Lower cost strategies for triage of human papillomavirus DNA‐positive women

Using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening in lower‐resource settings (LRS) will result in a significant number of screen‐positive women. This analysis compares different triage strategies for detecting cervical precancer and cancer among HPV‐positive women in LRS. This was a population‐based study of women aged 25–65 years living in China (n = 7,541). Each woman provided a self‐collected and two clinician‐collected specimens. The self‐collected and one clinician‐collected specimen were tested by two HPV DNA tests—careHPV? and Hybrid Capture 2; the other clinician‐collected specimen was tested for HPV16/18/45 E6 protein. CareHPV?‐positive specimens were tested for HPV16/18/45 DNA. HPV DNA‐positive women underwent visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and then colposcopic evaluation with biopsies. The performance for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) among HPV DNA‐positive women was assessed for different triage strategies: HPV16/18/45 E6 or DNA detection, VIA, colposcopic impression, or higher signal strength (≥10 relative light units/positive control [rlu/pc]). The percent triage positive ranges were 14.8–17.4% for VIA, 17.8–20.9% for an abnormal colposcopic impression; 7.9–10.5% for HPV16/18/45 E6; 23.4–28.4% for HPV16/18/45 DNA; and 48.0–62.6% for higher signal strength (≥10 rlu/pc), depending on the HPV test/specimen combination. The positivity for all triage tests increased with severity of diagnosis. HPV16/18/45 DNA detection was approximately 70% sensitive and had positive predictive values (PPV) of approximately 25% for CIN3+. HPV16/18/45 E6 detection was approximately 50% sensitive with a PPV of nearly 50% for CIN3+. Different triage strategies for HPV DNA‐positive women provide important tradeoffs in colposcopy or treatment referral percentages and sensitivity for prevalent CIN3+.     

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.     

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.     

Effectiveness of novel,lower cost molecular human papillomavirus‐based tests for cervical cancer screening in rural china

This study examined the efficacy of the OncoE6? Cervical Test, careHPV? and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in identifying women at risk for cervical cancer and their capability to detect incident cervical precancer and cancer at 1‐year follow‐up. In a population of 7,543 women living in rural China, women provided a self‐collected and two clinician‐collected specimens and underwent VIA. All screen positive women for any of the tests, a ～10% random sample of test‐negative women that underwent colposcopy at baseline, and an additional ～10% random sample of test‐negative women who did not undergo colposcopy at baseline (n = 3,290) were recruited. 2,904 women were rescreened 1 year later using the same tests, colposcopic referral criteria, and procedures. Sensitivities of baseline tests to detect 1‐year cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) were 96.5% and 81.6% for careHPV? on clinician‐collected and self‐collected specimens, respectively, and 54.4% for OncoE6? test. The OncoE6? test was very specific (99.1%) and had the greatest positive predictive value (PPV; 47.7%) for CIN3+. Baseline and 1‐year follow‐up cervical specimens testing HPV DNA positive was sensitive (88.0%) but poorly predictive (5.5–6.0%) of incident CIN2+, whereas testing repeat HPV16, 18 and 45 E6 positive identified only 24.0% of incident CIN2+ but had a predictive value of 33.3%. This study highlights the different utility of HPV DNA and E6 tests, the former as a screening and the latter as a diagnostic test, for detection of cervical precancer and cancer.     

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.     

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

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

Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: the FASE study

The APTIMA HPV Assay (AHPV) allows detection of 14 high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) RNA types in cervical specimens. Until present, the assay has been compared to HPV DNA tests only in triage settings. Herein, we compare AHPV with a DNA assay (Hybrid Capture 2; HC2) and liquid-based cytology (LBC; using PreservCyt ThinPrep liquid Pap) in a screening setting (French APTIMA screening evaluation [FASE] study). Women (N = 5,006) aged 20-65 were screened by gynecologists in 17 private practices in Paris, France. One cervical specimen was collected and tested with LBC, AHPV and HC2 assays. Women were referred to colposcopy if they were ASC-US+ in LBC or HPV positive in either HPV assay. To control for verification bias, a random group (14%) with normal LBC and dually HPV negative tests underwent colposcopy. Data from 4,429 women were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated for the three tests. AHPV and HC2 were highly sensitive for CIN2+ (92.0% and 96.7%) and CIN3+ (95.7% and 95.3%) detection and much more sensitive than LBC (69.1% for CIN2+ and 73.3% for CIN3+). Specificity of AHPV was higher than that of HC2, but similar to that of LBC (p < 0.001). Combining LBC with either HPV test slightly increased sensitivity but compromised specificity. AHPV assay is both specific and sensitive for the detection of high-grade precancerous lesions and may be considered as an option for routine cervical cancer screening for women over 20 years of age.     

