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.     

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.     

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.     

Comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis,cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping for the detection of cervical (pre)cancer in high‐risk HPV‐positive women of a gynecologic outpatient population (COMETH study)

Recently, DNA methylation analysis of FAM19A4 in cervical scrapes has been shown to adequately detect high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥CIN3) in high‐risk HPV (hrHPV)‐positive women. Here, we compared the clinical performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis to cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping, separately and in combination, for ≥CIN3 detection in hrHPV‐positive women participating in a prospective observational multi‐center cohort study. The study population comprised hrHPV‐positive women aged 18–66 years, visiting a gynecological outpatient clinic. From these women, cervical scrapes and colposcopy‐directed biopsies (for histological confirmation) were obtained. Cervical scrapes were analyzed for FAM19A4 gene promoter methylation, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping. Methylation analysis was performed by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR (qMSP). Sensitivities and specificities for ≥CIN3 were compared between tests. Stratified analyses were performed for variables that potentially influence marker performance. Of all 508 hrHPV‐positive women, the sensitivities for ≥CIN3 of cytology, FAM19A4 methylation analysis, and cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping were 85.6, 75.6 and 92.2%, respectively, with corresponding specificities of 49.8, 71.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Both sensitivity and specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis were associated with age (p ≤ 0.001 each). In women ≥30 years (n = 287), ≥CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 88.3% (95%CI: 80.2–96.5) which was noninferior to that of cytology [85.5% (95%CI: 76.0–94.0)], at a significantly higher specificity [62.1% (95%CI: 55.8–68.4) compared to 47.6% (95%CI: 41.1–54.1)]. In conclusion, among hrHPV‐positive women from an outpatient population aged ≥30 years, methylation analysis of FAM19A4 is an attractive marker for the identification of women with ≥CIN3.     

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.     

Histopathologic follow-up and human papillomavirus DNA test results in 290 patients with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Papanicolaou test results

BACKGROUND:

The study documents histopathologic outcomes and high‐risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) test results in a large cohort of patients with high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) liquid‐based cytology (LBC) Pap test results.

METHODS:

A total of 352 patients with HSIL results (338 cervical and 14 vaginal) who had hrHPV testing and 290 patients with biopsy follow‐up were studied. hrHPV detection rates were compared at different ages, with or without an endocervical/transformation zone sample (EC/TZS), and for cervical and vaginal HSIL Pap smears. Histopathologic follow‐up findings were also compared. hrHPV‐negative HSIL slides were re‐evaluated in a blinded manner.

RESULTS:

A total of 325 of 338 (96.2%) cervical HSIL and 12 of 14 (87.5%) vaginal HSIL tested hrHPV‐positive. A total of 271 of 281 (96.4%) EC/TZS‐positive cervical HSIL and 54 of 57 (94.7%) EC/TZS‐negative cervical HSIL tested hrHPV‐positive. The percentage of hrHPV‐positive HSIL declined slightly with increasing age. 197 of 273 (72.3%) hrHPV‐positive cervical HSIL had histopathologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3+ follow‐up, including 8 squamous carcinomas, compared with 4 of 12 (33.3%) hrHPV‐negative HSIL with CIN2/3 (no carcinomas). 167 of 241 (69.2%) EC/TZS‐positive HSIL had CIN2/3+ follow‐up, compared with 34 of 44 (77.3%) EC/TZS‐negative HSIL. Equivocal HSIL morphology characterized some HPV‐negative HSIL without CIN2/3+ follow‐up.

CONCLUSIONS:

hrHPV was detected in LBC vials from 96.2% of 338 cervical HSIL and 85.7% of 14 vaginal HSIL. CIN2/3+ was significantly more likely with hrHPV‐positive cervical HSIL than with hrHPV‐negative cervical HSIL. Presence or absence of an EC/TZS did not significantly impact HSIL hrHPV or CIN2/3+ rates. Some hrHPV‐negative HSIL cases may represent HSIL cytologic mimics. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation levels in hrHPV‐positive cervical scrapes increase proportional to degree and duration of underlying cervical disease

