increase in CIN2+.     

Evaluating the Performance of Hybrid Capture 2 Test as a Primary Screening Test from Studies Conducted in Low and Middle-Income Country Settings- Special Focus India

Among the screening tests for cervical cancer, advantages of screening with second generation molecular Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test is the high sensitivity and negative predictive value that makes it easy to implement as a cervical cancer screening policy necessitating less screening rounds. High income countries are now implementing HC2 test in their national cervical cancer screening program. Since the acceptance of any screening test depends on the sensitivity of the test, the current study was carried out to evaluate the sensitivity of HC2 test reported from Low- and Middle-income countries (LMIC) which share major burden of cervical cancer globally and to establish if HC2 test could be used as a primary screening test in India. Materials and methods: The population based cross sectional studies from LMICs which evaluated HC2 test as a primary screening modality to diagnose Cervical intraepithelial neoplasm grade 2 and above (CIN2+) lesions were included. Results: A total of 18 studies from LMIC involving 1,13,086 women were reviewed for sensitivity of HC2 as a primary screening test. The overall average sensitivity and specificity to diagnose CIN2+ lesions were 79.84% (95% CI-71.01,86.73) and 85.63% (95% CI- 84.37,86.92) respectively. India demonstrated an average sensitivity and specificity of 65% (95% CI 57,77) and 93% (95% CI- 92,94) respectively. Conclusion: Results from LMIC demonstrate a comparably low sensitivity of HC2 test to diagnose CIN2+ lesions as compared to that reported from High income countries. Sensitivity of HC2 was substantially low for India. The current study discusses issues of HC2 assay and the role of untreated Reproductive tract infections as probable causes for low sensitivity of the test. This needs further research in an attempt to improve the sensitivity of the test in an era of self-sampling and low-cost HPV test on horizon to improve the coverage for cervical cancer.     

Disease detection at the 48-month exit round of the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial in women per-protocol eligible for routine screening

HPV FOCAL is a randomized control trial of cervical cancer screening. The intervention arm received baseline screening for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and the control arm received liquid-based cytology (LBC) at baseline and 24 months. Both arms received 48-month exit HPV and LBC cotesting. Exit results are presented for per-protocol eligible (PPE) screened women. Participants were PPE at exit if they had completed all screening and recommended follow-up and had not been diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) earlier in the trial. Subgroups were identified based upon results at earlier trial screening. There were 9,457 and 9,552 and women aged 25–65 randomized to control and intervention and 7,448 (77.8%) and 8,281 (86.7%), respectively, were PPE and screened. Exit cotest results were similar (p = 0.11) by arm for PPE and the relative rate (RR) of CIN2+ for intervention vs. control was RR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56–1.23). The RR for CIN2+ comparing intervention women baseline HPV negative to control women with negative cytology at baseline and at 24 months, was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.43–1.06). PPE women who had a negative or CIN1 colposcopy in earlier rounds had elevated rates (per 1,000) of CIN2+ at exit, control 31 (95% CI: 14–65) and intervention 43 (95% CI: 25–73). Among PPE women HPV negative at exit LBC cotesting identified little CIN2+, Rate = 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1–0.7). This per-protocol analysis found that screening with HPV using a 4-year interval is as safe as LBC with a 2-year screening interval. LBC screening in HPV negative women at exit identified few additional lesions.     

