Absolute risks of cervical precancer among women who fulfill exiting guidelines based on HPV and cytology cotesting

US guidelines recommend that most women older than 65 years cease cervical screening after two consecutive negative cotests (concurrent HPV and cytology tests) in the previous 10 years, with one in the last 5 years. However, this recommendation was based on expert opinion and modeling rather than empirical data on cancer risk. We therefore estimated the 5-year risks of cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ [CIN3]) after one, two and three negative cotests among 346,760 women aged 55–64 years undergoing routine cotesting at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (2003–2015). Women with a history of excisional treatment or CIN2+ were excluded. No woman with one or more negative cotests was diagnosed with cancer during follow-up. Five-year risks of CIN3 after one, two, and three consecutive negative cotests were 0.034% (95% CI: 0.023%–0.046%), 0.041% (95% CI: 0.007%–0.076%) and 0.016% (95% CI: 0.000%–0.052%), respectively (p_trend < 0.001). These risks did not appreciably differ by a positive cotest result prior to the one, two or three negative cotest(s). Since CIN3 risks after one or more negative cotests were significantly below a proposed 0.12% CIN3+ risk threshold for a 5-year screening interval, a longer screening interval in these women is justified. However, the choice of how many negative cotests provide sufficient safety against invasive cancer over a woman's remaining life represents a value judgment based on the harms versus benefits of continued screening. Ideally, this guideline should be informed by longer-term follow-up given that exiting is a long-term decision.     

Evaluation of a validated methylation triage signature for human papillomavirus positive women in the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening requires triage of HPV positive women to identify those at risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse. We conducted a blinded case–control study within the HPV FOCAL randomized cervical cancer screening trial of women aged 25–65 to examine whether baseline methylation testing using the S5 classifier provided triage performance similar to an algorithm relying on cytology and HPV genotyping. Groups were randomly selected from women with known HPV/cytology results and pathology outcomes. Group 1: 104 HPV positive (HPV+), abnormal cytology (54 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 2: 103 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV persistence at 12 mo. (53 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 3: 50 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV clearance at 12 mo. (assumed <CIN2), total n=257. For the combined groups, S5 risk score CIN2/3 relative sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared with other triage approaches. Methylation showed a highly significant increasing trend with disease severity. For CIN3, S5 relative sensitivity and specificity were: 93.2% (95%CI: 81.4–98.0) and 41.8% (35.2–48.8), compared to 86.4% (75.0–95.7) and 49.8% (43.1–56.6) respectively for combined abnormal cytology/HPV16/18 positivity (differences not statistically significant at 5% level); adjusted PPVs were 18.2% (16.2–20.4) and 19.3% (16.6–22.2) respectively. S5 was also positive in baseline specimens from eight cancers detected during or after trial participation. The S5 methylation score had high sensitivity and PPV for CIN3, compatible with US and European thresholds for colposcopy referral. Methylation signatures can identify most HPV positive women at increased risk of cervical cancer from their baseline screening specimens.     

A study of the risks of CIN3+ detection after multiple rounds of HPV testing: Results of the 15-year cervical cancer screening experience at Kaiser Permanente Northern California

Many countries are transitioning to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening, despite a lack of long-term experience. To anticipate multi-round screening performance, we analyzed 15-year HPV testing results at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). We evaluated HPV test result patterns among women aged 30–64 undergoing triennial HPV/cytology cotesting at KPNC during 2003–2018. We calculated incidence rates and proportion of CIN3+ diagnoses associated with the most frequent HPV testing patterns overall and stratified by age. From 2003 to 2018, a total of 1,361,581 women had a valid HPV test result, and 7,087 were diagnosed with CIN3+. Incidence rates of CIN3+ after HPV positivity were lowest when HPV detection was new and highest in women with prevalent infections (770 vs. 13,910/100,000 person-years). Repeat test negativity reduced subsequent incidence rates of CIN3+ to extremely low levels (18/100,000 person-years following four consecutive negative results). For mixed patterns of positivity/negativity, the recency and frequency of positive tests were associated with increased rates of CIN3+ diagnosis. Most CIN3+ cases (76%) were diagnosed in women who were positive at baseline (the first known positive HPV result); 16% were attributed to apparent newly detected infections and 3% to possible reappearing infections. These results corroborate previous findings that current HPV positivity, particularly when prevalent rather than new, is associated with the highest rates of CIN3+. In a screening program implementing HPV testing, most CIN3+ is detected at the first HPV positive test.     

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.     

