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.     

Human papillomavirus mRNA and DNA testing in women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: A prospective cohort study

In this prospective cohort study, we compared the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) mRNA and DNA testing of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US) during cervical cancer screening. Using a nationwide Danish pathology register, we identified women aged 30–65 years with ASC‐US during 2005–2011 who were tested for HPV16/18/31/33/45 mRNA using PreTect HPV‐Proofer (n = 3,226) or for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) DNA using Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) (n = 9,405) or Linear Array HPV‐Genotyping test (LA) (n = 1,533). Women with ≥1 subsequent examination in the register (n = 13,729) were followed for up to 9.5 years for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer. After 3 years' follow‐up, mRNA testing had higher specificity for CIN3 or worse (CIN3+) than HC2 testing (88.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 86.8–89.6%] versus 59.3% [95% CI: 58.1–60.4%]) and higher positive predictive value (PPV) (38.2% [95% CI: 33.8%–43.1%] versus 19.5% [95% CI: 17.8–20.9%]). However, the sensitivity of mRNA testing was lower than that of HC2 testing (66.7% [95% CI: 59.3–74.5%] versus 97.0% [95% CI: 95.5–98.4%]), and women testing mRNA negative had higher 3‐year risk for CIN3+ than those testing HC2 negative (3.2% [95% CI: 2.2–4.2%] versus 0.5% [95% CI: 0.3–0.7%]). Patterns were similar after 18 months and 5 years'; follow‐up; for CIN2+ and cancer as outcomes; across all age groups; and when comparing mRNA testing to hrHPV DNA testing using LA. In conclusion, the HPV16/18/31/33/45 mRNA test is not optimal for ASC‐US triage due to its low sensitivity and the substantial risk for precancer following a negative test.     

The APTIMA HPV assay versus the hybrid capture 2 test in triage of women with ASC‐US or LSIL cervical cytology: A meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy

Testing for DNA of 13 high‐risk HPV types with the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test has consistently been shown to perform better in triage of women with cervical cytology results showing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US) but often not in triage of low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) detected in cervical cancer screening. In a meta‐analysis, we compared the accuracy of the APTIMA HPV test, which identifies RNA of 14 high‐risk HPV types, to HC2 for the triage of women with ASC‐US or LSIL. Literature search‐targeted studies where the accuracy of APTIMA HPV and HC2 for detection of underlying CIN2/3+ was assessed concomitantly including verification of all cases of ASC‐US and LSIL. HSROC (Hierarchical Summary ROC) curve regression was used to compute the pooled absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity. Eight studies, comprising 1,839 ASC‐US and 1,887 LSIL cases, were retrieved. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of APTIMA to triage ASC‐US to detect underlying CIN3 or worse was 96.2% (95% CI = 91.7–98.3%) and 54.9% (95% CI = 43.5–65.9%), respectively. APTIMA and HC2 showed similar pooled sensitivity; however, the specificity of the former was significantly higher (ratio: 1.19; 95% CI = 1.08–1.31 for CIN2+). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of APTIMA to triage LSIL were 96.7% (95% CI = 91.4–98.9%) and 38.7% (95% CI = 30.5–47.6%) for CIN3+. APTIMA was as sensitive as HC2 but more specific (ratio: 1.35; 95% CI = 1.11–1.66). Results were similar for detection of CIN2 or worse. In both triage of ASC‐US and LSIL, APTIMA is as sensitive but more specific than HC2 for detecting cervical precancer.     

