Long‐term HPV type‐specific risks of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial lesions: A 14‐year follow‐up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial

Quantitative knowledge of the long‐term human papillomavirus (HPV) type‐specific risks for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias Grades 2 and 3 (CIN2 and CIN3) is useful for estimating the effect of elimination of specific HPV types and clinical benefits of screening for specific HPV types. We estimated HPV type‐specific risks for CIN2 and CIN3 using a randomized primary HPV screening trial followed up for 14.6 years using comprehensive, nationwide registers. Poisson regression estimated cumulative incidences, population attributable proportions (PAR) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of high‐grade lesions by baseline HPV type, with censoring at date of first CIN2/3 or last registered cytology. Multivariate analysis adjusted for coinfections. IRRs were highest during the first screening round, but continued to be high throughout follow‐up (IRRs for CIN3 associated with high‐risk (HR) HPV positivity were 226.9, 49.3, 17.7 and 10.3 during the first, second and third screening round and for >9 years of follow‐up, respectively). Increased long‐term risks were found particularly for HPV Types 16, 18 and 31 and for CIN3+ risks. HPV16/18/31/33 had 14‐year cumulative incidences for CIN3+ above 28%, HPV35/45/52/58 had 14 year risks between 14% and 18% and HPV39/51/56/59/66/68 had risks <10%. HPV16 contributed to the greatest proportion of CIN2+ (first round PAR 36%), followed by Types 31, 52, 45 and 58 (7–11%). HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 together contributed 73.9% of CIN2+ lesions and all HR types contributed 86.9%. In summary, we found substantial differences in risks for CIN2 and CIN3 between different oncogenic HPV types. These differences may be relevant for both clinical management and design of preventive strategies.     

Long‐term HPV type‐specific risks for ASCUS and LSIL: A 14‐year follow‐up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections result in a significant burden of low‐grade cervical lesions. Between 1997 and 2000, our randomized trial of primary HPV screening enrolled 12,527 women participating in population‐based screening. Women between 32 and 38 years of age (median: 34, interquartile range: 33–37) were randomized to HPV and cytology double testing (intervention arm, n = 6,257 enrolled, n = 5,888 followed‐up) or to cytology, with samples frozen for future HPV testing (control arm, n = 6,270 enrolled, n = 5,795 followed‐up). We estimated the HPV type‐specific, long‐term absolute risks (AR), and population attributable proportions (PAR) for cytological diagnoses of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) and for histopathologically diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1). The women were followed using comprehensive, nationwide register‐based follow‐up. During a mean follow‐up time of 11.07 years, 886 ASCUS and LSIL lesions were detected, 448 in the intervention arm and 438 in the control arm. Poisson regression estimated the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of low‐grade lesions by HPV type. The IRRs were strongly dependent on follow‐up time. The IRRs for ASCUS/LSIL associated with high‐risk HPV positivity were 18.6 (95% CI: 14.9–23.4) during the first screening round, 4.1 (95% CI: 2.8–6.2) during the second, 2.6 (95% CI: 1.7–4.1) during the third, and 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7–1.8) for >9 years of follow‐up, with similar declines seen for the individual types. Type 16 contributed consistently to the greatest proportion of ASCUS, LSIL, and CIN1 risk in the population (first screening round PAR: ASCUS: 15.5% (95% CI: 9.7–21.9), LSIL: 14.7% (95% CI: 8.0–20.9), and CIN1: 13.4% (95% CI: 3.2–22.5)), followed by type 31 [8.4% (95% CI: 4.2–12.5) for ASCUS to 17.3% (95% CI: 6.8–26.6) for CIN1]. In summary, most ASCUS/LSIL lesions associated with HPV infection are caused by new HPV infections and most lesions are found during the first screening round.     