Risk assessment to guide cervical screening strategies in a large Chinese population

Three different cervical screening methods [cytology, human papillomavirus(HPV) testing and visual inspection with acetic acid(VIA)] are being considered in China for the national cervical screening program. Comparing risks of CIN3 and cervical cancer (CIN3+) for different results can inform test choice and management guidelines. We evaluated the immediate risk of CIN3+ for different screening results generated from individual and combined tests. We compared tests using a novel statistic designed for this purpose called Mean Risk Stratification (MRS), in a pooled analysis of 17 cross sectional population‐based studies of 30,371Chinese women screened with all 3 methods and diagnosed by colposcopically‐directed biopsies. The 3 tests combined powerfully distinguished CIN3+ risk; triple‐negative screening conferred a risk of 0.01%, while HPV‐positive HSIL+ that was VIA‐positive yielded a risk of 57.8%. Among the three screening tests, HPV status most strongly stratified CIN3+ risk. Among HPV‐positive women, cytology was the more useful second test. In HPV‐negative women, the immediate risks of CIN3+ ranged from 0.01% (negative cytology), 0.00% (ASC‐US), 1.1% (LSIL), to 6.6 (HSIL+). In HPV‐positive women, the CIN3+ risks were 0.9% (negative cytology), 3.6% (ASC‐US), 6.3% (LSIL) and 38.5% (HSIL+). VIA results did not meaningful stratify CIN3+ risk among HPV‐negative women with negative or ASC‐US cytology; however, positive VIA substantially elevated CIN3+ risk for all other, more positive combinations of HPV and cytology compared with a negative VIA. Because all 3 screening tests had independent value in defining risk of CIN3+, different combinations can be optimized as pragmatic strategies in different resource settings.     

The Impact of Triage for Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance with Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening in Japan

Background: One of the features of cervical cancer screening using the combination of cytology and humanpapillomavirus (HPV) testing is the triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). Theeffectiveness of the triage has been recognized widely. However, there are few reports evaluating this triage process inJapan. Material and Methods: We retrospectively examined the results of cytology and HPV co-testing for cervicalcancer screening in the Oyama area of Tochigi Prefecture between 2012 and 2014. Women who were ASC-US/HPVpositive and had cytologic abnormalities [low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) or worse] were examinedby colposcopy. The results of the colposcopy testing were evaluated. In addition, we also examined the results of thosewho underwent co-testing a year after a ASC-US/HPV-negative result. Results: A total of 21,342 women receivedtheir first screening test during the study period, with 542 (2.5%) found to have ASC-US. Of the ASC-US-positivewomen, 289 (53.3%) were also HPV positive. The prevalence of CIN+ (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or higher)in the ASC-US/HPV-positive group was 63.2%, with 81.8%, 16.4% and 4.8%. showing CIN 1, CIN 2 and CIN 3+,respectively. The prevalence of CIN+ in the LSIL group was 66.8%, with the majority having a low risk CIN 1 (76.6%)compared to CIN 2 (18.6%), and CIN 3+ (4.8%). No significant difference was observed between the LSIL and ASC-US/HPV-positive groups. The prevalence of women diagnosed with CIN in the ASC-US/HPV-negative group, followingco-testing a year after colposcopy was low (3%). Conclusions: The ASC-US/HPV-positive group was comparable tothe LSIL group in terms of prevalence of CIN+ lesions. Furthermore, low CIN prevalence after one year in the ASCUS/HPV-negative group provides confirmation that the screening interval could be extended. The application of HPVtriage (which is routine in other countries) to identify these groups would be of benefit in Japan.     

The influence of type‐specific human papillomavirus infections on the detection of cervical precancer and cancer: A population‐based study of opportunistic cervical screening in the United States

There are limited data on the prospective risks of detecting cervical precancer and cancer in United States (US) populations specifically where the delivery of opportunistic cervical screening takes place outside managed care and in the absence of organized national programs. Such data will inform the management of women with positive screening results before and after widespread human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and establishes a baseline preceding recent changes in US cervical cancer screening guidelines. Using data reported to the statewide passive surveillance systems of the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry, we measured the 3‐year HPV type‐specific cumulative incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) and grade 3 or more severe (CIN3+) detected during real‐world health care delivery across a diversity of organizations, payers, clinical settings, providers and patients. A stratified sample of 47,541 cervical cytology specimens from a screening population of 379,000 women underwent HPV genotyping. Three‐year risks for different combinations of cytologic interpretation and HPV risk group ranged from <1% (for several combinations) to approximately 70% for CIN2+ and 55% for CIN3+ in women with high‐grade (HSIL) cytology and HPV16 infection. A substantial proportion of CIN2+ (35.7%) and CIN3+ (30.9%) were diagnosed following negative cytology, of which 62.3 and 78.2%, respectively, were high‐risk HPV positive. HPV16 had the greatest 3‐year risks (10.9% for CIN2+,8.0% for CIN3+) followed by HPV33, HPV31, and HPV18. Positive results for high‐risk HPV, especially HPV16, the severity of cytologic interpretation, and age contribute independently to the risks of CIN2+ and CIN3+.     