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.     

HPV for cervical cancer screening (HPV FOCAL): Complete Round 1 results of a randomized trial comparing HPV‐based primary screening to liquid‐based cytology for cervical cancer

Complete Round 1 data (baseline and 12‐month follow‐up) for HPV FOCAL, a randomized trial establishing the efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage as a primary screen for cervical cancer are presented. Women were randomized to one of three arms: Control arm – Baseline liquid‐based cytology (LBC) with ASCUS results triaged with HPV testing; Intervention and Safety arms – Baseline HPV with LBC triage for HPV positives. Results are presented for 15,744 women allocated to the HPV (intervention and safety combined) and 9,408 to the control arms. For all age cohorts, the CIN3+ detection rate was higher in the HPV (7.5/1,000; 95%CI: 6.2, 8.9) compared to the control arm (4.6/1,000; 95%CI: 3.4, 6.2). The CIN2+ detection rates were also significantly higher in the HPV (16.5/1,000; 95%CI: 14.6, 18.6) vs. the control arm (10.1/1,000; 95%CI: 8.3, 12.4). In women ≥35 years, the overall detection rates for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were higher in the HPV vs. the control arm (CIN2+:10.0/1,000 vs. 5.2/1,000; CIN3+: 4.2/1,000 vs. 2.2/1,000 respectively, with a statistically significant difference for CIN2+). HPV testing detected significantly more CIN2+ in women 25–29 compared to LBC (63.7/1,000; 95%CI: 51.9, 78.0 vs. 32.4/1,000; 95%CI: 22.3, 46.8). HPV testing resulted in significantly higher colposcopy referral rates for all age cohorts (HPV: 58.9/1,000; 95%CI: 55.4, 62.7 vs. control: 30.9/1,000; 95%CI: 27.6, 34.6). At completion of Round 1 HPV‐based cervical cancer screening in a population‐based program resulted in greater CIN2+ detection of across all age cohorts compared to LBC screening.     

Triage options to manage high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women: A population-based cross-sectional study from rural China

Improvement in managing HPV-positive women is urgently needed. Based on a population-based study which included 2112 women aged 49 to 69 from Shanxi, China, we aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of multiple triage strategies based on liquid-based cytology (LBC), p16^INK4a, viral load and partial genotyping, as a single or combined strategy for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or higher (CIN2+/CIN3+) in women who tested positive by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2). Among 452 HC2-positive women, the test positivity of LBC (ASC-US+), p16^INK4a, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 were 39.6%, 38.5%, 18.0% and 40.0%, respectively. Compared to LBC (ASC-US+) triage, a single triage strategies using p16^INK4a or extended genotyping (SureX HPV16/18/31/33/45) achieved comparable sensitivity (relative sensitivity: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.26 and 0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.22) and specificity (relative specificity: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.14 and 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.14) for CIN3+. Viral load triage using a ≥50 RLU/CO cut-point also yielded similar results with LBC (ASC-US+). Among combined triage strategies, HPV16/18 genotyping with reflex p16^INK4a showed higher sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than LBC (ASC-US+) for CIN3+ detection, however, the differences were not statistically significant. Of note, after a negative result by p16^INK4a or LBC among HPV16/18 negative women, the posttest probability of CIN3+ was lower than 1%. Our study suggested that p16^INK4a, extended genotyping and increased viral load cut-point could be promising alternatives to cytology triage. Combined triage algorithms of HPV16/18 with reflex p16^INK4a or cytology, if negative, are associated with the substantial low posttest risk sufficient to release women to next screening round.     