Evaluating HPV‐negative CIN2+ in the ATHENA trial

A post hoc analysis of the ATHENA study was performed to determine whether true HPV‐negative cervical lesions occur and whether they have clinical relevance. The ATHENA database was searched for all CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) cases with cobas HPV‐negative results and comparison was made with Linear Array (LA) and Amplicor to detect true false‐negative HPV results. Immunostaining with p16 was performed on these cases to identify false‐positive histology results. H&E slides were re‐reviewed by the study pathologists with knowledge of patient age, HPV test results and p16 immunostaining. Those with positive p16 immunostaining and/or a positive histopathology review underwent whole tissue section HPV PCR by the SPF10/LiPA/RHA system. Among 46,887 eligible women, 497 cases of CIN2+ were detected, 55 of which tested negative by the cobas^® HPV Test (32 CIN2, 23 CIN3/ACIS). By LA and/or Amplicor, 32 CIN2+ (20 CIN2, 12 CIN3/ACIS) were HPV positive and categorized as false‐negatives by cobas HPV; nine of 12 false‐negative CIN3/ACIS cases were p16+. There were 23 cases (12 CIN2, 11 CIN3/ACIS) negative by all HPV tests; seven of 11 CIN3/ACIS cases were p16+. H&E slides were available for six cases for re‐review and all were confirmed as CIN3/ACIS. Tissue PCR was performed on the six confirmed CIN3/ACIS cases (and one without confirmation): four were positive for HPV types not considered oncogenic, two were positive for oncogenic genotypes and one was indeterminate. In summary, subanalysis of a large cervical cancer screening study did not identify any true CIN3/ACIS not attributable to HPV.     

Stratifying HPV‐positive women for CIN3+ risk after one and two rounds of HPV‐based screening

A main challenge of human papilloma (HPV)‐based screening for cervical cancer is to adequately identify HPV‐positive women at highest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, CIN3+. The prognostic value of currently used adjunct markers (HPV16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology) may change after multiple rounds of HPV‐based screening because of a change in the proportion of HPV‐positive women with incident infections. To this end, we re‐analyzed results from the POBASCAM trial (Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam). Women were randomized to HPV/cytology cotesting (intervention group) or to cytology‐only (HPV blinded; control group) at enrolment. Our analytical population consisted of women with an HPV‐positive result at the second round, 5 years after enrolment (n = 381 intervention, n = 392 control). Nine‐year CIN3+ risks were estimated by Kaplan–Meier. HPV‐positive women were stratified by risk markers: HPV16/18 genotyping, reflex cytology and preceding HPV results. When comparing one to two rounds of HPV‐based screening, the prognostic value of an abnormal cytology result did not change (40.0% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.5617), but diminished for an HPV16/18 positive result (25.4% vs. 38.0%, p = 0.0132). HPV16/18 genotyping was nondiscriminative in women with incident HPV infections (HPV16/18 positive 10.0% vs. negative 12.1%, p = 0.3193). Women from the intervention group were more likely to have incident infections compared to women from the control group (incident screen‐positive results 75.6% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.001) Our results indicate that at a second round of HPV‐based screening, risk differentiation by cytology remained strong, but was diminished for HPV 16/18 genotyping because of a larger proportion of incident infections.     

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.     

Proof‐of‐principle study of a novel cervical screening and triage strategy: Computer‐analyzed cytology to decide which HPV‐positive women are likely to have ≥CIN2

A challenge in implementation of sensitive HPV‐based screening is limiting unnecessary referrals to colposcopic biopsy. We combined two commonly recommended triage methods: partial HPV typing and “reflex” cytology, evaluating the possibility of automated cytology. This investigation was based on 1,178 exfoliated cervical specimens collected during the enrollment phase of The Study to Understand Cervical Cancer Early Endpoints and Determinants (SUCCEED, Oklahoma City, OK). We chose a colposcopy clinic population to maximize number of outcomes, for this proof‐of‐principle cross‐sectional study. Residual aliquots of PreservCyt were HPV‐typed using Linear Array (LA, Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA). High‐risk HPV typing data and cytologic results (conventional and automated) were used jointly to predict risk of histologically defined ≥CIN2. We developed a novel computer algorithm that uses the same optical scanning features that are generated by the FocalPoint Slide Profiler (BD, Burlington, NC). We used the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) method to build the prediction model based on a training dataset (n = 600). In the validation set (n = 578), for triage of all HPV‐positive women, a cytologic threshold of ≥ASC‐US had a sensitivity of 0.94, and specificity of 0.30, in this colposcopy clinic setting. When we chose a threshold for the severity score (generated by the computer algorithm) that had an equal specificity of 0.30, the sensitivity was 0.91. Automated cytology also matched ≥ASC‐US when partial HPV typing was added to the triage strategy, and when we re‐defined cases as ≥CIN3. If this strategy works in a prospective screening setting, a totally automated screening and triage technology might be possible.     