HPV testing in primary screening of older women.

Certain types of the human papilloma virus (HPV) are well established as the primary cause of cervical cancer. Several studies have shown that HPV testing can improve the detection rate of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), but these have been carried out primarily in younger women. In this study we evaluated the role of HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology in women aged 35 or over. An additional aim was to evaluate commercially available kits for HPV testing. A total of 2988 eligible women aged 34 or more attending for a routine smear in 40 general practitioner practices received HPV testing in addition to routine cytology, after having given written informed consent. Samples were assayed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and two versions of the Hybrid Capture test for HPV, and women were invited for colposcopy if there was any cytological abnormality (including borderline smears) or the PCR test was positive. Any apparent abnormality was biopsied and loop-excision was performed as necessary. CIN was judged by histology; 42 women had high-grade CIN, of which six were cytology negative (86% sensitivity for borderline or worse) and three had a borderline smear (79% sensitivity for mild dyskaryosis or worse). The positive predictive value of a borderline smear was only 3.1%. Eleven high-grade lesions were negative by the PCR HPV test (sensitivity 74%). The first generation Hybrid Capture II test had a similar sensitivity but an unacceptably high false positive rate (18.3%), while the newer Hybrid Capture II microtitre kit had a 95% sensitivity and a 2.3% positivity rate in normal women when used at a 2 pg ml(-1) cut-off (positive predictive value 27%). Cytology performed very well in this older cohort of women. The newer Hybrid Capture II microtitre test may be a useful adjunct, especially if the results reported here are reproducible in other studies. A combined screening test offers the possibility of greater protection and/or longer screening intervals, which could reduce the overall cost of the screening programme.     

Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening

Several studies suggest that HPV testing is more sensitive than cytology in primary cervical screening. These studies had different designs and were reported in different ways. Individual patient data were collected for all European and North American studies in which cytology was routinely performed and HPV testing was included as an additional parallel test. More than 60,000 women were included. The sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing were compared with routine cytology, both overall and for ages <35, 35-49 and 50+. The age-specific prevalence of high risk HPV (hr-HPV) was also analysed. HPV testing was substantially more sensitive in detecting CIN2+ than cytology (96.1% vs. 53.0%) but less specific (90.7% vs. 96.3%). The sensitivity of HPV testing was similar in all studies carried out in different areas of Europe and North America, whereas the sensitivity of cytology was highly variable. HPV sensitivity was uniformly high at all ages, whereas the sensitivity of cytology was substantially better in women over the age of 50 than in younger women (79.3% vs. 59.6%). The specificity of both tests increased with age. Positivity rates for HPV testing in women without high-grade CIN were region dependent. These results support the use of HPV testing as the sole primary screening test, with cytology reserved for women who test HPV positive. Large demonstration projects are needed to fully evaluate this strategy.     

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.     

Cervical cancer incidence after screening with HPV,cytology, and visual methods: 18‐Year follow‐up of the Guanacaste cohort

Testing negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) predicts long‐term reassurance against invasive cervical cancer (ICC). To provide realistic estimates of effectiveness for new screening programs, we studied ICC risk after a 7‐year repeated multimethod screening effort. In 1993–1994, 10,049 women aged 18–97 years were enrolled into a population‐based cohort study of cervical HPV in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Women were screened at different intervals according to enrollment results. Each visit (mean 3.2, 90% attendance) included split‐sample conventional, automated, and liquid‐based cytology, visual inspection, cervicography, and PCR‐based HPV testing. Abnormal screening led to colposcopy and excisional treatment as appropriate during the study. Referral to colposcopy for HPV in the absence of other findings was introduced only at the last visit. Population‐based Costa Rica Cancer Registry linkage identified cohort women diagnosed with ICC in the 18 years following cohort enrollment. The ICC cumulative risk was 0.4% (n = 38); 18 were diagnosed with ICC after study participation. Of these, 9 were missed at the screening step (negative screening or below the referral threshold, refused screening or colposcopy), 5 attended colposcopy but were not diagnosed as CIN2+, and 4 were treated for CIN2/3 but progressed to ICC nonetheless. Decreasing age‐standardized ICC rates for the 1993–2011 period were observed in Guanacaste; cohort women showed additional 31% ICC incidence reduction with apparent downstaging of cancers that occurred. ICC risk following negative HPV testing in the optimal age range 30–50 years was extremely low. Real‐life screening effectiveness following introduction is lower than the potential near‐complete efficacy predicted by HPV natural history.     

Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample

High‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA tests have excellent sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or higher (CIN2+). A drawback of hrHPV screening, however, is modest specificity. Therefore, hrHPV‐positive women might need triage to reduce adverse events and costs associated with unnecessary colposcopy. We compared the performance of HPV16/18 genotyping with a predefined DNA methylation triage test (S5) based on target regions of the human gene EPB41L3, and viral late gene regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31 and HPV33. Assays were run using exfoliated cervical specimens from 710 women attending routine screening, of whom 38 were diagnosed with CIN2+ within a year after triage to colposcopy based on cytology and 341 were hrHPV positive. Sensitivity and specificity of the investigated triage methods were compared by McNemar's test. At the predefined cutoff, S5 showed better sensitivity than HPV16/18 genotyping (74% vs 54%, P = 0.04) in identifying CIN2+ in hrHPV‐positive women, and similar specificity (65% vs 71%, P = 0.07). When the S5 cutoff was altered to allow equal sensitivity to that of genotyping, a significantly higher specificity of 91% was reached (P < 0.0001). Thus, a DNA methylation test for the triage of hrHPV‐positive women on original screening specimens might be a valid approach with better performance than genotyping.     

Human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: End‐of‐study and extended follow‐up results from the Canadian cervical cancer screening trial

The Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial was a randomized controlled trial comparing the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and Papanicolaou cytology to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grades 2 or worse (CIN2+) among women aged 30–69 years attending routine cervical cancer screening in Montreal and St. John's, Canada (n = 10,154). We examined screening and prognostic values of enrollment cytologic and HPV testing results. Extended follow‐up data were available for St. John's participants (n = 5,754; 501,682.6 person‐months). HPV testing detected more CIN2+ than cytology during protocol‐defined (82.9 vs. 44.4%) and extended (54.2 vs. 19.3%) follow‐up periods, respectively. Three‐year risks ranged from 0.87% (95% CI: 0.37–2.05) for HPV‐/Pap‐ women to 35.77% (95% CI: 25.88–48.04) for HPV+/Pap+ women. Genotype‐specific risks ranged from 0.90% (95% CI: 0.40–2.01) to 43.84% (95% CI: 32.42–57.24) among HPV? and HPV16+ women, respectively, exceeding those associated with Pap+ or HPV+ results taken individually or jointly. Ten‐year risks ranged from 1.15% (95% CI: 0.60–2.19) for HPV?/Pap? women to 26.05% (95% CI: 15.34–42.13) for HPV+/Pap+ women and genotype‐specific risks ranged from 1.13% (95% CI: 0.59–2.14) to 32.78% (95% CI: 21.15–48.51) among women testing HPV? and HPV16+, respectively. Abnormal cytology stratified risks most meaningfully for HPV+ women. Primary HPV testing every 3 years provided a similar or greater level of reassurance against disease risks as currently recommended screening strategies. HPV‐based cervical screening may allow for greater disease detection than cytology‐based screening and permit safe extensions of screening intervals; genotype‐specific testing could provide further improvement in the positive predictive value of such screening.     

Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients

In a prospective cohort study 8466 women attending routine cervical cancer screening were recruited. Colposcopy was performed on women with any degree of atypia on cytology and/or a positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA test (HC2; Hybrid Capture 2((c))), and for a randomly selected sample of 3.4% women with negative findings on both. Quality control included reviews of cytology, histology, colposcopy images and retesting of samples with polymerase chain reaction. Test diagnostic performances were based on 7908 women who had complete baseline and follow-up results. Routine histology identified 86 women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+), which was confirmed by review histology in only 46 cases. Sensitivity of routine cytology for the detection of CIN2+ was 43.5%, with a specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.0, 11.4 and 99.7%, respectively. Sensitivity of the HC2 test for the detection of CIN2+ was 97.8%, with a specificity, PPV and NPV, of 95.3, 10.9 and 100%, respectively. No high-grade neoplasia was detected in the randomly selected control group. A negative HPV-test result, even in combination with a positive Papanicolaou (Pap) result, virtually excluded any risk of underlying high-grade disease, but this was not the case for a negative Pap result. These data show that HPV testing is of value for the detection or exclusion of prevalent CIN in a routine cervical cancer-screening setting and could be used for further risk classification of women for follow-up management.     