Prevalence of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in Vanuatu

To provide information on human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence and the distribution of individual HPV types in Pacific Islands, we conducted a population-based survey in Vanuatu, South Pacific. Nine hundred and eighty-seven women between 18 and 64 years of age were included. GP5(+)/6(+)-mediated PCR assay was used for HPV testing. The prevalence of 44 HPV types was 28.4% corresponding to an age (world)-standardized prevalence of 25.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 21.9%-28.0%]. The prevalence of high-risk (HR) HPV types was 21.7% (age-standardized prevalence of 19.2%; 95% CI, 16.4%-22.0%). Among 840 women with adequate cytologic results, 13.6% showed cervical abnormalities, including 3.6% with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and 0.8% with invasive cervical carcinoma. HPV prevalence declined from 46.1% in women aged ≤21 to 15.3% in those ≥45 years. Being single was significantly associated with HPV positivity. HR HPV findings by PCR assay and hybrid capture 2 (HC2; conducted in Vanuatu) were moderately correlated (κ test = 0.59). The positive predictive values of HR HPV positivity for HSIL or worse were 27.6% for PCR and 35.2% for HC2 among women aged ≥30. Nearly half of screening-positive women could not be reevaluated mainly on account of the difficulty to trace back women. The availability of a rapid HPV testing method that allows see-and-treat approaches at the same visit would be, therefore, essential. On account of their high cumulative burden of cervical lesions, also women older than 40 years should be included in at least the first screening round in unscreened populations.     

Prevalence of human papillomavirus and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in China: A pooled analysis of 17 population-based studies

High-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence has been shown to correlate well with cervical cancer incidence rates. Our study aimed to estimate the prevalence of HR-HPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in China and indirectly informs on the cervical cancer burden in the country. A total of 30,207 women from 17 population-based studies throughout China were included. All women received HPV DNA testing (HC2, Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD), visual inspection with acetic acid and liquid-based cytology. Women positive for any test received colposcopy-directed or four-quadrant biopsies. A total of 29,579 women had HR-HPV testing results, of whom 28,761 had biopsy confirmed (9,019, 31.4%) or assumed (19,742, 68.6%) final diagnosis. Overall crude HR-HPV prevalence was 17.7%. HR-HPV prevalence was similar in rural and urban areas but showed dips in different age groups: at age 25–29 (11.3%) in rural and at age 35–39 (11.3%) in urban women. In rural and urban women, age-standardized CIN2 prevalence was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4–1.6%] and 0.7% (95% CI: 0.7–0.8%) and CIN3+ prevalence was 1.2% (95% CI: 1.2–1.3%) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5–0.7%), respectively. Prevalence of CIN3+ as a percentage of either all women or HR-HPV-positive women steadily increased with age, peaking in 45- to 49-year-old women. High prevalence of HR-HPV and CIN3+ was detected in both rural and urban China. The steady rise of CIN3+ up to the age group of 45–49 is attributable to lack of lesion removal through screening. Our findings document the inadequacy of current screening in China while indirectly raising the possibility that the cervical cancer burden in China is underreported.     

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.     

A daunting challenge: Human Papillomavirus assays and cytology in primary cervical screening of women below age 30 years

We compared cytology with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), cobas, CLART and APTIMA Human Papillomavirus (HPV) assays in primary cervical screening at age 23–29 years based on data from the Danish Horizon study. SurePath samples were collected from 1278 women undergoing routine cytology-based screening. Abnormal cytology was managed according to the routine recommendations, and women with cytology-normal/HPV-positive samples were invited for repeated cytology and HPV testing in 1.5 years. Loss to follow-up was similar between HPV assays. ⩾CIN3 was detected in 44 women. The sensitivity of HC2 for ⩾CIN3 was 95% (95% confidence interval (CI): 85–99), of cobas 98% (95% CI: 88–100), of CLART 100% (95% CI: 92–100), of APTIMA 82% (95% CI: 67–92), and of cytology 59% (95% CI: 43–74). Specificity for ⩾CIN3 varied between 61% (95% CI: 59–64) for cobas and 75% (95% CI: 73–78) for APTIMA, and was 94% (95% CI: 93–96) for cytology. Similar results were observed for ⩾CIN2 (N = 68). HPV screening with cytological triage doubled the number of colposcopies compared to cytology screening, and increased the frequency of repeated testing by four (APTIMA) to seven (cobas) times. The positive predictive value of a referral for colposcopy was relatively high for all screening tests (⩾30% for ⩾CIN3, and ⩾50% for ⩾CIN2). CIN1 was detected by cytology in ∼1% of women, and in ∼2% by any of the four HPV assays. Although highly sensitive, HPV-based screening of young Danish women should be approached cautiously, as it resulted in large reductions in specificity, and increased the demand for additional testing.     

