Long‐term HPV type‐specific risks of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial lesions: A 14‐year follow‐up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial

Quantitative knowledge of the long‐term human papillomavirus (HPV) type‐specific risks for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias Grades 2 and 3 (CIN2 and CIN3) is useful for estimating the effect of elimination of specific HPV types and clinical benefits of screening for specific HPV types. We estimated HPV type‐specific risks for CIN2 and CIN3 using a randomized primary HPV screening trial followed up for 14.6 years using comprehensive, nationwide registers. Poisson regression estimated cumulative incidences, population attributable proportions (PAR) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of high‐grade lesions by baseline HPV type, with censoring at date of first CIN2/3 or last registered cytology. Multivariate analysis adjusted for coinfections. IRRs were highest during the first screening round, but continued to be high throughout follow‐up (IRRs for CIN3 associated with high‐risk (HR) HPV positivity were 226.9, 49.3, 17.7 and 10.3 during the first, second and third screening round and for >9 years of follow‐up, respectively). Increased long‐term risks were found particularly for HPV Types 16, 18 and 31 and for CIN3+ risks. HPV16/18/31/33 had 14‐year cumulative incidences for CIN3+ above 28%, HPV35/45/52/58 had 14 year risks between 14% and 18% and HPV39/51/56/59/66/68 had risks <10%. HPV16 contributed to the greatest proportion of CIN2+ (first round PAR 36%), followed by Types 31, 52, 45 and 58 (7–11%). HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 together contributed 73.9% of CIN2+ lesions and all HR types contributed 86.9%. In summary, we found substantial differences in risks for CIN2 and CIN3 between different oncogenic HPV types. These differences may be relevant for both clinical management and design of preventive strategies.     

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+.     

Human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: End‐of‐study and extended follow‐up results from the Canadian cervical cancer screening trial

The Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial was a randomized controlled trial comparing the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and Papanicolaou cytology to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grades 2 or worse (CIN2+) among women aged 30–69 years attending routine cervical cancer screening in Montreal and St. John's, Canada (n = 10,154). We examined screening and prognostic values of enrollment cytologic and HPV testing results. Extended follow‐up data were available for St. John's participants (n = 5,754; 501,682.6 person‐months). HPV testing detected more CIN2+ than cytology during protocol‐defined (82.9 vs. 44.4%) and extended (54.2 vs. 19.3%) follow‐up periods, respectively. Three‐year risks ranged from 0.87% (95% CI: 0.37–2.05) for HPV‐/Pap‐ women to 35.77% (95% CI: 25.88–48.04) for HPV+/Pap+ women. Genotype‐specific risks ranged from 0.90% (95% CI: 0.40–2.01) to 43.84% (95% CI: 32.42–57.24) among HPV? and HPV16+ women, respectively, exceeding those associated with Pap+ or HPV+ results taken individually or jointly. Ten‐year risks ranged from 1.15% (95% CI: 0.60–2.19) for HPV?/Pap? women to 26.05% (95% CI: 15.34–42.13) for HPV+/Pap+ women and genotype‐specific risks ranged from 1.13% (95% CI: 0.59–2.14) to 32.78% (95% CI: 21.15–48.51) among women testing HPV? and HPV16+, respectively. Abnormal cytology stratified risks most meaningfully for HPV+ women. Primary HPV testing every 3 years provided a similar or greater level of reassurance against disease risks as currently recommended screening strategies. HPV‐based cervical screening may allow for greater disease detection than cytology‐based screening and permit safe extensions of screening intervals; genotype‐specific testing could provide further improvement in the positive predictive value of such screening.     

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.     

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.     

A cohort study of cervical screening using partial HPV typing and cytology triage

