Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs

Women not attending cervical screening programs are at increased risk of cervical cancer. We investigated in these nonresponders to what extent offering self-sampling devices for cervicovaginal brushes for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing would induce participation and, if so, what the yield of precursor (i.e. CIN2 or worse) lesions following self-sampling would be. In addition, we assessed screening history of participants and costs per detected high-grade CIN2 or worse ("CIN2+") lesion in comparison to the regular program in the Netherlands. Nonresponders received a device for hrHPV testing (self-sampling group, n=2,546) or an extra recall for conventional cytology (control group, n=284). The percentage of self-sampling responders were compared with responders in the recall group. hrHPV positive self-sampling responders were invited for cytology and colposcopy. CIN2+ yield and costs per detected CIN2+ were evaluated. Active response was higher in the self-sampling than in the control group (34.2 vs. 17.6%; p<0.001). hrHPV positive self-sampling responders were less likely to have a prior screening history than screening participants (p<0.001), indicating that they are regular nonresponders. hrHPV prevalence was similar (8.0 vs. 6.8%; p=0.11), but CIN2+ yield was higher in self-sampling responders compared to screening participants (1.67 vs. 0.97%; OR=2.93, 95% CI 1.48-5.80; p=0.0013). Costs per CIN2+ lesion detected via self-sampling were in the same range as those calculated for conventional cytological screening (euro 8,836 vs. euro 7,599). Offering self-sampling for hrHPV testing in nonresponders is an attractive adjunct to effectively increase population coverage of screening without the adverse effect of markedly increased costs per detected CIN2+ lesion.     

Risk of high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia based on cytology and high-risk HPV testing at baseline and at 6-months

Adding a test for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) to cytological screening enhances the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (>or=CIN2), but data are required that enable long-term evaluation of screening. We investigated the >or=CIN2 risk for women participating in population-based screening as a function of hrHPV and cytology testing results at baseline and at 6 months. We included 2,193 women aged 30-60 years participating in a population-based screening trial who received colposcopy or a repeat testing advice at baseline. The main endpoint was histologically confirmed >or=CIN2 diagnosed within 36 months. hrHPV testing was more sensitive than cytology for >or=CIN2 (relative sensitivity 1.4, 95%CI: 1.3-1.5; absolute sensitivity 94.1 and 68.0%, respectively). The 18-month >or=CIN2 risks in women with a hrHPV-positive smear and in women with abnormal cytology were similar (relative risk 0.9, 95%CI: 0.8-1.1). Women with HPV16 and/or HPV18 had a higher >or=CIN2 risk than other hrHPV-positive women irrespective of the cytological grade. Repeat testing showed that both cytological regression and viral clearance were strongly associated with a decrease in >or=CIN2 risk. Notably, women who had a double negative repeat test at 6 months had a >or=CIN2 risk of only 0.2% (95%CI: 0.0-1.1) and hrHPV-negative women with baseline borderline or mild dyskaryosis and normal cytology at 6 months had a >or=CIN2 risk of 0% (95%CI: 0.0-0.8). Using hrHPV and/or cytology testing, risk of >or=CIN2 can be assessed more accurately by repeat testing than single visit testing. Hence, when hrHPV testing is implemented, patient management with repeat testing is a promising strategy to control the number of referrals for colposcopy.     

DNA methylation analysis in self-sampled brush material as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women

Background:

Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in cervical cancer screening shows relatively low specificity, which makes triage testing necessary. In this study, DNA methylation analysis was compared with cytology for triage testing in hrHPV-positive women. Moreover, feasibility of DNA methylation analysis directly on brush-based self-sampled specimens was assessed.

Methods:

Non-responding women from population-based screening were invited to self-collect a cervico-vaginal specimen for hrHPV testing; hrHPV-positive women were referred to a physician for triage liquid-based cytology. DNA methylation analysis was performed on 128 hrHPV-positive physician-collected triage samples and 50 matched brush self-samples with QMSP for C13ORF18, EPB41L3, JAM3 and TERT.

