The clinical value of HPV genotyping in triage of women with high‐risk‐HPV‐positive self‐samples

Cytology alone, or combined with HPV16/18 genotyping, might be an acceptable method for triage in hrHPV‐cervical cancer screening. Previously studied HPV‐genotype based triage algorithms are based on cytology performed without knowledge of hrHPV status. The aim of this study was to explore the value of hrHPV genotyping combined with cytology as triage tool for hrHPV‐positive women. 520 hrHPV‐positive women were included from a randomised controlled self‐sampling trial on screening non‐attendees (PROHTECT‐3B). Eighteen baseline triage strategies were evaluated for cytology and hrHPV genotyping (Roche Cobas 4800) on physician‐sampled triage material. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), referral rate, and number of referrals needed to diagnose (NRND) were calculated for CIN2+ and CIN3+. A triage strategy was considered acceptable if the NPV for CIN3+ was ≥98%, combined with maintenance or improvement of sensitivity and an increase in specificity in reference to the comparator, being cytology with a threshold of atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US). Three triage strategies met the criteria: HPV16+ and/or ≥LSIL; HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL; (HPV16+ and/or HPV18+) and/or ≥HSIL. Combining HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL yielded the highest specificity (74.9%, 95% CI 70.5–78.9), with a sensitivity (94.4%, 95% CI 89.0–97.7) similar to the comparator (93.5%, 95% CI 87.7–97.1), and a decrease in referral rate from 52.2% to 39.5%. In case of prior knowledge of hrHPV presence, triage by cytology testing can be improved by adjusting its threshold, and combining it with HPV16/18 genotyping. These strategies improve the referral rate and specificity for detecting CIN3+ lesions, while maintaining adequate sensitivity.     

High‐risk human papillomavirus DNA load in a population‐based cervical screening cohort in relation to the detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer

In a population‐based cervical screening cohort, we determined the value of type‐specific viral load assessment for the detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥CIN2). Viral load was determined by type‐specific real‐time PCR in women with single HPV16,‐18,‐31 and ‐33 infections, as determined by GP5+/6+‐PCR. Study endpoints were the detection of cumulative ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3 within 18 months of follow‐up. High viral loads of HPV16,‐31, and ‐33 were predictive for ≥CIN2 (relative risk of 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3–1.9), 1.7 (95% CI: 1.1–2.7) and 1.9 (95% CI: 1.1–3.1) per 10‐fold change in viral load, respectively). For HPV18, the relative risk was of similar magnitude (1.5, 95% CI: 0.7–3.1), though not significant (p = 0.3). Subsequently, we determined the sensitivities of viral load for ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 in HPV DNA‐positive women using viral load thresholds previously defined in a cross‐sectional study. These thresholds were based on the 25th, 33rd and 50th percentiles of type‐specific HPV16,‐18,‐31 or ‐33 viral load values found in women with normal cytology. For all types, combined sensitivities for ≥CIN2 were 93.5%, 88.8% and 77.7% for the 25th, 33rd and 50th percentile thresholds, respectively. Response‐operator‐characteristics (ROC) curve analysis showed that viral load testing on HPV DNA‐positive women in addition to or instead of cytology may result in an increased sensitivity for ≥CIN2, but at the cost of a marked decrease in specificity in relation to cytology. Similar results were obtained when using ≥CIN3 as endpoint. In conclusion, in a cervical screening setting viral load assessment of HPV16, 18, 31 and 33 has no additive value to stratify high‐risk HPV GP5+/6+‐PCR‐positive women for risk of ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Triaging HPV‐positive women with normal cytology by p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology testing: Baseline and longitudinal data

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)‐based screening results in a 2–5% lower specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared to Pap cytology. To identify HPV‐positive women with CIN2+, we retrospectively evaluated the cross‐sectional and longitudinal performance of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology participating in population‐based cervical screening. Conventional Pap cytology specimens of 847 of these women derived from the VUSA‐Screen study were dual‐stained for p16/Ki‐67. Cross‐sectional clinical performance in detecting CIN3 or worse (CIN3+), and CIN2+ was compared to that of baseline HPV genotyping. Moreover, 5‐year cumulative incidence risks (CIR) for CIN3+ (CIN2+) were determined. The sensitivity of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology for CIN3+ (CIN2+) was 73.3% (68.8%) with a specificity of 70.0% (72.8%). HPV16/18 genotyping showed a sensitivity for CIN3+ (CIN2+) of 46.7% (43.8%), with a specificity of 78.3% (79.4%). The 5‐year CIR for CIN3+ in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology was 6.9%. Testing these women with p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology resulted in a significantly lower CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% (p = 0.017) in case of a negative test result. A negative HPV16/18 genotyping test result also led to a lower 5‐year CIN3+ CIR of 3.6%. p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology detects more than 70% of underlying CIN3+ lesions in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology at baseline and is therefore suitable for triaging these women to colposcopy. Furthermore, the CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% after a negative dual‐stain result is significantly lower compared to the 5‐year CIR of 6.9% in women without p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology triage.     