Combined detection of cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1) and T‐lymphocyte maturation‐associated protein (MAL) promoter methylation in cervical scrapes is a promising triage strategy for high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)‐positive women. Here, CADM1 and MAL DNA methylation levels were analysed in cervical scrapes of hrHPV‐positive women with no underlying high‐grade disease, high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer. CADM1 and MAL methylation levels in scrapes were first related to CIN‐grade of the corresponding biopsy and second to CIN‐grade stratified by the presence of ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ cytology as present in the accompanying scrape preceding the cervical biopsy. The scrapes included 167 women with ≤CIN1, 54 with CIN2/3 and 44 with carcinoma. In a separate series of hrHPV‐positive scrapes of women with CIN2/3 (n = 48), methylation levels were related to duration of preceding hrHPV infection (PHI; <5 and ≥5 years). Methylation levels were determined by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR and normal cytology scrapes of hrHPV‐positive women with histologically ≤CIN1 served as reference. CADM1 and MAL methylation levels increased proportional to severity of the underlying lesion, showing an increase of 5.3‐ and 6.2‐fold in CIN2/3, respectively, and 143.5‐ and 454.9‐fold in carcinomas, respectively, compared to the reference. Methylation levels were also elevated in CIN2/3 with a longer duration of PHI (i.e. 11.5‐ and 13.6‐fold, respectively). Moreover, per histological category, methylation levels were higher in accompanying scrapes with abnormal cytology than in scrapes with normal cytology. Concluding, CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation levels in hrHPV‐positive cervical scrapes are related to the degree and duration of underlying cervical disease and markedly increased in cervical cancer.     

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 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.     

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.     

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+.     

The Value of a Novel Panel of Cervical Cancer Biomarkers for Triage of HPV Positive Patients and for Detecting Disease Progression

In the era of primary vaccination against HPV and at the beginning of the low prevalence of cervical lesions, introduction of screening methods that can distinguish between low- and high-grade lesions is necessary in order to maintain the positive predictive value of screening. This case-control study included 562 women who attended cervical screening or were referred for colposcopy and 140 disease free controls, confirmed by histology and/or cytology. The cases were stratified by age. Using routine exfoliated liquid based cytological samples RT-PCR measurements of biomarker genes, high-risk HPV testing and liquid based cytology were performed and used to evaluate different testing protocols including sets of genes/tests with different test cut-offs for the diagnostic panels. Three new panels of cellular biomarkers for improved triage of hrHPV positive women (diagnostic panel) and for prognostic assessment of CIN lesions were proposed. The diagnostic panel (PIK3AP1, TP63 and DSG3) has the potential to distinguish cytologically normal hrHPV+ women from hrHPV+ women with CIN2+. The prognostic gene panels (KRT78, MUC5AC, BPIFB1 and CXCL13, TP63, DSG3) have the ability to differentiate hrHPV+ CIN1 and carcinoma cases. The diagnostic triage panel showed good likelihood ratios for all age groups. The panel showed age-unrelated performance and even better diagnostic value under age 30, a unique feature among the established cervical triage tests. The prognostic gene-panels demonstrated good discriminatory power and oncogenic, anti-oncogenic grouping of genes. The study highlights the potential for the gene expression panels to be used for diagnostic triage and lesion prognostics in cervical cancer screening.     

CyclinA1 Promoter Methylation in Self-Sampling Test

Background: Self sampled HPV testing is a cervical cancer screening method . However, cytology in self-sampled specimen cannot be used as a triage test.  Therefore, other methods for triage should be considered. CyclinA1 (CCNA1) promoter methylation has strong association with cervical precancerous and cancerous lesion. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of CCNA1 and self-sampled specimen for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions or worse (CIN2+). Materials and Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted. Women with abnormal cytology or positive for high risk HPV (hrHPV) indicated for colposcopic examination were enrolled.  Self-collected sampling for hrHPV DNA (SS-HPV) and CCNA1 were performed. hrHPV DNA testing was done by Cobas 4800 method. CCNA1 promoter methylation was detected by CCNA1 duplex methylation specific PCR. Histopathologic result as CIN2+ obtaining from colposcopic directed biopsy or excisional procedure  was considered as positive a gold standard. The results of hrHPV and CCNA1 were reported as positive or negative. Sensitivity specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of SS-HPV and CCNA1 were calculated by comparing the results with the gold standard. Results: Two hundreds and eighty women were recruited. High-grade cervical lesions and cervical cancer (CIN2+) were diagnosed in 21.8% (61 cases) of the patients. The most common type of hrHPV was non 16, 18 subtype, followed by HPV16 and 18. CCNA1 was positive in 13 patients out of whom, twelve were CIN2+. Sensitivity of CCNA1 was 19.7 % and its  specificity and accuracy were 99.5% and 82.14%, respectively.  The sensitivity of SS-HPV was 70.5%, and its  specificity and accuracy were 39.2% and 43.3%, respectively. Conclusion:  Due to high specificity and positive predictive value of CCNA1, it can be used as alarming sign of having high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions, especially in patient who has positive hrHPV DNA test based on self-collected sampling.     

