p16INK4a immunocytochemistry versus human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with minor cytologic abnormalities

The best method for identifying women who have minor cervical lesions that require diagnostic workup remains unclear. The authors of this report performed a meta‐analysis to assess the accuracy of cyclin‐dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16^INK4a) immunocytochemistry compared with high‐risk human papillomavirus DNA testing with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) to detect grade 2 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) and CIN3+ among women who had cervical cytology indicating atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US) or low‐grade cervical lesions (LSIL). A literature search was performed in 3 electronic databases to identify studies that were eligible for this meta‐analysis. Seventeen studies were included in the meta‐analysis. The pooled sensitivity of p16^INK4a to detect CIN2+ was 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.8%‐88.2%) and 83.8% (95% CI, 73.5%‐90.6%) in ASC‐US and LSIL cervical cytology, respectively, and the pooled specificities were 71% (95% CI, 65%‐76.4%) and 65.7% (95% CI, 54.2%‐75.6%), respectively. Eight studies provided both HC2 and p16^INK4a triage data. p16^INK4a and HC2 had similar sensitivity, and p16^INK4a has significantly higher specificity in the triage of women with ASC‐US (relative sensitivity, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89‐1.01]; relative specificity, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.57‐2.12]). In the triage of LSIL, p16^INK4a had significantly lower sensitivity but higher specificity compared with HC2 (relative sensitivity, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81‐0.94]; relative specificity, 2.74 [95% CI, 1.99‐3.76]). The published literature indicated the improved accuracy of p16^INK4a compared with HC2 testing in the triage of women with ASC‐US. In LSIL triage, p16^INK4a was more specific but less sensitive. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Comparison of human papillomavirus testing strategies for triage of women referred with low-grade cytological abnormalities

AimTo compare triage strategies using different human papillomavirus (HPV) consensus and genotyping tests and a p16^INK4a test.Methods1228 women referred with a borderline or single mildly dyskaryotic smear. Samples were taken at colposcopy using PreservCyt. Tests included Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer, APTIMA and p16^INK4a. Results were based on the worst histology within 9 months.Results97/1228 (7.9%) women had CIN3+ (203/1228 (17%) CIN2+). HPV testing alone using Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800 or APTIMA had a sensitivity for CIN3+ ranging from 99.0% to 100.0% and specificity for <CIN2 from 23.3% to 34.7%. p16^INK4a had a sensitivity of 86.8% and specificity of 50.7%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 85.1% and specificity of 73.2%. Testing for HPV type 16 only had sensitivities ranging from 66.0% to 75.5% and specificities from 81.3% to 87.6%. Dual testing with HPV type 16 combined with p16^INK4a gave a high sensitivity for CIN3+ (78.7% to 98.0%) and specificity for <CIN2 of 58.6% to 81.5%.ConclusionsTriage with sensitive HPV testing assays can substantially reduce the number of unnecessary referrals in women with low grade cytology with virtually no loss of sensitivity. Even greater gains can be made if p16 and type 16 are used, but some cases of CIN2 will be missed. In both cases short term surveillance will be needed.     

Primary cervical cancer screening with HPV testing compared with liquid-based cytology: results of round 1 of a randomised controlled trial �C the HPV FOCAL Study

Background:

Round 1 data of human papillomavirus (HPV) FOCAL, a three-arm, randomised trial, which aims to establish the efficacy of HPV DNA testing as a primary screen for cervical cancer, are presented.

Methods:

The three arms are: Control arm – liquid based cytology with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance (ASC-US) triage with hrHPV testing; Intervention Arm – hrHPV at entry with liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage of hrHPV positives, with exit screen at 4 years; Safety check arm – hrHPV at entry with LBC triage of hrHPV positives with exit screen at 2 years.

Results:

A total of 6154 women were randomised to the control arm and 12 494 to the HPV arms (intervention and safety check). In the HPV arm, the baseline cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ and CIN3+ rate was 9.2/1000 (95%CI; 7.4, 10.9) and 4.8/1000 (95%CI; 3.6, 6.1), which increased to 16.1/1000 (95%CI 13.2, 18.9) for CIN2+ and to 8.0/1000 (95%CI; 5.9, 10.0) for CIN3+ after subsequent screening of HPV-DNA-positive/cytology-negative women. Detection rate in the control arm remained unchanged after subsequent screening of ASC-US-positive/hrHPV DNA-negative women at 11.0/1000 for CIN2+ and 5.0/1000 for CIN3+.