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.     

Long‐term risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse according to high‐risk human papillomavirus genotype and semi‐quantitative viral load among 33,288 women with normal cervical cytology

In this prospective cohort study, we estimated the long‐term risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) by high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotype and semi‐quantitative viral load at baseline among 33,288 women aged 14–90 years with normal baseline cytology. During 2002–2005, residual liquid‐based cervical cytology samples were collected from women screened for cervical cancer in Copenhagen, Denmark. Samples were HPV‐tested with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and genotyped with INNO‐LiPA. Semi‐quantitative viral load was measured by HC2 relative light units in women with single hrHPV infections. The cohort was followed in a nationwide pathology register for up to 11.5 years. In women aged ≥30 years at baseline, the 8‐year absolute risk for CIN3+ following baseline detection of HPV16 was 21.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.0–25.6%). The corresponding risks for HPV18, HPV31, HPV33, and other hrHPV types, respectively, were 12.8% (95% CI: 7.6–18.0%), 11.3% (95% CI: 7.7–14.9%), 12.9% (95% CI: 7.0–18.8%) and 3.9% (95% CI: 2.7–5.2%). Similar absolute risk estimates were observed in women aged <30 years. Higher HPV16‐viral load was associated with increased risk of CIN3+ (hazard ratio = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10–1.64, per 10‐fold increase in viral load). A similar trend, although statistically nonsignificant, was found for viral load of HPV18. The 8‐year absolute risk of CIN3+ in women with HPV16‐viral load ≥100.0 pg/ml was 30.2% (95% CI: 21.9–38.6%). Our results support that hrHPV genotyping during cervical cancer screening may help identify women at highest risk of CIN3+.     

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.     

Human papillomavirus type specific risk of progression and remission during long‐term follow‐up of equivocal and low‐grade HPV‐positive cervical smears

The prevalence of clinically relevant HPV types and their specific risk for progression and regression in women with atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASCUS) and low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) were studied in a routine screening population. A 4‐year cohort of women (n = 820) with ASCUS/LSIL and a positive HPV test in triage were followed for 6–9 years. The progression risks for CIN2+/CIN3+ were determined for single (71.2%) and multiple HPV infections (28.8%). The CIN2+ progression risk for all HPV 16, all HPV 35, single HPV 16 and single HPV 35 infections were 65.3% (95% CI: 59.6–71.0), 64.4% (95% CI: 50.4–78.4), 63.8% (95% CI: 56.2–71.4) and 73.7% (95% CI: 53.9–93.5), respectively. Based on CIN2+ progression risks four main groups were defined; the HPV 16 group, the HPV 31/33/35 group, the HPV 18/45/51/52 group and the HPV 39/56/58/59/66/68 group with progression risks of 65.3% (95% CI: 59.6–71.0), 62.1% (95% CI: 54.8–69.4), 52.6 (95% CI: 45.9–59.3) and 39.5 (95% CI: 33.0–46.0), respectively. In multivariate analyses, women in the age group 40–49 years had an increased risk of CIN2+ progression. As for CIN3+, HPV 16 had a higher progression risk than other HPV risk groups (p < 0.05). In multiple infections only HPV 16 had a significant additive CIN3+ progression risk (p < 0.05) as compared to other HPV risk groups. In summary, HPV types 16 and 35, including the HPV risk group 31/33/35, had a similar CIN2+ progression risk, but only HPV 16 had a higher risk for CIN3+ progression.     

Risk of high‐grade precancerous lesions and invasive cancers in high‐risk HPV‐positive women with normal cervix or CIN 1 at baseline—A population‐based cohort study