Comparison of human papillomavirus genotyping and cytology triage,COMPACT Study: Design,methods and baseline results in 14 642 women

Although cytology‐based screening programs have significantly reduced mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer, the global consensus is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancer. However, the optimal triage strategy for HPV‐positive women to avoid over‐referral to colposcopy may be setting specific. As Japan requires data that have been generated domestically to modify screening guidelines, we conducted a 3‐year prospective study, COMparison of HPV genotyping And Cytology Triage (COMPACT), to evaluate the potential role of HPV16/18 partial genotyping and cytology for primary HPV screening. In total, 14 642 women aged 20 to 69 years undergoing routine screening at 3 centers in Hokkaido were enrolled. Conventional cytology and HPV testing were carried out. Women with abnormal cytology or HPV16/18 positivity underwent colposcopy. Those with 12 other high‐risk (hr) HPV types underwent repeat cytology after 6 months. Primary study endpoints were detection of high‐grade cervical disease defined as CIN2/CIN3 or greater as determined by consensus pathology. Prevalence of cytological abnormalities was 2.4%. hrHPV, HPV 16, and HPV 18 were detected in 4.6%, 0.9%, and 0.3% of women, respectively. HPV16/18 were detected in all (8/8) invasive cervical cancers and in all (2/2) adenocarcinomas in situ. Both cytological abnormalities and hrHPV positivity declined with increasing age. This is the first Japanese study to investigate the role of partial genotyping and cytology in an HPV‐based screening program. Results should help policy‐makers develop guidelines for future cervical screening programs and management of cervical abnormalities based on HPV genotype.     

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.

     

Triage using HPV-testing in persistent borderline and mildly dyskaryotic smears: proposal for new guidelines

In the Netherlands 2% of cervical smears in the cervical cancer screening program are read as borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cytology (BMD smear). Only in about 10% of these women a high-grade CIN lesion (CIN II-III) is present; therefore referral is for the majority unnecessary. In our study triage with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing was used to identify women at risk for development of high-grade CIN lesions after a repeat BMD smear. A "wait-and-see" period was incorporated allowing clearance of HPV and regression of the lesion. Women with a low-grade lesion, irrespective of their HPV status, were monitored at 12 months; women with a high-grade lesion were monitored at 6 and 12 months. Fifty-one of the 105 women (49%) were hrHPV negative at baseline; none of them showed progression of the lesion within the first year of follow-up (NPV 100%). High-grade CIN was present in 1 patient who was HPV negative at baseline (2%); she demonstrated regression after 12 months. Nineteen of the hrHPV positive women (35%) demonstrated a high-grade CIN lesion at baseline and 3 cleared hrHPV after 6 months, with a subsequent regression of CIN. Ten women remained hrHPV positive with persistence of high-grade CIN and were eventually treated. At baseline, 35 hrHPV positive women demonstrated a low-grade lesion, 19 remained hrHPV positive after 12 months and 5 developed high-grade CIN. Sixteen out of the 35 cleared the hrHPV infection without progression of the lesion. In conclusion, triage, using hrHPV testing for women with persistent BMD cytology, can select women who are not at risk for development of high-grade CIN. We recommend return to the screening program without referral for colposcopic examination if hrHPV is absent. For hrHPV positive women, a repeat hrHPV test after another 6 months is suggested. Referral is only required if persistence of hrHPV is established.     

A four-gene methylation marker panel as triage test in high-risk human papillomavirus positive patients

Cervical neoplasia‐specific biomarkers, e.g. DNA methylation markers, with high sensitivity and specificity are urgently needed to improve current population‐based screening on (pre)malignant cervical neoplasia. We aimed to identify new cervical neoplasia‐specific DNA methylation markers and to design and validate a methylation marker panel for triage of high‐risk human papillomavirus (hr‐HPV) positive patients. First, high‐throughput quantitative methylation‐specific PCRs (QMSP) on a novel OpenArray? platform, representing 424 primers of 213 cancer specific methylated genes, were performed on frozen tissue samples from 84 cervical cancer patients and 106 normal cervices. Second, the top 20 discriminating methylation markers were validated by LightCycler® MSP on frozen tissue from 27 cervical cancer patients and 20 normal cervices and ROCs and test characteristics were assessed. Three new methylation markers were identified (JAM3, EPB41L3 and TERT), which were subsequently combined with C13ORF18 in our four‐gene methylation panel. In a third step, our methylation panel detected in cervical scrapings 94% (70/74) of cervical cancers, while in a fourth step 82% (32/39) cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and 65% (44/68) CIN2+ were detected, with 21% positive cases for ≤CIN1 (16/75). Finally, hypothetical scenario analysis showed that primary hr‐HPV testing combined with our four‐gene methylation panel as a triage test resulted in a higher identification of CIN3 and cervical cancers and a higher percentage of correct referrals compared to hr‐HPV testing in combination with conventional cytology. In conclusion, our four‐gene methylation panel might provide an alternative triage test after primary hr‐HPV testing.     