Conclusion:

After subsequent screening of women who were either hrHPV positive/cytology negative or ASC-US positive/HPV negative, women randomised to the HPV arms had increased CIN2+ detection compared with women randomised to the cytology arm.     

p16INK4A immunohistochemical staining and predictive value for progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1: A prospective study in China

p16^INK4A is strongly expressed in tissues diagnosed as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer in women infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), but few prospective studies have evaluated p16^INK4A as a marker for the risk of low‐grade CIN (CIN1) progression. We investigated the prevalence of p16^INK4A immunostaining by CIN grade and whether overexpression of p16^INK4A in CIN1 predicts future risk for high‐grade CIN in Chinese women. 6,557 Chinese women aged 30–49 years were screened from 2003 to 2005 using cytology and carcinogenic HPV test. Colposcopy was performed on women with any abnormal result. p16^INK4A Immunostaining was performed on biopsies from all women with CIN1, as well as randomly selected women with normal or CIN grade 2 and worse (CIN2+) biopsies. Women with CIN1 were followed up without treatment. Colposcopy was performed on all untreated women at a 2‐year interval. The prevalence of p16^INK4A staining was 2.7%, 42.7%, 75.5%, 79.6% and 100% among women with normal, CIN1, 2, 3 and cancer biopsies, respectively (p < 0.001). HPV positivity was strongly associated with p16^INK4A staining [odds ratios (OR) = 12.8; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 5.2–31.6]. p16^INK4A staining of CIN1 biopsies at baseline was associated with an increased risk of finding high‐grade CIN over 2 years of follow‐up (OR = 1.43; 95% CI: 0.52–3.91). The two‐year cumulative incidence of CIN2+ for p16^INK4A positive women was higher at 10.71% than for p16^INK4A negative women at 1.30% (crude RR = 8.25, 95% CI: 1.02–66.62). p16^INK4A overexpression is strongly associated with grade of CIN and risk of progression to high‐grade CIN in women with low‐grade lesions.     

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.     

HPV16/18 genotyping for the triage of HPV positive women in primary cervical cancer screening in Chile

Background

We previously conducted a population-based screening trial of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing and conventional cytology, demonstrating higher sensitivity (92.7 % vs 22.1 % for CIN2+) but lower positive predictive value (10.5 % vs 23.9 %) of hrHPV testing. Here we report the performance of HPV16/18 genotyping to triage the hrHPV positive participants.

Methods

Women aged 25 years and older received hrHPV (Hybrid Capture 2) and Papanicolaou testing; positives by either test underwent colposcopy and directed biopsy, as did a sample of double-negatives. hrHPV positive women were reflex-tested with HPV16/18 genotyping (Digene HPV Genotyping PS Test).

Results

Among the 8,265 participants, 10.7 % were hrHPV positive, 1.7 % had ASCUS+ cytology, 1.2 % had CIN2+; 776 (88 %) hrHPV positive women had complete results, of whom 38.8 % were positive for HPV16 (24.0 %), HPV18 (9.7 %) or both (5.1 %). CIN2+ prevalence in HPV16/18 positive women (16.3 %, 95 % CI 12.3-20.9) was twice that of HPV16/18 negative women (8.0 %, 95 % CI 5.7-10.8). HPV16/18 genotyping identified 40.5 % of CIN2, 66.7 % of CIN3 and 75.0 % of cancers. Compared to hrHPV screening alone, HPV16/18 triage significantly reduced the referral rate (10.7 % vs 3.7 %) and the number of colposcopies required to detect one CIN2+ (9 vs 6). When HPV16/18 negative women with baseline ASCUS+ cytology were also colposcopied, an additional 14 % of CIN2+ was identified; referral increased slightly to 4.2 %.