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.     

FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation in invasive cervical cancer: A retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study

Widespread adoption of primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening has encouraged the search for a triage test which retains high sensitivity for the detection of cervical cancer and precancer, but increases specificity to avoid overtreatment. Methylation analysis of FAM19A4 and miR124-2 genes has shown promise for the triage of high-risk (hr) HPV-positive women. In our study, we assessed the consistency of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in the detection of cervical cancer in a series of 519 invasive cervical carcinomas (n = 314 cervical scrapes, n = 205 tissue specimens) from over 25 countries, using a quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP)-based assay (QIAsure Methylation Test®). Positivity rates stratified per histotype, FIGO stage, hrHPV status, hrHPV genotype, sample type and geographical region were calculated. In total, 510 of the 519 cervical carcinomas (98.3%; 95% CI: 96.7–99.2) tested FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation-positive. Test positivity was consistent across the different subgroups based on cervical cancer histotype, FIGO stage, hrHPV status, hrHPV genotype, sample type and geographical region. In conclusion, FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis detects nearly all cervical carcinomas, including rare histotypes and hrHPV-negative carcinomas. These results indicate that a negative FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation assay result is likely to rule out the presence of cervical cancer.     

HPV16 L1 and L2 DNA methylation predicts high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with mildly abnormal cervical cytology

DNA methylation changes in human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) DNA are common and might be important for identifying women at increased risk of cervical cancer. Using recently published data from Costa Rica we developed a classification score to differentiate women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2/3) from those with no evident high‐grade lesions. Here, we aim to investigate the performance of the score using data from the UK. Exfoliated cervical cells at baseline and 6‐months follow‐up were analyzed in 84 women selected from a randomized clinical trial of women undergoing surveillance for low‐grade cytology. Selection of women for the methylation study was based on detectable HPV16 in the baseline sample. Purified DNA was bisulfite converted, amplified and pyrosequenced at selected CpG sites in the viral genome (URR, E6, L1 and L2), with blinding of laboratory personnel to the clinical data. The primary measure was a predefined score combining the mean methylation in L1 and any methylation in L2. At the second follow‐up visit, 73/84 (87%) women were HPV16 positive and of these 25 had a histopathological diagnosis of CIN2/3. The score was significantly associated with CIN2/3 (area under curve = 0.74, p = 0.002). For a cutoff with 92% sensitivity, colposcopy could have been avoided in 40% (95% CI 27–54%) of HPV16 positive women without CIN2/3; positive predictive value was 44% (32–58%) and negative predictive value was 90% (71–97%). We conclude that quantitative DNA methylation assays could help to improve triage among HPV16 positive women.     

Methylation marker analysis of self‐sampled cervico‐vaginal lavage specimens to triage high‐risk HPV‐positive women for colposcopy

Methylation markers were studied for their suitability to triage human papillomavirus (HPV)‐positive women by testing self‐collected cervico‐vaginal lavage specimens. For this purpose, we analyzed 355 hrHPV‐positive self‐collected specimens with three methylation markers, that is, CADM1‐m18, MAL‐m1 and miR‐124‐2 by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR. The areas under the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curve for end‐point cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) were 0.637 for CADM1‐m18, 0.767 for MAL‐m1 and 0.762 for miR‐124‐2. This indicates that CADM1‐m18 is not suitable as single marker. By varying the thresholds of both markers in the bi‐marker panels CADM1‐m18/MAL‐m1, CADM1‐m18/miR‐124‐2 and MAL‐m1/miR‐124‐2 upper and lower ROC curves were obtained, depicting the maximum and minimum CIN3+ sensitivity, respectively, at given specificity. For all these bi‐marker combinations, the upper curves were similar. However, for the MAL‐m1/miR‐124‐2 panel, the distance between upper and lower ROC curves was closest and this panel displayed the highest assay thresholds, indicating that this combination was most robust. At clinical specificities of 50 and 70%, the MAL‐m1/miR‐124‐2 sensitivity for detection of CIN3+ ranged from 77.0 to 87.8% and from 64.9 to 71.6%, respectively. At 70% specificity thresholds no carcinomas were missed. By comparison, the CIN3+ sensitivity of HPV16/18 genotyping on the self‐sampled lavage specimens was 58.1% (95%CI: 46.6–68.8) at a specificity of 87.7% (95%CI: 83.2–91.2). In conclusion, methylation analysis is a promising triage tool that in combination with HPV‐DNA testing offers feasible, full molecular screening on self‐collected cervico‐vaginal lavage specimens.     