Results:

In physician-taken triage material, DNA methylation analysis of JAM3 showed the highest combined specificity (88%) and sensitivity (82%) for detection of CIN3+, whereas cytology showed a specificity of 48% and a sensitivity of 91%. Out of 39 women with abnormal cytology and normal histology (false-positive by cytology), 87% were negative for JAM3 and 90% for C13ORF18 methylation. Agreement between DNA methylation analysis performed directly on the matched self-sampled material and physician-taken samples was 88% for JAM3 (κ=0.75, P<0.001) and 90% for C13ORF18 (κ=0.77; P<0.001).

Conclusions:

DNA methylation analysis as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women is an attractive alternative to cytology. Furthermore, DNA methylation is feasible directly on brush-based self-samplers and showed good correlation with matched physician-taken samples. Direct molecular triage on self-collected specimens could optimise the screening program, especially for non-responders, as this would eliminate the need for an additional physician-taken scraping for triage testing.     

HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications

Background:

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We evaluated the performance of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing in routine screening.

Methods:

In all, 25 871 women (29–61) enrolled in our population-based cohort study were offered both cytology and hrHPV testing. High-risk HPV-positive women with normal cytology and an age-matched subcohort of hrHPV-negative women with normal cytology were invited for repeat testing after 1 and/or 2 years and were referred for colposcopy if they presented with abnormal cytology and/or a positive hrHPV test. The hrHPV-positive women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) and all women with moderate dyskaryosis or worse (>BMD) were directly referred for colposcopy. Women with BMD and an hrHPV-negative test were advised to repeat cytology at 6 and 18 months and were referred for colposcopy if the repeat cytology test was abnormal. The main outcome measure was CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). Results were adjusted for non-attendance at repeat testing.

Results:

The hrHPV-positive women with abnormal cytology had a CIN3+ risk of 42.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 36.4–48.2), whereas the hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology had a much lower risk of 5.22% (95% CI: 3.72–7.91). In hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology, an additional cytology step after 1 year reduced the CIN3+ risk to only 1.6% (95% CI: 0.6–4.9) if the repeat test was normal. The CIN3+ risk in women with hrHPV-positive normal cytology was higher among women invited for the first time (29–33 years of age) (9.1% 95% CI: 5.6–14.3) than among older women (3.0% 95% CI: 1.5–5.5).

Conclusion:

Primary hrHPV screening with cytology triage in women aged ⩾30 years is an effective way to stratify women on CIN3+ risk and seems a feasible alternative to cytological screening. Repeat cytology after 1 year for hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology is however necessary before returning women to routine screening.     

Comparative performance of novel self‐sampling methods in detecting high‐risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush‐based cervicovaginal self‐sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage‐based one for testing for hrHPV (high‐risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non‐responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33–63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n = 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush‐based or a lavage‐based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self‐sampling responders testing hrHPV‐positive were invited for a physician‐taken sample for cytology; triage‐positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush‐based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage‐based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8–4.2). The hrHPV‐positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87–1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83–1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92–1.70 for CIN3+. The two self‐sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush‐based device to non‐responders is noninferior to offering a lavage‐based device in terms of participation. The two self‐sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted.     

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.     

Combined CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation analysis to detect (pre-)malignant cervical lesions in high-risk HPV-positive women

Given the lower specificity for high-grade cervical lesions of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing compared to cytology, additional triage testing for hrHPV test-positive women is needed to detect high-grade cervical lesions. Here, we tested whether combined methylation analysis for cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1) and T-lymphocyte maturation associated protein (MAL), both functionally involved in cervical carcinogenesis, could serve as such a triage marker. Four quantitative methylation-specific PCRs (qMSP), two for CADM1 (regions M12 and M18) and MAL (regions M1 and M2) each, were applied to 261 cervical tissue specimens ranging from no neoplasia to carcinoma. When qMSPs were combined and positivity for at least one of the qMSPs in the combination was taken into account, the highest positivity rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) lesions (97%) and squamous cell- and adeno-carcinomas (99%) were obtained by combining a single CADM1 marker with a single MAL marker. Subsequent qMSP analysis of 70 GP5+/6+-PCR hrHPV-positive scrapings revealed that a two-marker panel consisting of CADM1-M18 and MAL-M1 was most discriminative, detecting 90% of women with CIN3 (n = 30), whereas it showed a positive result in only 13.5% of women without cervical disease (n = 40). Finally, we applied hrHPV GP5+/6+-PCR testing followed by CADM1-M18/MAL-M1 methylation analysis to a cohort of 79 women visiting the outpatient colposcopy clinic. hrHPV testing revealed a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 33% for CIN3+. Additional CADM1-M18/MAL-M1 methylation analysis on the hrHPV-positive women increased the specificity to 78% with a sensitivity of 70%. In conclusion, the methylation marker panel CADM1-M18 and MAL-M1 may serve as an alternative molecular triage tool for hrHPV-positive women.     

CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation levels in hrHPV‐positive cervical scrapes increase proportional to degree and duration of underlying cervical disease

Combined detection of cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1) and T‐lymphocyte maturation‐associated protein (MAL) promoter methylation in cervical scrapes is a promising triage strategy for high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)‐positive women. Here, CADM1 and MAL DNA methylation levels were analysed in cervical scrapes of hrHPV‐positive women with no underlying high‐grade disease, high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer. CADM1 and MAL methylation levels in scrapes were first related to CIN‐grade of the corresponding biopsy and second to CIN‐grade stratified by the presence of ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ cytology as present in the accompanying scrape preceding the cervical biopsy. The scrapes included 167 women with ≤CIN1, 54 with CIN2/3 and 44 with carcinoma. In a separate series of hrHPV‐positive scrapes of women with CIN2/3 (n = 48), methylation levels were related to duration of preceding hrHPV infection (PHI; <5 and ≥5 years). Methylation levels were determined by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR and normal cytology scrapes of hrHPV‐positive women with histologically ≤CIN1 served as reference. CADM1 and MAL methylation levels increased proportional to severity of the underlying lesion, showing an increase of 5.3‐ and 6.2‐fold in CIN2/3, respectively, and 143.5‐ and 454.9‐fold in carcinomas, respectively, compared to the reference. Methylation levels were also elevated in CIN2/3 with a longer duration of PHI (i.e. 11.5‐ and 13.6‐fold, respectively). Moreover, per histological category, methylation levels were higher in accompanying scrapes with abnormal cytology than in scrapes with normal cytology. Concluding, CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation levels in hrHPV‐positive cervical scrapes are related to the degree and duration of underlying cervical disease and markedly increased in cervical cancer.     

Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening

We prospectively evaluated the 5-year predictive values of adding high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to cytology for the detection of > or = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)3 lesions in a population-based cohort of 2810 women. At baseline, nine (0.3%) women had prevalent lesions > or = CIN3, all being hrHPV positive. After 5 years of follow-up, four (6.5%) of the 62 hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology developed lesions > or = CIN3, vs only one (0.05%) of the 2175 hrHPV-negative women with normal cytology. High-risk human papillomavirus testing or combined screening revealed a much higher sensitivity, at the cost of a small decrease in specificity, and a higher negative predictive value for the detection of lesions > or = CIN3 till the next screening round (5 years) than cytology alone.     

Evaluation of 14 triage strategies for HPV DNA-positive women in population-based cervical screening

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for detection of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). To avoid over-referral to colposcopy and overtreatment, hrHPV-positive women require triage testing and/or followup. A total of 25,658 women (30-60 years) enrolled in a population-based cohort study had an adequate baseline Pap smear and hrHPV test. The end-point was cumulative two-year risk of CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). In a post-hoc analysis, fourteen triage/followup strategies for hrHPV-positive women (n = 1,303) were evaluated for colposcopy referral rate, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Five strategies involved triage testing without a repeat test and nine strategies involved triage testing followed by one repeat testing. The tests were cytology, hrHPV, HPV16/18 genotyping and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping. Results were adjusted for women in the cohort study who did not attend repeat testing. Of the strategies without repeat testing, combined cytology and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping gave the highest NPV of 98.9% (95%CI 97.6-99.5%). The corresponding colposcopy referral rate was 58.1% (95%CI 55.4-60.8%). Eight of the nine strategies with retesting had an estimated NPV of at least 98%. Of those, cytology triage followed by cytology at 12 months had a markedly lower colposcopy referral rate of 33.4% (95%CI 30.2-36.7%) than the other strategies. The NPV of the latter strategy was 99.3% (95%CI 98.1-99.8%). Triage hrHPV-positive women with cytology, followed by repeat cytology testing yielded a high NPV and modest colposcopy referral rate and appear to be the most feasible management strategy.     