Evaluation of multiple primary and combination screening strategies in postmenopausal women for detection of cervical cancer in China

As China's population ages, the importance of determining prevalence of cervical disease and accurate cervical cancer screening strategies for postmenopausal women is increasing. Seventeen population‐based studies were analyzed to determine prevalence of cervical neoplasia in postmenopausal women. All women underwent HPV DNA testing, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and cytology testing. Diagnostic values for primary and combinations screening methods included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), referral rate and area under curve (AUC) were calculated using directed biopsy or four quadrants biopsy as reference standard. Premenopausal and postmenopausal women had equal HPV infection and cervical neoplasia rates (p > 0.05). HPV DNA testing CIN3+ sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, referral rate and AUC were 97.9% (95% CI: 90.2–99.9%), 84.2% (95% CI: 82.8–85.5%), 9.9% (95% CI: 7.4–12.8%), 100% (95% CI: 99.8–100%), 17.2% (95% CI: 15.9–18.7%), 0.911, respectively. VIA values were 41.7% (95% CI: 28.4–55.9%), 94.5% (95% CI: 93.6–95.3%), 11.8% (95% CI: 7.5–17.3%), 98.9% (95% CI: 98.5–99.3%), 6.2% (95% CI: 5.3–7.1%) and 0.681, respectively. Values for VIA with HPV triage were 39.6% (95% CI: 26.6–53.8%), 99.2% (95% CI: 98.8–99.5%), 45.2% (95% CI: 30.8–60.4%), 98.9% (95% CI: 98.5–99.3%), 1.5% (95% CI: 1.1–2.0%) and 0.694, respectively. VIA and HPV DNA co‐test values were 100% (95% CI: 94.0–100%), 79.5% (95% CI: 78.0–81.0%), 8.0% (95% CI: 6.0–10.3%), 100% (95% CI: 99.9–100%), 21.9% (95% CI: 20.4–23.4%) and 0.898, respectively. VIA sensitivity decreases significantly in postmenopausal women compared to premenopausal performance. HPV DNA testing maintains performance between pre‐ and postmenopausal women and is the most accurate primary modality for screening postmenopausal populations in low resource areas of China.     

Evaluating the Performance of Hybrid Capture 2 Test as a Primary Screening Test from Studies Conducted in Low and Middle-Income Country Settings- Special Focus India

Among the screening tests for cervical cancer, advantages of screening with second generation molecular Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test is the high sensitivity and negative predictive value that makes it easy to implement as a cervical cancer screening policy necessitating less screening rounds. High income countries are now implementing HC2 test in their national cervical cancer screening program. Since the acceptance of any screening test depends on the sensitivity of the test, the current study was carried out to evaluate the sensitivity of HC2 test reported from Low- and Middle-income countries (LMIC) which share major burden of cervical cancer globally and to establish if HC2 test could be used as a primary screening test in India. Materials and methods: The population based cross sectional studies from LMICs which evaluated HC2 test as a primary screening modality to diagnose Cervical intraepithelial neoplasm grade 2 and above (CIN2+) lesions were included. Results: A total of 18 studies from LMIC involving 1,13,086 women were reviewed for sensitivity of HC2 as a primary screening test. The overall average sensitivity and specificity to diagnose CIN2+ lesions were 79.84% (95% CI-71.01,86.73) and 85.63% (95% CI- 84.37,86.92) respectively. India demonstrated an average sensitivity and specificity of 65% (95% CI 57,77) and 93% (95% CI- 92,94) respectively. Conclusion: Results from LMIC demonstrate a comparably low sensitivity of HC2 test to diagnose CIN2+ lesions as compared to that reported from High income countries. Sensitivity of HC2 was substantially low for India. The current study discusses issues of HC2 assay and the role of untreated Reproductive tract infections as probable causes for low sensitivity of the test. This needs further research in an attempt to improve the sensitivity of the test in an era of self-sampling and low-cost HPV test on horizon to improve the coverage for cervical cancer.     