Clinical evaluation of human papillomavirus 16/18 oncoprotein test for cervical cancer screening and HPV positive women triage

The prognostic role of tumor‐infiltrating tryptase⁺ mast cells in human solid tumors remains controversial. Herein, we conducted a meta‐analysis including 28 published studies with 4224 patients identified from PubMed and EBSCO to assess the prognostic impact of tumor‐infiltrating tryptase⁺ mast cells in human solid tumors. We found that tryptase⁺ mast cell infiltration significantly decreased overall survival (OS) and disease‐free survival (DFS) in all types of solid tumors. In stratified analyses, tryptase⁺ mast cell infiltration was significantly associated with worse OS in non‐small cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma and 5‐year survival in colorectal cancer. And these cells were inversely associated with DFS in hepatocellular and colorectal cancer. In addition, high density of intratumoral tryptase⁺ mast cells significantly correlated with lymph node metastasis of solid tumor. In conclusion, Tryptase⁺ mast cell infiltration leads to an unfavorable clinical outcome in solid tumors, implicating that it is a valuable biomarker for prognostic prediction for human solid malignances and targeting it may have a potential for effective treatment.     

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.     

Evaluation of cytology and visual triage of human papillomavirus‐positive women in cervical cancer prevention in India

Although virtually all cervical cancers and most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are caused by persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, only a small proportion of HPV‐positive women have or will develop CIN. Triaging HPV‐positive women has been suggested to reduce the false‐positive rate and proportion of women referred for CIN confirmation and/or treatment. In two cross‐sectional studies and one randomized trial in India, we evaluated the impact of using cytology or visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) to triage HPV‐positive women on the proportion of women who would be referred for CIN confirmation and on the detection rates of high‐grade CIN. We present the numbers of HPV test‐positive women found and the CIN detected among them. We further assess the proportions that would be referred for CIN confirmation with colposcopy/biopsy and CIN that would be detected if cytology triage or VIA triage were used. Using cytology triage at atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance threshold or VIA triage reduced referrals for colposcopy by about 62% and 59%, respectively (p‐value = 0.012), but missed around 16% and 18%, respectively, of the high‐grade CIN (p‐value = 0.539) indicating similar performance of both triaging approaches. The choice of a triage test in different low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMIC) would depend on the availability and affordability in the particular setting. Cytology triage may be considered in settings where adequate infrastructure exists, whereas VIA triage may be suitable in settings with limited or no cytology infrastructure.     

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.     

DNA methylation markers as a triage test for identification of cervical lesions in a high risk human papillomavirus positive screening cohort

Objective triage strategies are required to prevent unnecessary referrals for colposcopy in population-based screening programs using primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing. We have identified several DNA methylation markers with high sensitivity and specificity for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+) in women referred for colposcopy. Our study assessed diagnostic potential of these methylation markers in a hrHPV-positive screening cohort. All six markers (JAM3, EPB41L3, C13orf18, ANKRD18CP, ZSCAN1 and SOX1) showed similar association across histology in the hrHPV-positive cohort when compared to the Dutch cohort (each p > 0.15). Sensitivity for CIN2+ was higher using methylation panel C13orf18/EPB41L3/JAM3 compared to the other 2 panels (80% vs. 60% (ANKRD18CP/C13orf18/JAM3) and 63% (SOX1/ZSCAN1), p = 0.01). For CIN3+ all three methylation panels showed comparable sensitivity ranging from 68% (13/19) to 95% (18/19). Specificity of SOX1/ZSCAN1 panel (84%, 167/200) was considerably higher compared to ANKRD18CP/C13orf18/JAM3 (68%, 136/200, p = 2 × 10⁻⁵) and C13orf18/EPB41L3/JAM3 (66%, 132/200, p = 2 × 10⁻⁷). High negative predictive value (NPV) (91–95% and 96–99%) was observed for CIN2+ and CIN3+, for all three methylation panels, while positive predictive value (PPV) varied from 25 to 40% for CIN2+ and 15–27% for CIN3+. Interestingly, 118/235 samples were negative for all six markers (including 106 controls (89.8%), 6 CIN1 (5.1%), 5 CIN2 (4.2%) and 1 CIN3 (0.8%)). Methylation results from both independent cohorts were comparable as well as high sensitivity for detection of cervical cancer and its high-grade precursors in hrHPV-positive population. Our study therefore validates these methylation marker panels as triage test either in hrHPV-based or abnormal cytology-based screening programs.     