Specimen self‐collection and HPV DNA screening in a pilot study of 100,242 women

Since cervical cancer remains common in Mexico despite an established cytology screening program, the Ministry of Health recently introduced pilot front‐line HPV testing into the Mexican cervical cancer screening program (CCSP). Here, we present the key field performance metrics of this population‐based study. High‐risk HPV DNA (hrHPV) testing was conducted on self‐collected vaginal specimens from 100,242 women aged 25–75 years residing in Morelos State. All hrHPV positive women and a random sample of 3.2% (n = 2,864) of hrHPV negative participants were referred for colposcopic examination. The main disease endpoint of interest was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+). We calculated relative risk, positive predictive value and negative predictive value adjusted for screening test verification bias. The overall prevalence of hrHPV was 10.8% (95%CI 10.6–11.0). Women positive for hrHPV had a relative risk of 15.7 for histologically detectable CIN2+. The adjusted positive predictive value of the hrHPV test was 2.4% (95%CI 2.1–2.7); whereas the adjusted negative predictive value was 99.8% (95%CI 99.8–99.9). These findings suggest that large‐scale vaginal hrHPV testing in a middle‐income country can identify women at greater risk of advanced cervical abnormalities in a programmatically meaningful way but care is warranted to ensure that disease not detectable at colposcopy is kept to a minimum. PASS shows areas that need improvement and sets the stage for wider use of hrHPV screening of self‐collected vaginal specimens in Mexico.     

Age-dependent prevalence of 14 high-risk HPV types in the Netherlands: implications for prophylactic vaccination and screening

We determined the prevalence of type-specific hrHPV infections in the Netherlands on cervical scrapes of 45 362 women aged 18-65 years. The overall hrHPV prevalence peaked at the age of 22 with peak prevalence of 24%. Each of the 14 hrHPV types decreased significantly with age (P-values between 0.0009 and 0.03). The proportion of HPV16 in hrHPV-positive infections also decreased with age (OR=0.76 (10-year scale), 95% CI=0.67-0.85), and a similar trend was observed for HPV16 when selecting hrHPV-positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.56-1.01). In women eligible for routine screening (age 29-61 years) with confirmed CIN2+, 65% was infected with HPV16 and/or HPV18. When HPV16/18-positive infections in women eligible for routine screening were discarded, the positive predictive value of cytology for the detection of CIN2+ decreased from 27 to 15%, the positive predictive value of hrHPV testing decreased from 26 to 15%, and the predictive value of a double-positive test (positive HPV test and a positive cytology) decreased from 54 to 41%. In women vaccinated against HPV16/18, screening remains important to detect cervical lesions caused by non-HPV16/18 types. To maintain a high-positive predictive value, screening algorithms must be carefully re-evaluated with regard to the screening modalities and length of the screening interval.     

Interlaboratory variation in the performance of liquid‐based cytology: Insights from the ATHENA trial

Although it is recognized that cervical cytology is highly subjective, and that there is considerable interlaboratory variation in how slides are evaluated, little is known as to how this impacts the performance of cytology. In the ATHENA trial, liquid‐based cytology specimens from 46,887 eligible women ≥21 years of age were evaluated at four large regional US laboratories, providing a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of interlaboratory variations on the performance of cervical cytology. All women with abnormal cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher) were referred to colposcopy, as were all high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)–positive women ≥25 years of age and a random subset of those ≥25 years of age who were negative by both hrHPV testing and cytology. Sociodemographics, risk factors for cervical disease, and prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were similar across the laboratories. There were considerable differences among the laboratories both in overall cytological abnormal rates, ranging from 3.8 to 9.9%, and in sensitivity of cytology to detect CIN grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), from 42.0 to 73.0%. In contrast, the hrHPV positivity rate varied only from 10.9 to 13.4%, and the sensitivity of hrHPV testing from 88.2 to 90.1%. These observations suggest that hrHPV testing without cytology should be considered as the initial method for cervical cancer screening.     