Cumulative 5-year diagnoses of CIN2, CIN3 or cervical cancer after concurrent high-risk HPV and cytology testing in a primary screening setting

The aim of our study was to assess the cumulative 5-year diagnoses of CIN2, CIN3 or invasive cervical cancer (CIN2+) after concurrent screening by high-risk HPV test and Pap smear in a primary screening setting. Four thousand thirty-four women from Eastern Thuringia/Germany were recruited from 1996 to 1998 for baseline screening that included routine cytology, high-risk HPV testing by consensus primer PCR GP5+/6+ and routine colposcopy. After a median of 59 months 3,153 women participated in final screening using identical methods. Women with abnormal cytology or colposcopy or a positive high-risk HPV test at any time during the study period were recalled for expert colposcopy and histologic verification. CIN2+ was detected in 160 women resulting in a cumulative 5-year proportion of 4.4% (95% CI: 3.7-5.0%). Of 3,702 women who were high-risk HPV negative at baseline, 34 (1.1-95% CI: 0.7-1.4%) had either prevalent CIN2+ or developed CIN2+ within the observation period. HPV/cytology double negatives at baseline were at lowest risk for CIN2+ (1.0-95% CI: 0.7-1.4%) compared to screening positives (16.8-100% depending on combined test results). The 5-year negative predictive value in HPV-/Cyto- women was 99.0% (95% CI: 98.6-99.3%). This suggests that a prolongation of the screening intervals in this group is feasible. However, it should be noted that 1 woman developed a microinvasive carcinoma within the observation period. Moreover, 2 women with prevalent cancer were missed by both tests. The prognostic relevance of concurrent high-risk HPV/cytology screening needs to be verified further by randomized trials.     

Evaluation of a validated methylation triage signature for human papillomavirus positive women in the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening requires triage of HPV positive women to identify those at risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse. We conducted a blinded case–control study within the HPV FOCAL randomized cervical cancer screening trial of women aged 25–65 to examine whether baseline methylation testing using the S5 classifier provided triage performance similar to an algorithm relying on cytology and HPV genotyping. Groups were randomly selected from women with known HPV/cytology results and pathology outcomes. Group 1: 104 HPV positive (HPV+), abnormal cytology (54 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 2: 103 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV persistence at 12 mo. (53 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 3: 50 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV clearance at 12 mo. (assumed <CIN2), total n=257. For the combined groups, S5 risk score CIN2/3 relative sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared with other triage approaches. Methylation showed a highly significant increasing trend with disease severity. For CIN3, S5 relative sensitivity and specificity were: 93.2% (95%CI: 81.4–98.0) and 41.8% (35.2–48.8), compared to 86.4% (75.0–95.7) and 49.8% (43.1–56.6) respectively for combined abnormal cytology/HPV16/18 positivity (differences not statistically significant at 5% level); adjusted PPVs were 18.2% (16.2–20.4) and 19.3% (16.6–22.2) respectively. S5 was also positive in baseline specimens from eight cancers detected during or after trial participation. The S5 methylation score had high sensitivity and PPV for CIN3, compatible with US and European thresholds for colposcopy referral. Methylation signatures can identify most HPV positive women at increased risk of cervical cancer from their baseline screening specimens.     

Human papilloma virus genotyping for the cross‐sectional and longitudinal probability of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more