HPV testing is more sensitive than cytology for cervical screening. However, to incorporate HPV tests into screening, risk‐stratification (“triage”) of HPV‐positive women is needed to avoid excessive colposcopy and overtreatment. We prospectively evaluated combinations of partial HPV typing (Onclarity, BD) and cytology triage, and explored whether management could be simplified, based on grouping combinations yielding similar 3‐year or 18‐month CIN3+ risks. We typed ～9,000 archived specimens, taken at enrollment (2007–2011) into the NCI‐Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) HPV Persistence and Progression (PaP) cohort. Stratified sampling, with reweighting in the statistical analysis, permitted risk estimation of HPV/cytology combinations for the 700,000+‐woman KPNC screening population. Based on 3‐year CIN3+ risks, Onclarity results could be combined into five groups (HPV16, else HPV18/45, else HPV31/33/58/52, else HPV51/35/39/68/56/66/68, else HPV negative); cytology results fell into three risk groups (“high‐grade,” ASC‐US/LSIL, NILM). For the resultant 15 HPV group‐cytology combinations, 3‐year CIN3+ risks ranged 1,000‐fold from 60.6% to 0.06%. To guide management, we compared the risks to established “benchmark” risk/management thresholds in this same population (e.g., LSIL predicted 3‐year CIN3+ risk of 5.8% in the screening population, providing the benchmark for colposcopic referral). By benchmarking to 3‐year risk thresholds (supplemented by 18‐month estimates), the widely varying risk strata could be condensed into four action bands (very high risk of CIN3+ mandating consideration of cone biopsy if colposcopy did not find precancer; moderate risk justifying colposcopy; low risk managed by intensified follow‐up to permit HPV “clearance”; and very low risk permitting routine screening.) Overall, the results support primary HPV testing, with management of HPV‐positive women using partial HPV typing and cytology.     

Stratifying HPV‐positive women for CIN3+ risk after one and two rounds of HPV‐based screening

A main challenge of human papilloma (HPV)‐based screening for cervical cancer is to adequately identify HPV‐positive women at highest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, CIN3+. The prognostic value of currently used adjunct markers (HPV16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology) may change after multiple rounds of HPV‐based screening because of a change in the proportion of HPV‐positive women with incident infections. To this end, we re‐analyzed results from the POBASCAM trial (Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam). Women were randomized to HPV/cytology cotesting (intervention group) or to cytology‐only (HPV blinded; control group) at enrolment. Our analytical population consisted of women with an HPV‐positive result at the second round, 5 years after enrolment (n = 381 intervention, n = 392 control). Nine‐year CIN3+ risks were estimated by Kaplan–Meier. HPV‐positive women were stratified by risk markers: HPV16/18 genotyping, reflex cytology and preceding HPV results. When comparing one to two rounds of HPV‐based screening, the prognostic value of an abnormal cytology result did not change (40.0% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.5617), but diminished for an HPV16/18 positive result (25.4% vs. 38.0%, p = 0.0132). HPV16/18 genotyping was nondiscriminative in women with incident HPV infections (HPV16/18 positive 10.0% vs. negative 12.1%, p = 0.3193). Women from the intervention group were more likely to have incident infections compared to women from the control group (incident screen‐positive results 75.6% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.001) Our results indicate that at a second round of HPV‐based screening, risk differentiation by cytology remained strong, but was diminished for HPV 16/18 genotyping because of a larger proportion of incident infections.     

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.     

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

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

Long‐term follow‐up of the risk for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in HPV‐negative women after conization

Little research has been conducted on the long‐term value of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing after conization. We investigated whether cytology adds to the value of a negative HPV test for long‐term prediction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). In addition, we compared risk of CIN2+ following a negative HPV test in women after conization with that in women from the general population. During 2002–2005, 667 women treated for CIN2+ were tested for HPV and cytology 46 months after conization. Only HPV‐negative women were included. Women participating in routine screening were age‐matched with post‐conization HPV‐negative women, leaving 13,230 and 477 women, respectively, for analysis. By linkage to the Pathology Data Bank, we identified all cases of CIN2+ by December 2013. The 3‐, 5‐, 8‐ and 10‐year risks for CIN2+ were 0.7, 0.9, 2.8 and 5.7% after a negative HPV test and 0.5, 0.8, 2.9 and 6.1% in HPV and cytology‐negative women. HPV‐negative women in the general population had similar 3‐year and 5‐year risks of 0.4 and 1.0%; thereafter, they had lower risks of 1.9% at 8 years and 2.7% at 10 years. Our results indicate that HPV testing may be used as a test of cure after conization. In the first 5 years after testing, the risk for CIN2+ of women who were HPV‐negative at 34 months after conization was similar to that of HPV‐negative women in the general population. After 67 years, however, women who have undergone conization may be at higher risk for CIN2+.     