Primary cervical cancer screening by self-sampling of human papillomavirus DNA in internal medicine outpatient clinics.

BACKGROUND: We determined whether testing of self-collected vaginal swabs for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA can be used to screen for cervical disease within internal medicine outpatient clinics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 560 patients visiting two referral outpatient clinics for internal medicine were asked to take an HPV self-sample. Acceptability of self sampling, HPV prevalence and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) detection rate were evaluated. RESULTS: 435 women (78%) performed HPV self-sampling; 1.5% considered self-sampling to be difficult. 134 women (31%) tested positive for high-risk type of HPV. There were significant differences between HPV-positive and -negative women with respect to the following: mean age (42 versus 46 years), number of women aged <16 years at first coitus (35% versus 23%) and history of drug abuse (8.3% versus 2.6%). Colposcopy could be performed for 70 HPV positive women: CIN 1-3 was identified in 24%. Two of 52 women with HPV-negative results undergoing colposcopy had biopsy-confirmed CIN 1. Test performance for detection of CIN 2-3 after correction for verification bias: sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 71%; negative predictive value, 100%; positive predictive value, 10%. HPV persistence was associated with a 5.7-fold risk of CIN 2-3 detection at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Self-assessment for HPV DNA is an easy, feasible and well-accepted method for HPV testing and for cervical cancer screening in internal medicine outpatient clinics.     

Cumulative 5-year diagnoses of CIN2, CIN3 or cervical cancer after concurrent high-risk HPV and cytology testing in a primary screening setting

The aim of our study was to assess the cumulative 5-year diagnoses of CIN2, CIN3 or invasive cervical cancer (CIN2+) after concurrent screening by high-risk HPV test and Pap smear in a primary screening setting. Four thousand thirty-four women from Eastern Thuringia/Germany were recruited from 1996 to 1998 for baseline screening that included routine cytology, high-risk HPV testing by consensus primer PCR GP5+/6+ and routine colposcopy. After a median of 59 months 3,153 women participated in final screening using identical methods. Women with abnormal cytology or colposcopy or a positive high-risk HPV test at any time during the study period were recalled for expert colposcopy and histologic verification. CIN2+ was detected in 160 women resulting in a cumulative 5-year proportion of 4.4% (95% CI: 3.7-5.0%). Of 3,702 women who were high-risk HPV negative at baseline, 34 (1.1-95% CI: 0.7-1.4%) had either prevalent CIN2+ or developed CIN2+ within the observation period. HPV/cytology double negatives at baseline were at lowest risk for CIN2+ (1.0-95% CI: 0.7-1.4%) compared to screening positives (16.8-100% depending on combined test results). The 5-year negative predictive value in HPV-/Cyto- women was 99.0% (95% CI: 98.6-99.3%). This suggests that a prolongation of the screening intervals in this group is feasible. However, it should be noted that 1 woman developed a microinvasive carcinoma within the observation period. Moreover, 2 women with prevalent cancer were missed by both tests. The prognostic relevance of concurrent high-risk HPV/cytology screening needs to be verified further by randomized trials.     