Human papilloma virus (HPV) testing is more sensitive but less specific than cytology. We evaluated stand‐alone genotyping as a possible triage method. During a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HPV testing to conventional cytology, HPV‐positive women were referred to colposcopy and followed up if no high‐grade lesion was detected. HPV‐positive samples were genotyped by GP5+/GP6+ primed polymerase chain reaction followed by reverse line blot. Genotypes were hierarchically ordered by positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN grade 2 or more (CIN2+), and grouped by cluster analysis into three groups (A, B and C in decreasing order). Receiver operating characteristic curves were computed. Among 2,255 HPV‐positive women with genotyping, 239 CIN2+ (including 113 CIN3+) were detected at baseline or during a 3‐year follow‐up. HPV33 had the highest PPV with CIN2+ and CIN3+ as the endpoint and when considering lesions detected at baseline or also during follow‐up. HPV16 and HPV35 were the second and third, respectively. Cross‐sectional sensitivity for CIN2+ at baseline was 67.3% (95% CI 59.7–74.2), 91.8% (95% CI 86.6–95.5) and 94.7% (95% CI 90.2–97.6), respectively, when considering as “positive” any of the HPV types in group A (33, 16 and 35), A or B (31, 52, 18, 59 and 58) and A or B or C (39, 51, 56, 45 and 68). The corresponding cross‐sectional PPVs for CIN2+ were 15.8% 95% (CI 13.2–18.7), 12.0% (95% CI 10.3–13.9) and 9.6% (95% CI 8.2–11.1), respectively. HPV33, 16 and 35 confer a high probability of CIN2+ but this rapidly decreases when adding other genotypes.     

Is HPV DNA testing specificity comparable to that of cytological testing in primary cervical cancer screening? Results of a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Human‐papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has been proposed as an alternative to primary cervical cancer screening using cytological testing. Review of the evidence shows that available data are conflicting for some aspects. The overall goal of the study is to update the performance of HPV DNA as stand‐alone testing in primary cervical cancer screening, focusing particularly on the aspects related to the specificity profile of the HPV DNA testing in respect to cytology. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Eight articles were included in the meta‐analysis. Three outcomes have been investigated: relative detection, relative specificity, and relative positive predictive value (PPV) of HPV DNA testing versus cytology. Overall evaluation of relative detection showed a significantly higher detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ for HPV DNA testing versus cytology. Meta‐analyses that considered all age groups showed a relative specificity that favored the cytology in detecting both CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions whereas, in the ≥30 years' group, specificity of HPV DNA and cytology tests was similar in detecting both CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions. Results of the pooled analysis on relative PPV showed a not significantly lower PPV of HPV DNA test over cytology. A main key finding of the study is that in women aged ≥30, has been found an almost overlapping specificity between the two screening tests in detecting CIN2 and above‐grade lesions. Therefore, primary screening of cervical cancer by HPV DNA testing appears to offer the right balance between maximum detection of CIN2+ and adequate specificity, if performed in the age group ≥30 years.     

Predicting CIN2+ when detecting HPV mRNA and DNA by PreTect HPV-proofer and consensus PCR: A 2-year follow-up of women with ASCUS or LSIL Pap smear

It has been suggested that human papillomavirus (HPV) testing improves follow-up of atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) in cervical cancer screening programs. To evaluate the prognostic value of including HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology, we carried out a 2-year follow-up study of 77 women with ASCUS or LSIL Papanicolaou (Pap) smear in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP) for detection of histological cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+. The study includes a comparison between viral mRNA and DNA detection. PreTect HPV-Proofer was used for HPV E6/E7 mRNA detection from the 5 high-risk types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45, and Gp5+/6+ consensus PCR was used for HPV DNA detection. Twice as many women were positive for HPV DNA (54.6%) than for HPV mRNA (23.4%). PreTect HPV-Proofer and consensus PCR had a sensitivity of 85.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.1-99.6) for detecting CIN2+ during follow-up. The specificity was significantly higher for PreTect HPV-Proofer, 84.9% (95% CI = 73.9-92.5), than for consensus PCR, 50.0% (95% CI = 37.4-62.6). PreTect HPV-Proofer positive women were 69.8 times (95% CI = 4.3-1137.3) more likely to be diagnosed with CIN2+ within 2 years than PreTect HPV-Proofer negative women. Consensus PCR-positive women were 5.7 times (95% CI = 0.6-52.0) more likely to be diagnosed with CIN2+ within 2 years than PCR-negative women. With equal sensitivity and higher specificity than consensus PCR, the PreTect HPV-Proofer might offer an improvement for the triage of women with ASCUS or LSIL Pap smear.     