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.     

Effectiveness of a two‐stage strategy with HPV testing followed by visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening in a low‐income setting

The World Health Organization recently advocated a two‐stage strategy with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing followed by visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) as a suitable option for cervical cancer screening. However, its accuracy has never been directly assessed in the context of primary screening. To evaluate effectiveness of HPV testing on self‐obtained specimens (self‐HPV) followed by VIA (sequential testing) in a low‐income setting, we recruited 540 women aged between 30 and 65 years in two Cameroonian periurban areas. Eligible women were counseled about cervical cancer and how to perform self‐sampling. HPV positive and a random sample of HPV‐negative women were called back for VIA and biopsy. Disease was defined by interpretation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). Performances of VIA, self‐HPV and sequential testing were determined after adjustment for verification bias. HPV prevalence was 27.0%. VIA positivity was 12.9% and disease prevalence was 5%. Sensitivity and specificity of VIA for CIN2+ were 36.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15.2–64.6%] and 90.4% (95% CI: 85.4–93.7%), respectively. Sensitivity of self‐HPV [100.0% (95% CI: 79.6–100.0%)] was 66% higher than that of sequential testing [33.3% (95% CI: 15.2–58.3%)]. Meanwhile, specificity of self‐HPV [74.5% (95% CI: 70.6–78.1%)] was 22% lower than that of sequential testing [96.7% (95% CI: 94.8–97.9%)]. A two‐stage screening strategy with self‐HPV followed by VIA improves specificity of cervical cancer screening, but at the cost of an important loss of sensitivity. Ways to improve VIA performance or other tools are needed to increase positive predictive value of HPV testing.     

Diagnostic accuracy of VIA and HPV detection as primary and sequential screening tests in a cervical cancer screening demonstration project in India

Visual inspection after acetic acid application (VIA) and human papillomavirus (HPV) detection tests have been recommended to screen women for cervical cancer in low and middle income countries. A demonstration project in rural India screened 39,740 women with both the tests to compare their accuracies in real population setting. The project also evaluated the model of screening women in the existing primary health care facilities, evaluating the screen positive women with colposcopy (and biopsy) in the same setup and recalling the women diagnosed to have disease for treatment at tertiary center. Accuracy of VIA and HPV test used sequentially was also studied. VIA was performed by trained health workers and Hybrid Capture II (HC II) assay was used for oncogenic HPV detection. Test positivity was 7.1% for VIA and 4.7% for HC II. Detection rate of CIN 3+ disease was significantly higher with HC II than VIA. Sensitivities of VIA and HC II to detect 162 histology proved CIN 3+ lesions were 67.9 and 91.2%, respectively after adjusting for verification bias. Specificity for the same disease outcome and verification bias correction was 93.2% for VIA and 96.9% for HC II. Triaging of VIA positive women with HPV test would have considerably improved the positive predictive value (4.0 to 37.5% to detect CIN 3+) without significant drop in sensitivity. All VIA positive women and 74.0% of HC II positive women had colposcopy. There was high compliance to treatment and significant stage‐shift of the screen‐detected cancers towards more early stage.     

Performance of an HPV 16/18 E6 oncoprotein test for detection of cervical precancer and cancer

HPV testing is a better alternative for cervical cancer screening, but additional procedures are required for triage of HPV positive women. HPV encoded oncoproteins E6 and E7, as the main effectors of HPV carcinogenicity represent promising triage alternatives. To evaluate performance of the test, we included 155 women from a screening study and 59 from the same referral population attending colposcopy and with precancerous lesions. All were HPV-tested with HC2 and genotyped with LiPA, and cervical swabs were tested for HPV16/18 E6 oncoproteins. Histologic specimens were reviewed and adjudicated using p16 immunohistochemistry and 55 women had confirmed histologic HSIL, 31 (56.3%) associated with HPV 16/18, 23 with other HPV types and one HPV negative. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated with histologic HSIL/cancer as gold standard. E6 oncoprotein was detectable in all but one HSIL and in all cancers where HPV16/18 DNA was detected, but in none of the cases associated with other HPV types or HPV negatives. Among the few HPV16/18 DNA positive subjects initially without HSIL (n = 4) who were E6 oncoprotein positive, precancer was detected during follow-up in 2 out of 3 with available information. Estimated sensitivity for HPV16/18-related HSIL+ was 96.8% (95%CI = 83.8–99.8) and for all HSIL+ regardless of HPV type it was 56.4% (95%CI = 43.3–68.6). Specificity was 97.5% (95%CI = 93.7–99.0). E6 oncoprotein proved as a highly sensitive and specific marker for detection of HPV16/18-related HSIL lesions in this Honduran population with limited previous screening and may be useful as a triage method in screening programs, particularly in low income countries.     