Risk stratification and long‐term risk prediction of E6 oncoprotein in a prospective screening cohort in China

E6 oncoprotein is a necessary agent of HPV driven oncogenic transformation. This study is aimed at evaluating the risk stratification potency of HPV 16/18 E6 oncoprotein (E6) as a triage method for HPV positivity. Moreover, it also acts as a predictor of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). The screening cohort of 1,997 women was followed for a 15 year period in approximate five‐year intervals. Participants were concurrently screened by HPV DNA testing (HC2), liquid based cytology (LBC), visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and were referred to colposcopy and biopsy if any tests reflected positive. E6 was performed on cervical samples collected from this cohort in 2005 and 2014. The ability of E6 to predict CIN3+ risk after the five‐ and ten‐year interval was evaluated. Among HPV positive women in 2005, E6 indicated the lowest positive rate (9.9%) compared to LBC (48.4%) and VIA (28.0%), however, a higher prevalence rate (10.3%) and 10‐year cumulative incidence rate (53.0%) of CIN3+ were detected among women who were E6 positive. Meanwhile, only 4.2% and 2.9% of women with abnormal LBC and positive VIA were diagnosed as prevalent CIN3+ in 2005, 23.0% and 16.5% developed to CIN3+ after year 10, respectively. Strong associations were found between precedent and subsequent HPV persistence and E6 oncoprotein expression (OR_adjusted = 40.0 and 21.2, respectively). E6 oncoprotein could serve as a low‐cost, highly specific, strongly indicative point‐of‐care method in the triage and treatment of HPV positive women.     

Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions

Low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) is a common cytologic finding in cervical screening, yet only about 10–20% have significant histologic abnormalities and these are almost always positive for high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV). This analysis aims to clarify the role of hrHPV DNA testing in the triage of women with LSIL cytology. In the ATHENA screening trial, we examined 1,084 cases of LSIL, of which 925 had an evaluable biopsy, to determine the extent to which hrHPV testing can identify those patients who have precursor lesions in need of immediate clinical referral and those who have changes more likely to regress spontaneously. Overall, 71.2% of LSIL cases were hrHPV positive, but the prevalence was age dependent, with only 56.1% in women ≥40 years. Among women with LSIL, 11.6% (107/925) had a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) histologic diagnosis and, of these, only nine were hrHPV negative. For CIN3+, 91.7% (44/48) of women with LSIL were hrHPV positive. The negative predictive value of hrHPV testing for CIN3+ in LSIL was 100% for women aged ≥40 years. Women who were HPV16 positive had a higher positive predictive value for CIN2+ (25.4%) than those who were positive for 12 other pooled hrHPV types (11.5%). Testing for hrHPV in women with LSIL is effective in identifying high‐grade cervical lesions, thereby avoiding unnecessary referrals to colposcopy and potential over‐treatment of non‐progressive lesions, especially for women aged ≥40 years.     

A DNA methylation classifier of cervical precancer based on human papillomavirus and human genes

Testing for high‐risk (hr) types of human papillomavirus (HPV) is highly sensitive as a screening test of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic (CIN2/3) disease, the precursor of cervical cancer. However, it has a relatively low specificity. Our objective was to develop a prediction rule with a higher specificity, using combinations of human and HPV DNA methylation. Exfoliated cervical specimens from colposcopy‐referral cohorts in London were analyzed for DNA methylation levels by pyrosequencing in the L1 and L2 regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31 and human genes EPB41L3, DPYS and MAL. Samples from 1,493 hrHPV‐positive women were assessed and of these 556 were found to have CIN2/3 at biopsy; 556 tested positive for HPV16 (323 CIN2/3), 201 for HPV18 (73 CIN2/3) and 202 for HPV31 (98 CIN2/3). The prediction rule included EPB41L3 and HPV and had area under curve 0.80 (95% CI 0.78–0.82). For 90% sensitivity, specificity was 36% (33–40) and positive predictive value (PPV) was 46% (43–48). By HPV type, 90% sensitivity corresponded to the following specificities and PPV, respectively: HPV16, 38% (32–45) and 67% (63–71); HPV18, 53% (45–62) and 52% (45–59); HPV31, 39% (31–49) and 58% (51–65); HPV16, 18 or 31, 44% (40–49) and 62% (59–65) and other hrHPV 17% (14–21) and 21% (18–24). We conclude that a methylation assay in hrHPV‐positive women might improve PPV with minimal sensitivity loss.