Type-specific HPV geno-typing improves detection of recurrent high-grade cervical neoplasia after conisation

The aim of this case-control study was to examine if type-specific human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA geno-typing before and after treatment of high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) improves prediction of recurring or persisting CIN 2 or 3 compared with follow-up cytology or high-risk (hr)HPV testing. Women with biopsy-proven recurrence of CIN 2 or 3 (cases) in a follow-up period of at least 24 months after treatment of high-grade CIN were compared with women without recurrence (controls). These cohorts were identified by a database search of the Riatol Laboratoria (Antwerp, Belgium). In a cohort of 823 women treated with conisation for high-grade CIN between January 2001 and December 2007, 21 patients with a histologically proven recurrence of CIN2+ were identified. A group of women (n=42) from the same cohort without recurrence was randomly chosen. We found that hrHPV testing at 6 months post-treatment is significantly more sensitive compared with follow-up cytology (ratio: 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.54), but less specific (ratio: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.81-0.90) to predict failure of treatment. When compared with hrHPV testing, HPV geno-typing is more efficient (equal sensitivity, but higher specificity, ratio: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.280-1.62). When compared with follow-up cytology, HPV geno-typing is more sensitive (ratio: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.10-1.54) and more specific (ratio: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14-1.36). All women who developed a recurrence tested positive for hrHPV. The negative predictive value in the absence of hrHPV DNA was 100%. Six months after treatment HPV geno-typing is the most sensitive and specific method to predict recurrent or persistent CIN 2-3 in the next 24 months.     

Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients

In a prospective cohort study 8466 women attending routine cervical cancer screening were recruited. Colposcopy was performed on women with any degree of atypia on cytology and/or a positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA test (HC2; Hybrid Capture 2((c))), and for a randomly selected sample of 3.4% women with negative findings on both. Quality control included reviews of cytology, histology, colposcopy images and retesting of samples with polymerase chain reaction. Test diagnostic performances were based on 7908 women who had complete baseline and follow-up results. Routine histology identified 86 women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+), which was confirmed by review histology in only 46 cases. Sensitivity of routine cytology for the detection of CIN2+ was 43.5%, with a specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.0, 11.4 and 99.7%, respectively. Sensitivity of the HC2 test for the detection of CIN2+ was 97.8%, with a specificity, PPV and NPV, of 95.3, 10.9 and 100%, respectively. No high-grade neoplasia was detected in the randomly selected control group. A negative HPV-test result, even in combination with a positive Papanicolaou (Pap) result, virtually excluded any risk of underlying high-grade disease, but this was not the case for a negative Pap result. These data show that HPV testing is of value for the detection or exclusion of prevalent CIN in a routine cervical cancer-screening setting and could be used for further risk classification of women for follow-up management.     

Age-dependent prevalence of 14 high-risk HPV types in the Netherlands: implications for prophylactic vaccination and screening

We determined the prevalence of type-specific hrHPV infections in the Netherlands on cervical scrapes of 45 362 women aged 18-65 years. The overall hrHPV prevalence peaked at the age of 22 with peak prevalence of 24%. Each of the 14 hrHPV types decreased significantly with age (P-values between 0.0009 and 0.03). The proportion of HPV16 in hrHPV-positive infections also decreased with age (OR=0.76 (10-year scale), 95% CI=0.67-0.85), and a similar trend was observed for HPV16 when selecting hrHPV-positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.56-1.01). In women eligible for routine screening (age 29-61 years) with confirmed CIN2+, 65% was infected with HPV16 and/or HPV18. When HPV16/18-positive infections in women eligible for routine screening were discarded, the positive predictive value of cytology for the detection of CIN2+ decreased from 27 to 15%, the positive predictive value of hrHPV testing decreased from 26 to 15%, and the predictive value of a double-positive test (positive HPV test and a positive cytology) decreased from 54 to 41%. In women vaccinated against HPV16/18, screening remains important to detect cervical lesions caused by non-HPV16/18 types. To maintain a high-positive predictive value, screening algorithms must be carefully re-evaluated with regard to the screening modalities and length of the screening interval.     