Combined use of cytology,p16 immunostaining and genotyping for triage of women positive for high-risk human papillomavirus at primary screening

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is very sensitive for primary cervical screening but has low specificity. Triage tests that improve specificity but maintain high sensitivity are needed. Women enrolled in the experimental arm of Phase 2 of the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer randomized controlled cervical screening trial were tested for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) and referred to colposcopy if positive. hrHPV-positive women also had HPV genotyping (by polymerase chain reaction with GP5+/GP6+ primers and reverse line blotting), immunostaining for p16 overexpression and cytology. We computed sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for different combinations of tests and determined potential hierarchical ordering of triage tests. A number of 1,091 HPV-positive women had valid tests for cytology, p16 and genotyping. Ninety-two of them had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) histology and 40 of them had CIN grade 3+ (CIN3+) histology. The PPV for CIN2+ was >10% in hrHPV-positive women with positive high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (61.3%), positive low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL+) (18.3%) and positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (14.8%) cytology, p16 positive (16.7%) and, hierarchically, for infections by HPV33, 16, 35, 59, 31 and 52 (in decreasing order). Referral of women positive for either p16 or LSIL+ cytology had 97.8% sensitivity for CIN2+ and women negative for both of these had a 3-year CIN3+ risk of 0.2%. Similar results were seen for women being either p16 or HPV16/33 positive. hrHPV-positive women who were negative for p16 and cytology (LSIL threshold) had a very low CIN3+ rate in the following 3 years. Recalling them after that interval and referring those positive for either test to immediate colposcopy seem to be an efficient triage strategy. The same applies to p16 and HPV16.     

Impact of HPV testing in opportunistic cervical screening: Support for primary HPV screening in the United States

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases diagnosis of precancer and reduces the incidence of cervical cancer more than cytology alone. However, real-world evidence from diverse practice settings is lacking for the United States (U.S.) to support clinician adoption of primary HPV screening. Using a population-based registry, which captures all cervical cytology (with or without HPV testing) and all cervical biopsies, we conducted a real-world evidence study of screening in women aged 30 to 64 years across the entire state of New Mexico. Negative cytology was used to distinguish cotests from reflex HPV tests. A total of 264 198 cervical screening tests (with exclusions based on clinical history) were recorded as the first screening test between 2014 and 2017. Diagnoses of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 or 3 or greater (CIN2+, CIN3+) from 2014 to 2019 were the main outcomes. Of cytology-negative screens, 165 595 (67.1%) were cotests and 4.8% of these led to biopsy within 2 years vs 3.2% in the cytology-only group. Among cytology-negative, HPV tested women, 347 of 398 (87.2%) CIN2+ cases were diagnosed in HPV-positive women, as were 147 of 164 (89.6%) CIN3+ cases. Only 29/921 (3.2%) CIN3+ and 67/1964 (3.4%) CIN2+ cases were diagnosed in HPV-negative, cytology-positive women with biopsies. Under U.S. opportunistic screening, across a diversity of health care delivery practices, and in a population suffering multiple disparities, we show adding HPV testing to cytology substantially increased the yield of CIN2+ and CIN3+. CIN3+ was rarely diagnosed in HPV-negative women with abnormal cytology, supporting U.S. primary HPV-only screening.     

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.     

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.     

Risk evaluation for the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Development and validation of risk‐scoring schemes

Cervical cancer screening guidelines do not comprehensively define what constitutes high risk. This study developed and validated simple risk‐scoring schemes to improve Papanicolaou smear screening for women at high risk. Four cumulative risk score (CRS) schemes were derived respectively for the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) and grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) using community‐based case‐control data (n = 1523). By calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AU‐ROC) curve, these schemes were validated in a Papanicolaou smear follow‐up cohort (n = 967) and a hospital‐based cytology screening population (n = 217). A high DNA load of high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) was the main predictor for CIN1 and CIN2+, although age, married status combined with the number of sexual partners, active and passive smoking and age at sexual debut also affected associated lesions. In the training set, only the HPV‐testing‐contained CIN2+ CRS scheme presented an excellent discrimination for identifying CIN2+ (AU‐ROC = 0.866). Using a CRS cutoff value of 4 to identify CIN2+, the sensitivity and specificity of predicting CIN2+ for the 3‐ and 5‐year follow‐ups were 100% and 90.8%, and 83.3% and 90.4%, respectively, in the validation cohort. In the hospital‐based validation population, the CRS scheme showed comparable discrimination for CIN2+ detection (sensitivity 88.2% and specificity 84.6%). Women with CRS ≥4 had a 5.4% and 9.1% of 3‐ and 5‐year cumulative incidence, respectively, and a 40.5‐fold hazard ratio of developing CIN2+. In conclusion, combined with HR‐HPV testing and verified risk factors, a simple CRS scheme could effectively improve the implementation of CIN2+ screening.     