Correlation between hybrid capture II high‐risk human papillomavirus DNA test chemiluminescence intensity from cervical samples with follow‐up histologic results

BACKGROUND:

The Hybrid Capture II high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA test is a US Food and Drug Administration‐approved nucleic acid hybridization assay using chemiluminescence for the semiquantitative detection of hrHPV in cervical samples. Patient samples and controls are used to calculate results as negative for hrHPV if <1.0, positive for hrHPV if >2.5, and “equivocal” if between 1.0 and 2.5.

METHODS:

The authors reported on the cervical histologic results of 209 patients demonstrating “equivocal” results for hrHPV from SurePath (204 patients) or ThinPrep (5 patients) vials, and compared patients in this cohort with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US) cytology on the index cervical Papanicolaou (Pap) test (Group 1; n = 148 patients) with a patient cohort demonstrating unequivocal positive hrHPV test results (Group 2; n = 148 patients). The chemiluminescence intensity of hrHPV tests from patients in Group 2 were correlated with the presence and severity of dysplasia on subsequent histologic results, and patients were thereby stratified for their subsequent risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) types II/III.

RESULTS:

Approximately 97% of hrHPV tests demonstrating “equivocal” results were found to be positive at the time of retesting, and 15% of biopsied cases demonstrated CIN II or III. Results of follow‐up histology after an ASC‐US diagnosis, expressed as a percentage of the biopsied cohort, were: CIN II/III: 16.5% in Group 1 and 22.4% in Group 2; CIN I: 27% in Group 1 and 23.5% in Group 2; and negative: 56.5% in Group 1 and 54.1% in Group 2. Chemiluminescence intensity did not appear to be correlated with the severity of dysplasia.

CONCLUSIONS:

The percentage of high‐grade CIN in the “equivocal” hrHPV cohort is highly significant and therefore the management of these patients should be similar to the unequivocally positive population. After an unequivocal positive hrHPV test, the hrHPV chemiluminescence intensity does not appear to further predict the rate of high‐grade CIN. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

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.     

Prognostic value of p16‐INK4A protein in women with negative or CIN1 histology result: A follow‐up study

P16‐INK4A overexpression has been proposed as a prognostic marker to manage the follow up of women with positive cytology and/or HPV test but without high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). This study measures the relative risk (RR) of CIN2+ of p16 positive versus negative in these women. All the women referred to colposcopy from October 2008 to September 2010 with negative or CIN1 colposcopy‐guided biopsy were included in the study; women surgically treated or having a CIN2–3 were excluded. All baseline biopsies were dyed with hematoxylin and eosin and p16. Women were followed up according to screening protocols, with cytology or colposcopy at 6 or 12 months. CIN2/3 RRs and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were computed. Of 442 eligible women, 369 (83.5%) had at least one follow‐up episode. At baseline, 113 (30.6%) were CIN1, 248 (67.2%) negative, and 8 (2.2%) inadequate histology; 293 (79.4%) were p16‐negative, 64 (17.3%) p16 positive and 12 (3.2%) not valid. During follow up, we found ten CIN2 and three CIN3; of these, six were p16 positive (sensitivity 46%, 95% CI 19–75). The absolute risk among p16 positives was 9.4/100 compared to 1.7/100 of the p16 negatives (RR 5.5; 95% CI 1.7–17.4). The risk was also higher for CIN1 than for histologically negative women (RR 4.4; 95% CI 1.3–14.3). The RR for p16 in CIN1 did not change (RR 5.2; 95% CI 0.6–47.5). P16 overexpression is a good candidate for modulating follow‐up intensity after a negative colposcopy but is limited by its low prospective sensitivity.     

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.