Infection with high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) is transient and clears on its own in majority of the women. Only a few women who have persistent infection may finally develop cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cervical cancer in later years. The risk of progression in the HR‐HPV‐positive women with normal cervix or low‐grade lesion on colposcopy and histopathology at baseline is less studied. We performed a longitudinal study on 650 HR‐HPV‐positive women with colposcopy and/or histopathology‐proved normal or CIN1 diagnosis at baseline to assess the cumulative risk of development of high‐grade CIN. After a mean follow‐up of 2.1 person years of observation (PYO) (range 0.1–5.1), the cumulative incidence of CIN2+ (6.4%; 3.0/100 PYO) was significantly higher in women who had persistent HR‐HPV infection compared to those who cleared the infection (adjusted HR 6.28; 95% CI 2.87–13.73). The risk of viral persistence in women aged 50–60 years was two times higher compared to women aged 40–49 years and three times higher compared to women aged 30–39 years. The probability of having persistent infection increased progressively with higher viral load at baseline (adjusted HR 3.29, 95% CI 2.21–4.90 for RLU ≥100; adjusted HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.71–4.22 for RLU 10–100). Women with increasing viral load at follow‐up had four times higher risk of developing CIN2 or worse lesions as compared to those with decreasing load (20.9% vs 4.8%; p < 0.001). In the context of developing countries where cytology or genotyping triaging is not feasible, colposcopy referral of HR‐HPV‐positive women with advancing age, viral persistence, and increasing viral load may be considered.     

Human papillomavirus E7 protein detection as a method of triage to colposcopy of HPV positive women,in comparison to genotyping and cytology. Final results of the PIPAVIR study

The objective of the presented cross‐sectional‐evaluation‐screening study is the clinical evaluation of high‐risk(hr)HPVE7‐protein detection as a triage method to colposcopy for hrHPV‐positive women, using a newly developed sandwich‐ELISA‐assay. Between 2013‐2015, 2424 women, 30‐60 years old, were recruited at the Hippokratio Hospital, Thessaloniki/Greece and the Im Mare Klinikum, Kiel/Germany, and provided a cervical sample used for Liquid Based Cytology, HPV DNA genotyping, and E7 detection using five different E7‐assays: “recomWell HPV16/18/45KJhigh”, “recomWell HPV16/18/45KJlow”, “recomWell HPV39/51/56/59”, “recomWell HPV16/31/33/35/52/58” and “recomWell HPVHRscreen” (for 16,18,31,33,35,39,45,51,52,56,58,59 E7), corresponding to different combinations of hrHPVE7‐proteins. Among 1473 women with eligible samples, those positive for cytology (ASCUS+ 7.2%), and/or hrHPV DNA (19.1%) were referred for colposcopy. Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was detected in 27 women (1.8%). For HPV16/18‐positive women with no triage, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and the number of colposcopies needed to detect one case of CIN2+ were 100.0%, 11.11% and 9.0 respectively. The respective values for E7‐testing as a triage method to colposcopy ranged from 75.0‐100.0%, 16.86‐26.08% and 3.83‐5.93. Sensitivity and PPV for cytology as triage for hrHPV(non16/18)‐positive women were 45.45% and 27.77%; for E7 test the respective values ranged from 72.72‐100.0% and 16.32‐25.0%. Triage of HPV 16/18‐positive women to colposcopy with the E7 test presents better performance than no triage, decreasing the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+. In addition, triage of hrHPV(non16/18)‐positive women with E7 test presents better sensitivity and slightly worse PPV than cytology, a fact that advocates for a full molecular screening approach.     

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.     

Determination of viral load thresholds in cervical scrapings to rule out CIN 3 in HPV 16, 18, 31 and 33-positive women with normal cytology

An increased high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) viral load in cervical scrapings has been proposed as a determinant for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer (> or =CIN 2), but data so far for HPV types different from HPV 16 are limited and inconsistent. In addition, a viral load threshold to distinguish hrHPV positive women without > or =CIN 2 still has not been defined. Here, we used baseline cervical scrapings of women with normal cytology participating in a large population-based cervical screening trial (i.e. POBASCAM) who were GP5+/6+-PCR positive for 4 common hrHPV types, i.e. HPV 16, 18, 31 or 33, as a reference to arbitrarily define various viral load thresholds (i.e. 25th, 33rd, 50th, 67th and 75th percentiles of the lowest viral load values) for distinguishing women having single infections with these types without high-grade CIN. Viral load assessment was performed by real time type-specific PCR. The viral load threshold values were subsequently validated on abnormal cervical scrapes of 162 women with underlying, histologically confirmed CIN lesions containing 1 of these 4 hrHPV types. All 59 women with CIN 3 had viral load levels that were higher than those of 33% of the women with normal cytology containing the respective hrHPV type detectable by GP5+/6+-PCR (i.e. higher than the 33rd percentile of viral load). By using this 33rd percentile viral load cut-off, sensitivity for CIN 3 of 100% (95% CI 93.9-100) was obtained. Hence, application of this viral load threshold would increase the specificity of HPV testing for HPV 16, 18, 31 and 33-associated prevalent CIN 3 without the cost of a marked reduction in sensitivity. In practice, on the basis of viral load analysis, a less aggressive management can be foreseen for 33% of the women with normal cytology participating in a population-based screening program who are GP5+/6+-PCR positive for HPV 16, 18, 31 or 33.     