Comparison of HPV and cytology triage algorithms for women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis in population‐based cervical screening (VUSA‐screen study)

We studied the effectiveness of high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) triage for immediate colposcopy in women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD). In the Utrecht province of the Netherlands, women aged 30–60 years who participated in the regular cervical screening programme were offered hrHPV testing and cytology (intervention group) or cytology only (control group). In the intervention group (n = 337), women with BMD were immediately referred for colposcopy only if the sample was hrHPV positive. Women with a hrHPV negative test were advised to repeat cytology at 6 and 18 months and were referred for colposcopy if and when the repeat test result was positive (BMD or worse). In the control group (n = 329), referral of women with BMD was delayed until cytology was repeatedly positive at 6 or 18 months. The CIN3 detection rates were 10.7% (36/337) in the intervention group and 6.4% (21/329) in the control group (p = 0.047). Moreover, hrHPV triaging resulted in shorter time to diagnosis (154 vs. 381 days). Although the number of colposcopy referrals was 51.5% higher in the intervention group than in the control group, the medical costs per detected CIN3 were slightly lower ([euro] 4781 vs. [euro] 6235). If, in addition, hrHPV negative women had been referred back to routine screening at baseline, the CIN3 rate would have been 10.1% (34/337) and colposcopy rate would only have been 30.4% higher than in the control group. This study shows that hrHPV triaging of women with BMD is at least as effective for detecting CIN3 as repeat cytology, also when hrHPV negative women are referred back to routine screening.     

Human papillomavirus type-specific 18-month risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with a normal or borderline/mildly dyskaryotic smear.

INTRODUCTION: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing is an increasingly used instrument in cervical cancer prevention along cervical cytology. The inclusion of hrHPV testing in cervical screening requires efficient management as many hrHPV infections are transient. We investigated the potential value of hrHPV genotyping in normal and borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) smears. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a screening population of 44,102 women in the Netherlands, we included hrHPV-positive women with a normal or BMD smear. We assessed the type-specific 18-month risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). RESULTS: In hrHPV-positive women, 18-month risk of CIN grade 3 or invasive cancer (> or =CIN3) was 6% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 4-9] after normal cytology and 20% (95% CI, 16-25) after BMD. If positive for HPV16, > or =CIN3 risks were 14% (95% CI, 9-21) and 37% (95% CI, 28-48), respectively. In the subset of hrHPV-positive women without HPV16, HPV18 was associated with an increased risk of high-grade CIN after normal cytology and HPV31 and HPV33 were associated with an increased risk, particularly after BMD. HPV16 and HPV18 were also associated with an increased risk of high-grade CIN in women with an hrHPV-positive normal baseline smear and a repeat normal smear at 6 months. DISCUSSION: HrHPV-positive women without type 16, 18, 31, or 33 had a relatively low risk of high-grade CIN. Among women with baseline normal cytology and among women with a baseline and repeat normal smear, HPV16/18-positive women showed an increased risk of high-grade CIN. This warrants more aggressive management of HPV16/18-positive women compared with other hrHPV-positive women.     

The current position and the future perspectives of cervical cancer screening

Cervical screening programs for detecting cancer and precancer have dramatically reduced the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer since the 1960s. The efficacy of the screening programs depends on participation and the accuracy of the screening tests. Unfortunately, the participation rates are suboptimal; more than half the women with cervical cancer have not or have only sporadically been screened. Increasing participation is the best way of maximizing the program’s benefit. Furthermore, cytology screening lacks high sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN2). High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening is more sensitive in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than cytology screening, but less specific, so that additional triage testing is still mandatory. The aim of this article is to reflect on the efficacy of current cervical cancer screening and on promising future screening strategies with primary hrHPV testing and additional triage strategies for hrHPV-positive screening results.     

Comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis,cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping for the detection of cervical (pre)cancer in high‐risk HPV‐positive women of a gynecologic outpatient population (COMETH study)