中国子宫颈癌机会性筛查多中心临床研究

目的调查我国目前省市级各类大医院开展子宫颈癌机会性筛查的基本现状,为我国探索城市地区子宫颈癌的防治策略提供依据。方法按照时间（2005～2007年）和医院类型（综合医院、肿瘤医院和妇幼保健院）分层分析全国不同地区14家医院子宫颈病变的筛查、诊断和治疗情况。结果在目前常用的筛查方法中,巴氏涂片所占比例为65．28％、液基细胞学检查占21．14％、HPV检测占6．84％、液基细胞学＋HPV检测占1．39％、巴氏涂片＋HPV检测占2．55％、肉眼检查占2．80％。但在2005—2007年期间,可以看出巴氏涂片所占比例均逐年降低（76．34％,68．98％,55．56％,X^2=29517．43,P〈0．0001）,而液基细胞学呈逐年增加的趋势（8．23％,15．16％,32．72％,X^2=64438．34,P〈0．0001）。妇幼保健院采用巴氏涂片的比例（68．98％）要高于综合医院（54．49％）和肿瘤医院（41．13％）。液基细胞学在综合医院、肿瘤医院和妇幼保健院所占的比例分别为41．77％、12．86％和15．16％。在诊断的子宫颈病变中,浸润癌、原位癌／CIN3、CIN2和CIN1的比例分别为28．14％、22．02％、21．95％和27．89％。浸润癌在肿瘤医院所占比例（59．59％）最高,癌前病变（CIN3、CIN2、CIN1）在综合医院和妇幼保健院所占比例较高。治疗方式中LEEP所占比例（37．60％）最高,其在综合医院比例最高（56．19％）,其次是妇幼保健院（36．96％）,放化疗方式主要见于肿瘤医院（38．86％）。结论在我国城市的各类大医院中主要以细胞学为子宫颈病变的检测手段,液基细胞学正逐渐被广泛使用,作为一种新技术,HPV检测仍是我国城市妇女筛查的辅助手段。加强宣传、提高医院子宫颈癌机会性筛查的覆盖率、规范宫颈病变的早诊早治技术,是推动城市子宫颈癌防治的有效途径。     

Long-term follow-up of cervical abnormalities among women screened by HPV testing and cytology-Results from the Hammersmith study

Several studies have shown that HPV testing is substantially more sensitive than cytology for primary cervical screening. However, less data exist concerning the duration of protection afforded by a negative HPV test compared to a normal cytological outcome. Here we report the long-term findings from the Hammersmith study in women aged 35 or more. HPV testing by Hybrid Capture II was performed on all available samples from the baseline screening visit. Passive surveillance of subsequent cytology screening results for the 2,982 women in the study was undertaken using a national registry. Histological outcomes were sought for all women with abnormal smears. The primary outcome was duration of protection against histologically confirmed CIN2+ afforded by a negative HPV test compared to normal cytology. 2,516 women had at least one further smear at least 1 year after entry and 20 new cases of CIN2+ were identified during a median follow-up of 6.4 years. Including disease identified at baseline, the risk of developing CIN2+ at 1, 5 and 9 years after a normal cytology was 0.33%, 0.83% and 2.20% respectively whereas it was 0.19%, 0.42% and 1.88% after a negative HPV test. HPV testing offered excellent protection from CIN2+ for at least 6 years after a negative test, whereas the protection from cytology began to wane after about 3 years. Substantially more CIN2+ lesions were found in the follow-up period in those initially HPV positive compared to those HPV negative (HR = 6.52, p = 0.001), whereas there was little difference according to initial cytology (HR = 1.64, p = 0.51).     

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.     

A cohort study of cervical screening using partial HPV typing and cytology triage

HPV testing is more sensitive than cytology for cervical screening. However, to incorporate HPV tests into screening, risk‐stratification (“triage”) of HPV‐positive women is needed to avoid excessive colposcopy and overtreatment. We prospectively evaluated combinations of partial HPV typing (Onclarity, BD) and cytology triage, and explored whether management could be simplified, based on grouping combinations yielding similar 3‐year or 18‐month CIN3+ risks. We typed ～9,000 archived specimens, taken at enrollment (2007–2011) into the NCI‐Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) HPV Persistence and Progression (PaP) cohort. Stratified sampling, with reweighting in the statistical analysis, permitted risk estimation of HPV/cytology combinations for the 700,000+‐woman KPNC screening population. Based on 3‐year CIN3+ risks, Onclarity results could be combined into five groups (HPV16, else HPV18/45, else HPV31/33/58/52, else HPV51/35/39/68/56/66/68, else HPV negative); cytology results fell into three risk groups (“high‐grade,” ASC‐US/LSIL, NILM). For the resultant 15 HPV group‐cytology combinations, 3‐year CIN3+ risks ranged 1,000‐fold from 60.6% to 0.06%. To guide management, we compared the risks to established “benchmark” risk/management thresholds in this same population (e.g., LSIL predicted 3‐year CIN3+ risk of 5.8% in the screening population, providing the benchmark for colposcopic referral). By benchmarking to 3‐year risk thresholds (supplemented by 18‐month estimates), the widely varying risk strata could be condensed into four action bands (very high risk of CIN3+ mandating consideration of cone biopsy if colposcopy did not find precancer; moderate risk justifying colposcopy; low risk managed by intensified follow‐up to permit HPV “clearance”; and very low risk permitting routine screening.) Overall, the results support primary HPV testing, with management of HPV‐positive women using partial HPV typing and cytology.