Posttreatment human papillomavirus testing for residual or recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a pooled analysis

Objective

We conducted a pooled analysis of published studies to compare the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology in detecting residual or recurrent diseases after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN 2/3).

Methods

Source articles presenting data on posttreatment HPV testing were identified from the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) database. We included 5,319 cases from 33 articles published between 1996 and 2013.

Results

The pooled sensitivity of high-risk HPV testing (0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.94) for detecting posttreatment CIN 2 or worse (CIN 2+) was much higher than that of cytology (0.76; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.80). Co-testing of HPV testing and cytology maximized the sensitivity (0.93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96), while HPV genotyping (detection of the same genotype between pre- and posttreatments) did not improve the sensitivity (0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.94) compared with high-risk HPV testing alone. The specificity of high-risk HPV testing (0.83; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.84) was similar to that of cytology (0.85; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.87) and HPV genotyping (0.83; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.85), while co-testing had reduced specificity (0.76; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.78). For women with positive surgical margins, high-risk HPV testing provided remarkable risk discrimination between test-positives and test-negatives (absolute risk of residual CIN 2+ 74.4% [95% CI, 64.0 to 82.6] vs. 0.8% [95% CI, 0.15 to 4.6]; p<0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings recommend the addition of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in conjunction with cytology, to posttreatment surveillance strategies. HPV testing can identify populations at greatest risk of posttreatment CIN 2+ lesions, especially among women with positive section margins.     

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.     

Prevalence of types 16 and 33 is increased in high-risk human papillomavirus positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types are causally related to cervical cancer and its high-grade precursor lesions. The risk posed by the different hrHPV types for the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (> or =CIN2) needs to be established. Here, we present the hrHPV type-distribution in relation to cytology and histology for women participating in a cervical screening program. From 44,102 women who participated in a population-based cervical screening program in the Netherlands, 2,154 hrHPV GP5+/6+ PCR positive women were recruited to determine the distribution of 14 hrHPV types by reverse line blotting of GP5+/6+ PCR products. For each HPV type, associations with cytology and histologically confirmed > or =CIN2 were measured by odds ratios. HPV types 16 and 33 were more prevalent in women, amongst those containing a single hrHPV type, with moderate dyskaryosis or worse (>BMD) than in women with normal cytology, but only in case of underlying > or =CIN2 (OR 4.10, 95%CI 2.98-5.64 and OR 2.68, 95%CI 1.39-5.15, respectively). Similar results were obtained for women with double infections (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.61-6.75 and OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.17-16.34). Coexisting types did not influence the prevalence of > or =CIN2 in HPV 16 or 33 positive women. The increased prevalence of type 16 and 33 in hrHPV positive women with > or =CIN2, compared to women with normal cytology, suggests that infection with these types confers an increased risk for development of > or =CIN2. Distinguishing these types may therefore have implications for future cervical screening strategies.     

Human papillomavirus genotype contribution to cervical cancer and precancer: Implications for screening and vaccination in Japan

To obtain baseline data for cervical cancer prevention in Japan, we analyzed human papillomavirus (HPV) data from 5045 Japanese women aged less than 40 years and diagnosed with cervical abnormalities at 21 hospitals during 2012‐2017. These included cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1, n = 573), CIN2‐3 (n = 3219), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS, n = 123), and invasive cervical cancer (ICC, n = 1130). The Roche Linear Array was used for HPV genotyping. The HPV type‐specific relative contributions (RCs) were estimated by adding multiple infections to single types in accordance with proportional weighting attributions. Based on the comparison of type‐specific RCs between CIN1 and CIN2‐3/AIS/ICC (CIN2+), RC ratios were calculated to estimate type‐specific risks for progression to CIN2+. Human papillomavirus DNA was detected in 85.5% of CIN1, 95.7% of CIN2‐3/AIS, and 91.2% of ICC. Multiple infections decreased with disease severity: 42.9% in CIN1, 40.4% in CIN2‐3/AIS, and 23.7% in ICC (P < .0001). The relative risk for progression to CIN2+ was highest for HPV16 (RC ratio 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.01‐4.98), followed by HPV31 (2.51, 1.54‐5.24), HPV18 (2.43, 1.59‐4.32), HPV35 (1.56, 0.43‐8.36), HPV33 (1.01, 0.49‐3.31), HPV52 (0.99, 0.76‐1.33), and HPV58 (0.97, 0.75‐1.32). The relative risk of disease progression was 1.87 (95% CI, 1.71‐2.05) for HPV16/18/31/33/35/45/52/58, but only 0.17 (95% CI, 0.14‐0.22) for HPV39/51/56/59/66/68. Human papillomavirus 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11 included in a 9‐valent vaccine contributed to 89.7% (95% CI, 88.7‐90.7) of CIN2‐3/AIS and 93.8% (95% CI, 92.4‐95.3) of ICC. In conclusion, our data support the Japanese guidelines that recommend discriminating HPV16/18/31/33/35/45/52/58 genotypes for CIN management. The 9‐valent vaccine is estimated to provide over 90% protection against ICC in young Japanese women.     