宫颈癌多种筛查方案的研究

目的 探索适宜我国不同地区的宫颈癌筛查方案,以提高我国妇女宫颈癌的防治水平.方法 利用1999年在山西省襄垣县开展的一项以人群为基础的宫颈癌筛查横断面研究的资料,所有筛查对象均进行了薄层液基细胞学(LBC)、荧光镜检、醋酸染色法(VIA)、阴道镜检查、自我取样人乳头瘤病毒(HPv)检测和医生取样HPV检测等6种宫颈癌筛查方法 ,而且每位筛查对象均有病理诊断结果 .采用筛查试验的串、并联法组合各种筛查技术,比较所得方案识别宫颈高度以上病变[≥宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)2]的灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率等指标,以受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下面积综合分析各筛查方案.结果 LBC检测以未明确意义的不典型鳞状细胞(ASC-US)为阳性,HPV检测以HPV DNA≥1.0 ps/mi为阳性.在LBC和HPV检测组合方案中,并联初筛方法 (即两者任一项阳性即判断为筛查阳性)的灵敏度为100.O%,特异度为68.6%,阴道镜转诊率为34.4%;LBC初筛HPV分流方法 (即ASC-US者进行HPV检测)的灵敏度为93.0%,特异度为89.9%,阴道镜转诊率为13.7%;HPV初筛LBC分流方法 (即 HPV阳性者进行LBC检测)的灵敏度为91.7%,特异度为93.0%,阴道镜转诊率为10.6%.经ROC分析,LBC初筛HPV分流方法 和HPV初筛LBC分流方法 明显优于单纯并联初筛方法 (P=0.0003;P=0.0002).单独以LBC或HPV检测作为筛查方案时,以ASC-US或低度病变(LSIL)为筛查阳性的LBC方法 灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率分别为94.2%、77.3%、25.7%和87.2%、93.5%、10.O%;医生取样HPV检测方法 和自我取样HPV检测方法 的灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率分别为97.6%、84.8%、18.8%和83.5%、85.9%、17.1%.经ROC分析,医生取样HPV检测方法 优于以ASC-US为筛查阳性的LBC方法 或自我取样HPV检测方法 (P=0.005,P=0.002).在VIA及其与HPV检测的组合方案中,单独采用VIA筛查方法 的灵敏度为70.9%,特异度为74.3%,阴道镜转诊率为27.6%;HPV初筛VIA分流方法 (即自我取样HPV检测阳性者进行VIA检查)的灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率分别为65.9%、95.2%和7.4%.经ROC分析,HPV初筛VIA分流方法 明显优于单独使用VIA方法 (P=0.004).结论 根据地区资源条件和个人意愿,我国经济发达地区可选用HPV初筛LBC分流方法 或LBC初筛HPV分流方法 作筛查手段;中等经济发展水平的中小城市可选用单独以LBC或HPV检测方法 作为筛查手段;VLA是欠发达地区可行的筛查方法 ,在廉价HPV检测试剂盒上市后,可选择HPV初筛VIA分流方法 ,以进一步提高宫颈癌的筛查效力.     

Risk stratification and long‐term risk prediction of E6 oncoprotein in a prospective screening cohort in China

E6 oncoprotein is a necessary agent of HPV driven oncogenic transformation. This study is aimed at evaluating the risk stratification potency of HPV 16/18 E6 oncoprotein (E6) as a triage method for HPV positivity. Moreover, it also acts as a predictor of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). The screening cohort of 1,997 women was followed for a 15 year period in approximate five‐year intervals. Participants were concurrently screened by HPV DNA testing (HC2), liquid based cytology (LBC), visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and were referred to colposcopy and biopsy if any tests reflected positive. E6 was performed on cervical samples collected from this cohort in 2005 and 2014. The ability of E6 to predict CIN3+ risk after the five‐ and ten‐year interval was evaluated. Among HPV positive women in 2005, E6 indicated the lowest positive rate (9.9%) compared to LBC (48.4%) and VIA (28.0%), however, a higher prevalence rate (10.3%) and 10‐year cumulative incidence rate (53.0%) of CIN3+ were detected among women who were E6 positive. Meanwhile, only 4.2% and 2.9% of women with abnormal LBC and positive VIA were diagnosed as prevalent CIN3+ in 2005, 23.0% and 16.5% developed to CIN3+ after year 10, respectively. Strong associations were found between precedent and subsequent HPV persistence and E6 oncoprotein expression (OR_adjusted = 40.0 and 21.2, respectively). E6 oncoprotein could serve as a low‐cost, highly specific, strongly indicative point‐of‐care method in the triage and treatment of HPV positive women.     

PAX1 Methylation Analysis by MS-HRM is Useful in Triage of High-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions

This study is aimed to investigate the role of paired boxed gene 1 (PAX1) methylation analysis by methylationsensitivehigh-resolution melting (MS-HRM) in the detection of high grade lesions in atypical squamous cellscannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) and compared its performance with theHybrid Capture 2 (HC2) human papillomavirus (HPV) test. In our study, 130 cases with a diagnosis of ASC-Hfrom the cervical cytological screening by Thinprep cytologic test (TCT) technique were selected for triage.Their cervical scrapings were collected and evaluated by using PAX1 methylation analysis (MS-HRM) andhigh-risk HPV DNA test (HC2), followed by colposcopy and cervical biopsy. Chi-square test were used to testthe differences of PAX1 methylation or HPV infection between groups. In the detection of CIN2+, the sensitivity,specificity, the PPV, NPV and the accuracy of PAX1 MS-HRM assay and high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) tests wererespectively 80.6% vs 67.7%, 94.9% vs 54.5%, 83.3%, vs 31.8%, 94.0% vs 84.4%, and 91.5% vs 57.7%. ThePAX1 MS-HRM assay proved superior to HR-HPV testing in the detection of high grade lesions (CIN2+) inASC-H. This approach could screen out the majority of high grade lesion cases of ASC-H, and thus could reducethe referral rate to colposcopy.     