Recently, DNA methylation analysis of FAM19A4 in cervical scrapes has been shown to adequately detect high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥CIN3) in high‐risk HPV (hrHPV)‐positive women. Here, we compared the clinical performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis to cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping, separately and in combination, for ≥CIN3 detection in hrHPV‐positive women participating in a prospective observational multi‐center cohort study. The study population comprised hrHPV‐positive women aged 18–66 years, visiting a gynecological outpatient clinic. From these women, cervical scrapes and colposcopy‐directed biopsies (for histological confirmation) were obtained. Cervical scrapes were analyzed for FAM19A4 gene promoter methylation, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping. Methylation analysis was performed by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR (qMSP). Sensitivities and specificities for ≥CIN3 were compared between tests. Stratified analyses were performed for variables that potentially influence marker performance. Of all 508 hrHPV‐positive women, the sensitivities for ≥CIN3 of cytology, FAM19A4 methylation analysis, and cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping were 85.6, 75.6 and 92.2%, respectively, with corresponding specificities of 49.8, 71.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Both sensitivity and specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis were associated with age (p ≤ 0.001 each). In women ≥30 years (n = 287), ≥CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 88.3% (95%CI: 80.2–96.5) which was noninferior to that of cytology [85.5% (95%CI: 76.0–94.0)], at a significantly higher specificity [62.1% (95%CI: 55.8–68.4) compared to 47.6% (95%CI: 41.1–54.1)]. In conclusion, among hrHPV‐positive women from an outpatient population aged ≥30 years, methylation analysis of FAM19A4 is an attractive marker for the identification of women with ≥CIN3.     

Comparison of Hybrid capture 2 testing at different thresholds with cytology as primary cervical screening test

Background:

We evaluated the performance of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing by hybrid capture 2 (HC2) with different thresholds for positivity, in comparison with conventional cytology.

Methods:

We used data of 25 871 women (aged 30–60 years) from the intervention group of the VUSA-Screen study (VU University Medical Center and Saltro laboratory population-based cervical screening study), who were screened by cytology and hrHPV. Primary outcome measure was the number of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), detected within 3 years. We compared baseline cytology testing with three possible hrHPV screening strategies at different relative light unit/cutoff (RLU/CO) thresholds.

Results:

Compared with baseline cytology testing, hrHPV DNA testing as a sole primary screening instrument did not yield a superior sensitivity, as well as lower colposcopy referral rate and lower false positivity rate at any RLU/CO threshold. The hrHPV screening at 1 RLU/CO threshold with cytology triage at baseline and at 12 months revealed the highest sensitivity for CIN3+ (relative sensitivity of 1.32), although still displaying a lower colposcopy referral rate than cytology testing (relative colposcopy rate of 0.94). Higher thresholds (>1RLU/CO) yielded lower colposcopy rates, but resulted in substantial loss in sensitivity.

Conclusions:

The hrHPV testing at the commonly used threshold of 1 RLU/CO with cytology triage at baseline and at 12 months showed a much higher sensitivity with a lower colposcopy referral rate compared with cytology testing.     

Comparison of human papillomavirus genotyping and cytology triage,COMPACT Study: Design,methods and baseline results in 14 642 women

Although cytology‐based screening programs have significantly reduced mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer, the global consensus is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancer. However, the optimal triage strategy for HPV‐positive women to avoid over‐referral to colposcopy may be setting specific. As Japan requires data that have been generated domestically to modify screening guidelines, we conducted a 3‐year prospective study, COMparison of HPV genotyping And Cytology Triage (COMPACT), to evaluate the potential role of HPV16/18 partial genotyping and cytology for primary HPV screening. In total, 14 642 women aged 20 to 69 years undergoing routine screening at 3 centers in Hokkaido were enrolled. Conventional cytology and HPV testing were carried out. Women with abnormal cytology or HPV16/18 positivity underwent colposcopy. Those with 12 other high‐risk (hr) HPV types underwent repeat cytology after 6 months. Primary study endpoints were detection of high‐grade cervical disease defined as CIN2/CIN3 or greater as determined by consensus pathology. Prevalence of cytological abnormalities was 2.4%. hrHPV, HPV 16, and HPV 18 were detected in 4.6%, 0.9%, and 0.3% of women, respectively. HPV16/18 were detected in all (8/8) invasive cervical cancers and in all (2/2) adenocarcinomas in situ. Both cytological abnormalities and hrHPV positivity declined with increasing age. This is the first Japanese study to investigate the role of partial genotyping and cytology in an HPV‐based screening program. Results should help policy‐makers develop guidelines for future cervical screening programs and management of cervical abnormalities based on HPV genotype.     

High‐risk HPV testing on self‐sampled versus clinician‐collected specimens: A review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self‐sampling, i.e., offering self‐sampling of (cervico‐)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self‐sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician‐taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self‐sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self‐samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician‐obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self‐ and clinician‐sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non‐attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self‐sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re‐attracting original non‐attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self‐testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self‐sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology‐based call‐recall programs.