Reliable identification of women with CIN3+ using hrHPV genotyping and methylation markers in a cytology-screened referral population

Cervical screening aims to identify women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 (HSIL/CIN2-3) or invasive cervical cancer (ICC). Identification of women with severe premalignant lesions or ICC (CIN3+) could ensure their rapid treatment and prevent overtreatment. We investigated high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection with genotyping and methylation of FAM19A4/miR124-2 for detection of CIN3+ in 538 women attending colposcopy for abnormal cytology. All women had an additional cytology with hrHPV testing (GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA+), genotyping (HPV16/18, HPV16/18/31/45), and methylation analysis (FAM19A4/miR124-2) and at least one biopsy. CIN3+ detection was studied overall and in women <30 (n = 171) and ≥30 years (n = 367). Positivity for both rather than just one methylation markers increased in CIN3, and all ICC was positive for both. Overall sensitivity and specificity for CIN3+ were, respectively, 90.3% (95%CI 81.3–95.2) and 31.8% (95%CI 27.7–36.1) for hrHPV, 77.8% (95%CI 66.9–85.8) and 69.3% (95%CI 65.0–73.3) for methylation biomarkers and 93.1% (95%CI 84.8–97.0) and 49.4% (95%CI 44.8–53.9) for combined HPV16/18 and/or methylation positivity. For CIN3, hrHPV was found in 90.9% (95%CI 81.6–95.8), methylation positivity in 75.8% (95%CI 64.2–84.5) and HPV16/18 and/or methylation positivity in 92.4% (95%CI 83.5–96.7). In women aged ≥30, the sensitivity of combined HPV16/18 and methylation was increased (98.2%, 95%CI 90.6–99.7) with a specificity of 46.3% (95%CI 40.8–51.9). Combination of HPV16/18 and methylation analysis was very sensitive and offered improved specificity for CIN3+, opening the possibility of rapid treatment for these women and follow-up for women with potentially regressive, less advanced, HSIL/CIN2 lesions.     

Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology in primary screening of women younger than 35 years: results at recruitment for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is more sensitive but less specific than cytological analysis. Loss in specificity is most relevant in women younger than 35 years because of increased HPV prevalence. We aimed to compare conventional screening with an experimental strategy in women aged 25-34 years, and investigate the effect of different criteria of referral to define the best methods of HPV screening. METHODS: Women were randomly assigned to the conventional procedure (standard cytology, with referral to colposcopy if cytology showed atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more [ASCUS+]) or an experimental procedure (liquid-based cytology and testing for high-risk HPV types, with referral to colposcopy with ASCUS+ cytology). Women positive for HPV (cutoff > or = 1 pg/mL) but with normal cytology were retested after 1 year. The main endpoint was the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in reviewed histology. The main analysis was by intention to screen. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81678807. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 5808 women aged 25-34 years to the conventional group and 6002 to the experimental group. The experimental procedure was significantly more sensitive than the conventional procedure (55 vs 33 CIN2+ lesions detected; relative sensitivity 1.61 [95% CI 1.05-2.48]), but had a lower positive predictive value (PPV; relative PPV 0.55 [0.37-0.82]). HPV testing (> or = 1 pg/mL) with cytology triage was also more sensitive than conventional cytology (relative sensitivity 1.58 [1.03-2.44], relative PPV 0.78 [0.52-1.16]). Relative PPV could be improved, with minimum loss in sensitivity, by use of a 2 pg/mL cutoff for HPV testing. Compared with conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology had a relative sensitivity of 1.32 (0.84-2.06), relative PPV 0.58 [0.38-0.89]). INTERPRETATION: HPV testing alone with cytology triage could be a feasible alternative to conventional cytology for screening women younger than 35 years. Follow-up will provide data on possible overdiagnosis and on the feasibility of extended intervals.     

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+.     

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.