Conclusions

HPV16/18 triage effectively stratified hrHPV positive women by their risk of high-grade lesions. HPV16/18 positive women must be referred immediately; referral could be deferred in HPV16/18 negative women given the slower progression of non-HPV16/18 lesions, however, they will require active follow-up.

     

Immunocytochemical colocalization of P16(INK4a) and Ki-67 predicts CIN2/3 and AIS/adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND:

Although previous studies have shown that p16^INK4a and Ki‐67 are sensitive and specific markers for high‐grade lesions (≥CIN2) on cervical biopsies, limited information is available regarding the performance of a dual‐staining approach as a diagnostic adjunct in cervical cytology. We evaluated a dual p16^INK4a/Ki‐67 immunocytochemistry (ICC) assay to determine its sensitivity and specificity versus that of high‐risk HPV (HR‐HPV) in a US‐based pilot cytology study.

METHODS:

ThinPrep specimens from 122 cervical cytology specimens encompassing 23 negative (NILM), 20 ASC‐US, 22 LSIL, 17 ASCH, 22 HSIL, and 18 AGC cases were processed for multiplexed ICC staining using a CINtec Plus Kit. Dual‐positive assay results were defined based on the detection of 1 or more epithelial cells that were stained for both p16^INK4a and Ki‐67 without regard to cellular morphology. HR‐HPV testing was performed by multiplex PCR with capillary electrophoresis genotyping.

RESULTS:

Dual staining for p16^INK4a and Ki‐67 was frequently detected in HSIL and AGC but was rarely detected in NILM cases. The HR‐HPV assay showed a sensitivity of 76.2% and a specificity of 55.8% for the detection of clinically significant cervical squamous or endometrial lesions. In contrast, the colocalization of p16^INK4a plus Ki‐67 maintained a high sensitivity of 81.8% and improved specificity to 81.8% for biopsy‐confirmed CIN2/3, endocervical adenocarcinoma, or endometrial adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS:

Dual staining for p16^INK4a/Ki‐67 immunocytochemistry dramatically increased specificity and maintained high‐level sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN2/3 or glandular lesions compared with PCR‐based testing for HR‐HPV. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2012. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

p16INK4a immunohistochemistry is a promising biomarker to predict the outcome of low grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: comparison study with HPV genotyping

Objective

In cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry has been reported to be a useful diagnostic biomarker. However, limited information is available about the association between the p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry and the outcomes of CIN. Here, we report p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry as an effective biomarker to predict the outcomes of CIN.

Methods

p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry was performed in patients with CIN from January 2000 to August 2009. Among these patients, we have performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records to evaluate the outcome of CIN 1-2 and performed statistical analysis to determine the correlation between p16^INK4a expression and the outcomes. We also performed HPV genotyping and analyzed the relation between the infecting human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype and the outcomes.

Results

A total of 244 patients, including 82 with CIN 1, 60 with CIN 2, and 102 with CIN 3, were examined. The rate of p16^INK4a overexpression increased with increasing CIN grade, 20.7% for CIN 1, 80.0% for CIN 2, and 89.2% for CIN 3, with significant differences between CIN 1 and CIN 2-3 group. In the 131 CIN 1-2 patients, the progression rate was significantly higher for the patients showing p16^INK4a overexpression than for those not showing p16^INK4a overexpression (p=0.005); the regression rate was also found to be significantly lower for the patients showing p16^INK4a overexpression (p=0.003). High-risk HPV genotypes were detected in 73 patients (73.7%). Both progression and regression rates were not significantly different between the high-risk HPV-positive and HPV-negative groups (p=0.401 and p=0.381, respectively).

Conclusion

p16^INK4a overexpression was correlated with the outcome of CIN 1-2, and p16^INK4a is considered to be a superior biomarker for predicting the outcome of CIN 1-2 compared with HPV genotyping.     

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.     