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

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

Clinical Performance of APTIMA Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16 18/45 mRNA Genotyping Testing for the Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3 (CIN3) or Cancer in a Select Group of Chinese Women

HPV type was evaluated in a select group of Chinese women that were positive with hybrid capture, and correlations were performed between the pathology found, the type of virus and a semiquantitation from the hybrid capture results. Totally 394 referred high-risk-HPV-positive women evaluated by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC-2) assay were enrolled. Before colposcopy, cervical specimens were collected from all participants and suspended into PreservCytcollection medium (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA), and tested with the APTIMA HPV16 18/45 mRNA assay. Colposcopy and diagnostic biopsies were done on all participants. Viral load was assessed by HC2 assay. Totally 55 women were diagnosed as CIN 3 plus cancer (≥CIN3), and the prevalence of HPV16/18/45 was 65.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 52.9–78.0 %) among these ≥CIN3 women. Compared with the group with positive HC2 but negative HPV16/18/45, the odds ratio (OR) to identify ≥CIN3 was 6.3 (95 % CI, 3.2–12.3) for HPV16 and 3.2 (95 % CI, 1.4–7.2) for HPV18/45. When using ≥CIN3 as an endpoint, the sensitivity and specificity was 65.5 % (95 % CI, 52.9–78.0 %) and 72.0 % (95 % CI, 67.2–76.8 %). In the case of HPV16/18/45 negative, no high HPV load had a statistically significant increased risk for the prevalence of ≥CIN3. HPV16, 18 and 45 infection is a major cause for ≥CIN3 in Chinese women. Women with positive HPV16/18/45 should be referred to colposcopy immediately. HPV load was not suitable for the further triaged of the HPV16/18/45 negative cases.     

Use of Fast Transfer Analysis Cartridges for Cervical Sampling and Real Time PCR Based High Risk HPV Testing in Cervical Cancer Prevention - a Feasibility Study from South India

Background: Molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most objective and reproducible ofall cervical cancer screening tests and also less demanding in terms of training and quality assurance. However,there is an impending need for cost effective molecular HPV testing methods with sampling ease, easy storagemeasures and minimum turn around times suitable for a low resource setting. Objective : Our aim was toevaluate the feasibility of using a fast transfer analysis (FTA) mini elute cartridge for cervical sampling toidentify high risk HPV by real time PCR and to compare molecular HPV testing and Pap cytology testing topredict histologically confirmed cervical precancer (CIN 2+ lesions) in a cervical cancer prevention program.Materials and Methods: This was conducted as a pilot study (n=200) on women sampled using FTA mini elutecartridges, genotyped by two different real time PCR assays, detecting 13 high risk HPV (HR HPV) species,including HPV16 along with its physical DNA status. Results obtained from each of the tests were comparedand analysed using suitable statistical tests. Results: With FTA mini elute cartridge samples HR HPV positivitywas seen in 48/200 (24%). Of these, presence of HPV 16 DNA was observed in 28/48 (58.3%) women. High riskHPV was positive in 20% (37/185) of women with benign cytology and 73.3% (11/15) of women with abnormalcytology findings. A very significant correlation (χ2 = 22.090 ; p=0.000) was observed between cytology and HRHPV findings showing an increasing trend of HR HPV prevalence in 50% (1/2) of LSIL, 75% (3/4) of HSIL and100% (3/3) of SCC. Of the CIN 2+ lesions identified by histopathology, 88.9% (8/9) had HR HPV. A significantassociation (χ2=11.223 ; p=0.001) of HR HPV and histopathologically confirmed CIN 2+ lesions was found.Sensitivity of the two tests were comparable but specificity of Pap testing was better (90.7% vs 70.4%) to predicthistopathologically diagnosed cervical precancers. Conclusions: The current study explored the feasibility ofusing a FTA mini elute cartridge for cervical sampling for the first time in India as a part of a community basedcervical cancer prevention program. We suggest that FTA based sampling is suitable and feasible for real timebased HPV testing. Molecular HR HPV testing can be more sensitive and useful to identify high risk womenrequiring Pap testing which is more specific to detect histologically confirmed cervical precancer.