Is HPV DNA testing specificity comparable to that of cytological testing in primary cervical cancer screening? Results of a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Human‐papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has been proposed as an alternative to primary cervical cancer screening using cytological testing. Review of the evidence shows that available data are conflicting for some aspects. The overall goal of the study is to update the performance of HPV DNA as stand‐alone testing in primary cervical cancer screening, focusing particularly on the aspects related to the specificity profile of the HPV DNA testing in respect to cytology. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Eight articles were included in the meta‐analysis. Three outcomes have been investigated: relative detection, relative specificity, and relative positive predictive value (PPV) of HPV DNA testing versus cytology. Overall evaluation of relative detection showed a significantly higher detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ for HPV DNA testing versus cytology. Meta‐analyses that considered all age groups showed a relative specificity that favored the cytology in detecting both CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions whereas, in the ≥30 years' group, specificity of HPV DNA and cytology tests was similar in detecting both CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions. Results of the pooled analysis on relative PPV showed a not significantly lower PPV of HPV DNA test over cytology. A main key finding of the study is that in women aged ≥30, has been found an almost overlapping specificity between the two screening tests in detecting CIN2 and above‐grade lesions. Therefore, primary screening of cervical cancer by HPV DNA testing appears to offer the right balance between maximum detection of CIN2+ and adequate specificity, if performed in the age group ≥30 years.     

Clinical Performance of APTIMA Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16 18/45 mRNA Genotyping Testing for the Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3 (CIN3) or Cancer in a Select Group of Chinese Women

HPV type was evaluated in a select group of Chinese women that were positive with hybrid capture, and correlations were performed between the pathology found, the type of virus and a semiquantitation from the hybrid capture results. Totally 394 referred high-risk-HPV-positive women evaluated by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC-2) assay were enrolled. Before colposcopy, cervical specimens were collected from all participants and suspended into PreservCytcollection medium (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA), and tested with the APTIMA HPV16 18/45 mRNA assay. Colposcopy and diagnostic biopsies were done on all participants. Viral load was assessed by HC2 assay. Totally 55 women were diagnosed as CIN 3 plus cancer (≥CIN3), and the prevalence of HPV16/18/45 was 65.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 52.9–78.0 %) among these ≥CIN3 women. Compared with the group with positive HC2 but negative HPV16/18/45, the odds ratio (OR) to identify ≥CIN3 was 6.3 (95 % CI, 3.2–12.3) for HPV16 and 3.2 (95 % CI, 1.4–7.2) for HPV18/45. When using ≥CIN3 as an endpoint, the sensitivity and specificity was 65.5 % (95 % CI, 52.9–78.0 %) and 72.0 % (95 % CI, 67.2–76.8 %). In the case of HPV16/18/45 negative, no high HPV load had a statistically significant increased risk for the prevalence of ≥CIN3. HPV16, 18 and 45 infection is a major cause for ≥CIN3 in Chinese women. Women with positive HPV16/18/45 should be referred to colposcopy immediately. HPV load was not suitable for the further triaged of the HPV16/18/45 negative cases.     

Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population

Background:

Several new assays have been developed for high-risk HPV testing of cervical samples; we compare six HPV tests in a screening population.

Methods:

Residual material from liquid-based PreservCyt samples was assayed. Four tests (Hybrid Capture 2, Cobas, Abbott and Becton-Dickinson (BD)) measured HPV DNA while two used RNA (APTIMA and NorChip).

Results:

Positivity rates ranged from 13.4 to 16.3% for the DNA-based tests with a significantly lower positivity rate for the Abbott assay. The Gen-Probe APTIMA assay was positive in 10.3% of women, which was significantly lower than all the DNA tests; the NorChip PreTect HPV-Proofer test was much lower at 5.2%. 40 CIN2+ cases were identified, of which 19 were CIN3+. All CIN3+ cases were HPV positive by all tests except for one, which was negative by the Abbott assay and five which were negative by the NorChip test.

Conclusion:

All HPV tests except NorChip showed high sensitivity for high-grade lesions positive by cytology, suggesting co-testing is unnecessary when using HPV tests. Positivity rates in cytology-negative specimens were similar for the DNA-based tests, but lower for the APTIMA test suggesting this maintains the high sensitivity of DNA tests, but with better specificity.