Risk-stratification of HPV-positive women with low-grade cytology by FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation and HPV genotyping

Background The introduction of primary HPV screening has doubled the number of colposcopy referrals because of the direct referral of HPV-positive women with a borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) cytology (ASC-US/LSIL) triage test. Further risk-stratification is warranted to improve the efficiency of HPV-based screening.Methods This study evaluated the discriminative power of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 genotyping and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD (n = 294) in two Dutch screening trials. Absolute CIN3+ risks and colposcopy referrals within one screening round were calculated.Results Methylation analysis discriminated well, yielding a CIN3+ risk of 33.1% after a positive result and a CIN3+ risk of 9.8% after a negative result. HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping resulted in a 27.6% and 24.6% CIN3+ risk after a positive result, and a 13.2% and 9.1% CIN3+ risk after a negative result. Colposcopy referral percentages were 41.2%, 43.2%, and 66.3% for FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping, respectively. The CIN3+ risk after a negative result could be lowered to 2.8% by combining methylation and extended genotyping, at the expense of a higher referral percentage of 75.5%.Conclusion The use of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation and/or HPV genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD can lead to a substantial reduction in the number of direct colposcopy referrals.Subject terms: DNA methylation, Diagnostic markers, Cervical cancer, Molecular medicine     

Evaluation of partial genotyping with HPV16/18 for triage of HPV positive,cytology negative women in the COMPACT study

ObjectiveWhile cytology-based screening programs have significantly reduced mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer, the global consensus is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancer. However, the optimal triage strategy for HPV+ women to avoid over-referral to colposcopy may be setting specific. We compared absolute and relative risk (RR) of >CIN2/3 within 12 months of a negative cytologic result in women HPV16/18+ compared to those with a 12-other high-risk HPV (hrHPV) genotype to identify women at greatest risk of high-grade disease and permit less aggressive management of women with other hrHPV infections.MethodsParticipants were 14,160 women aged 25–69 years with negative cytology participating in the COMparison of HPV genotyping And Cytology Triage (COMPACT) study. Women who were HPV16/18+ were referred to colposcopy. Those with a 12-other hrHPV type underwent repeat cytology after 6 months and those with >abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance went to colposcopy.ResultsAbsolute risk of >CIN2 in HPV16/18+ women was 19.5% (95% CI=12.4%–29.4%). In women 25–29 years and HPV16+ it was 40.0% (95% CI=11.8%–76.9%). Absolute risk of >CIN3 in women HPV16/18+ was 11.0% (95% CI=5.9%–19.6%). For women 30–39 years and HPV16+ it was 23.1% (95% CI=5.0%–53.8%). Overall risk of >CIN2, >CIN3 in women with a 12-other hrHPV HPV type was 5.6% (95% CI=3.1%–10.0%) and 3.4% (95% CI=1.6%–7.2%) respectively. RR of >CIN2, >CIN3 in HPV16/18+ vs. 12-other hrHPV was 3.5 (95% CI=1.7–7.3) and 3.3 (95% CI=1.2–8.8), respectively.ConclusionPrimary HPV screening with HPV16/18 partial genotyping is a promising strategy to identify women at current/future risk of >CIN2 in Japan without over-referral to colposcopy.Trial RegistrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000013203     

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

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

Diagnostic accuracy of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The accurate diagnosis of human papillomavirus (HPV) causality in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) is likely to influence therapeutic decisions in affected patients in the near future. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of p16^INK4a immunohistochemistry (IHC) to identify HPV‐induced OPSCC. We identified all studies that performed p16^INK4a IHC (index test) and HPV E6/E7 mRNA detection using an amplification‐based method (gold standard to indicate a transforming relevance of HPV) in OPSCC. Testing with one or more comparator tests (HPV DNA PCR, HPV DNA in situ hybridization (ISH) and p16^INK4a IHC/HPV DNA PCR combined testing) was an optional criterion for inclusion. Among 1,636 retrieved studies 24 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of p16^INK4a IHC, HPV DNA PCR, HPV DNA ISH and p16^INK4a IHC/HPV DNA PCR combined testing was 94% (95%‐confidence interval (CI) 91–97%), 98% (CI 94–100%), 85% (CI 76–92%) and 93% (CI 87–97%), respectively. The pooled specificity was 83% (CI 78–88%), 84% (CI 74–92%), 88% (CI 78–96%) and 96% (CI 89–100%), respectively. p16^INK4a IHC/HPV DNA PCR combined testing was as sensitive as either p16^INK4a IHC or HPV DNA PCR alone but significantly more specific than either separate test. In conclusion, p16^INK4a IHC is highly sensitive but moderately specific to diagnose HPV‐transformed OPSCC when used as a single test. Combined p16^INK4a IHC and HPV DNA PCR testing significantly enhances specificity while maintaining high sensitivity. This diagnostic test combination thus represents an attractive testing strategy for the reliable diagnosis of HPV‐induced OPSCC in the clinical setting and may constitute an inclusion criterion for future therapeutic trials.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