Performance of visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) for triage of HPV screen-positive women: results from the ESTAMPA study

VIA is recommended for triage of HPV-positive women attending cervical screening. In the multicentric ESTAMPA study, VIA performance for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) among HPV-positive women was evaluated. Women aged 30-64 years were screened with HPV testing and cytology and referred to colposcopy if either test was positive. At colposcopy visit, study-trained midwives/nurses/GPs performed VIA ahead of colposcopy. VIA was considered positive if acetowhite lesions were observed in or close to the transformation zone. Ablative treatment eligibility was assessed for VIA positives. Performance indicators were estimated. Three thousand one hundred and forty-two HPV-positive women were included. Sensitivity for CIN3+ was 85.9% (95% CI 81.2-89.5) among women <50 years and, although not significant, slightly lower in women 50+ (78.0%, 95% CI 65.9-86.6). Overall specificity was 58.6% (95% CI 56.7-60.5) and was significantly higher among women 50+ (70.3%, 95% CI 66.8-73.5) compared to women <50 (54.3%, 95% CI 52.1-56.5). VIA positivity was lower among women 50+ (35.2%, 95% CI 31.9-38.6) compared to women <50 (53.2, 95% CI 51.1-55.2). Overall eligibility for ablative treatment was 74.5% and did not differ by age. VIA sensitivity, specificity, and positivity, and ablative treatment eligibility varied highly by provider (ranges: 25%-95.4%, 44.9%-94.4%, 8.2%-65.3%, 0%-98.7%, respectively). VIA sensitivity for cervical precancer detection among HPV-positive women performed by trained providers was high with an important reduction in referral rates. However, scaling-up HPV screening triaged by VIA will be challenging due to the high variability of VIA performance and providers' need for training and supervision.     

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.     

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+.     

Cervical screening by visual inspection, HPV testing, liquid-based and conventional cytology in Amazonian Peru

Cervical cancer is an important public health problem in many developing countries, where cytology screening has been ineffective. We compared four tests to identify the most appropriate for screening in countries with limited resources. Nineteen midwives screened 5,435 women with visual inspection (VIA) and collected cervical samples for HPV testing, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and conventional cytology (CC). If VIA was positive, a doctor performed magnified VIA. CC was read locally, LBC was read in Lima and HPV testing was done in London. Women with a positive screening test were offered colposcopy or cryotherapy (with biopsy). Inadequacy rates were 5% and 11% for LBC and CC respectively, and less than 0.1% for VIA and HPV. One thousand eight hundred eighty-one women (84% of 2,236) accepted colposcopy/cryotherapy: 79 had carcinoma in situ or cancer (CIS+), 27 had severe- and 42 moderate-dysplasia on histology. We estimated a further 6.5 cases of CIS+ in women without a biopsy. Sensitivity for CIS+ (specificity for less than moderate dysplasia) was 41.2% (76.7%) for VIA, 95.8% (89.3%) for HPV, 80.3% (83.7%) for LBC, and 42.5% (98.7%) for CC. Sensitivities for moderate dysplasia or worse were better for VIA (54.9%) and less favourable for HPV and cytology. In this setting, VIA and CC missed the majority of high-grade disease. Overall, HPV testing performed best. VIA gives immediate results, but will require investment in regular training and supervision. Further work is needed to determine whether screened-positive women should all be treated or triaged with a more specific test.     

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.