宫颈癌多种筛查方案的研究

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

Human papillomavirus DNA prevalence and type distribution in anal carcinomas worldwide

Knowledge about human papillomaviruses (HPV) types involved in anal cancers in some world regions is scanty. Here, we describe the HPV DNA prevalence and type distribution in a series of invasive anal cancers and anal intraepithelial neoplasias (AIN) grades 2/3 from 24 countries. We analyzed 43 AIN 2/3 cases and 496 anal cancers diagnosed from 1986 to 2011. After histopathological evaluation of formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded samples, HPV DNA detection and genotyping was performed using SPF‐10/DEIA/LiPA₂₅ system (version 1) . A subset of 116 cancers was further tested for p16^INK4a expression, a cellular surrogate marker for HPV‐associated transformation. Prevalence ratios were estimated using multivariate Poisson regression with robust variance in the anal cancer data set. HPV DNA was detected in 88.3% of anal cancers (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.1–91.0%) and in 95.3% of AIN 2/3 (95% CI: 84.2–99.4%). Among cancers, the highest prevalence was observed in warty–basaloid subtype of squamous cell carcinomas, in younger patients and in North American geographical region. There were no statistically significant differences in prevalence by gender. HPV16 was the most frequent HPV type detected in both cancers (80.7%) and AIN 2/3 lesions (75.4%). HPV18 was the second most common type in invasive cancers (3.6%). p16^INK4a overexpression was found in 95% of HPV DNA‐positive anal cancers. In view of the results of HPV DNA and high proportion of p16^INK4a overexpression, infection by HPV is most likely to be a necessary cause for anal cancers in both men and women. The large contribution of HPV16 reinforces the potential impact of HPV vaccines in the prevention of these lesions.     

阴道镜结果正常或低度病变妇女发生宫颈癌前病变的前瞻性风险分层研究

  目的  探讨细胞学、高危型人乳头瘤病毒（high risk human papillomavirus,hrHPV）分型对于阴道镜结果正常或低级别鳞状上皮内病变（low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion,LSIL）妇女的风险预测作用。  方法  基于1999年6月在山西省建立的宫颈癌筛查队列,以2005年随访时阴道镜结果为正常或低度病变的596例妇女为研究对象,于2010年和2014年进行随访。分析hrHPV阴性组、hrHPV阳性组、HPV16/18阳性组、细胞学LSIL以下组和细胞学LSIL及以上组发生宫颈上皮内瘤样病变2级及以上（cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse,CIN2+）的瞬时、5年和9年累积风险和相对危险度。  结果  细胞学LSIL以下组发生CIN2+的瞬时、5年和9年累积风险分别为0.2%、2.8%和4.2%,细胞学LSIL及以上组相应的风险分别为14.7%（RR=73.8,95% CI为9.7~561.5）、40.0%（RR=16.0,95% CI为8.2~31.1）和51.4%（RR=15.0,95% CI为8.3~27.0）。hrHPV阴性组发生CIN2+的瞬时风险、5年和9年累积风险较低,分别为0.6%、2.7%和3.8%,hrHPV阳性和HPV16/18阳性组发生CIN2+的风险逐渐升高,其中HPV16/18阳性组的相应风险分别为13.2%（RR=23.4,95% CI为5.1~106.9）、36.9%（RR=15.4,95% CI为6.9~34.3）和42.6%（RR=14.1,95% CI为6.8~29.2）。  结论  阴道镜结果正常或LSIL妇女,若细胞学结果为LSIL及以上或HPV16/18阳性,未来进展为高度宫颈癌前病变的风险较高,细胞学和HPV16/18分型可用于该人群的临床分流管理。      

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.