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

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

High‐risk HPV testing on self‐sampled versus clinician‐collected specimens: A review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self‐sampling, i.e., offering self‐sampling of (cervico‐)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self‐sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician‐taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self‐sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self‐samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician‐obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self‐ and clinician‐sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non‐attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self‐sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re‐attracting original non‐attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self‐testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self‐sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology‐based call‐recall programs.     

HPV self‐sampling or the Pap‐smear: A randomized study among cervical screening nonattenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France

Today in France, low attendance to cervical screening by Papanicolaou cytology (Pap‐smear) is a major contributor to the 3,000 new cervical cancer cases and 1,000 deaths that occur from this disease every year. Nonattenders are mostly from lower socioeconomic groups and testing of self‐obtained samples for high‐risk Human Papilloma virus (HPV) types has been proposed as a method to increase screening participation in these groups. In 2011, we conducted a randomized study of women aged 35–69 from very low‐income populations around Marseille who had not responded to an initial invitation for a free Pap‐smear. After randomization, one group received a second invitation for a free Pap‐smear and the other group was offered a free self‐sampling kit for HPV testing. Participation rates were significantly different between the two groups with only 2.0% of women attending for a Pap‐smear while 18.3% of women returned a self‐sample for HPV testing (p ≤ 0.001). The detection rate of high‐grade lesions (≥CIN2) was 0.2‰ in the Pap‐smear group and 1.25‰ in the self‐sampling group (p = 0.01). Offering self‐sampling increased participation rates while the use of HPV testing increased the detection of cervical lesions (≥CIN2) in comparison to the group of women receiving a second invitation for a Pap‐smear. However, low compliance to follow‐up in the self‐sampling group reduces the effectiveness of this screening approach in nonattenders women and must be carefully managed.     

Quadrivalent HPV vaccine effectiveness against high‐grade cervical lesions by age at vaccination: A population‐based study

Human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16/18, included in HPV vaccines, contribute to the majority of cervical cancer, and a substantial proportion of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grades 2/3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+) including adenocarcinoma in situ or worse. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccination on incidence of CIN2+ and CIN3+. A nationwide cohort of girls and young women resident in Sweden 2006–2013 and aged 13–29 (n = 1,333,691) was followed for vaccination and histologically confirmed high‐grade cervical lesions. Data were collected using the Swedish nationwide healthcare registers. Poisson regression was used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and vaccine effectiveness [(1‐IRR)x100%] comparing fully vaccinated with unvaccinated individuals. IRRs were adjusted for attained age and parental education, and stratified on vaccination initiation age. Effectiveness against CIN2+ was 75% (IRR = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.18–0.35) for those initiating vaccination before age 17, and 46% (IRR = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.46–0.64) and 22% (IRR = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.65–0.93) for those initiating vaccination at ages 17–19, and at ages 20–29, respectively. Vaccine effectiveness against CIN3+ was similar to vaccine effectiveness against CIN2+. Results were robust for both women participating to the organized screening program and for women at prescreening ages. We show high effectiveness of qHPV vaccination on CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions, with greater effectiveness observed in girls younger at vaccination initiation. Continued monitoring of impact of HPV vaccination in the population is needed in order to evaluate both long‐term vaccine effectiveness and to evaluate whether the vaccination program achieves anticipated effects in prevention of invasive cervical cancer.     

Long‐term HPV type‐specific risks for ASCUS and LSIL: A 14‐year follow‐up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections result in a significant burden of low‐grade cervical lesions. Between 1997 and 2000, our randomized trial of primary HPV screening enrolled 12,527 women participating in population‐based screening. Women between 32 and 38 years of age (median: 34, interquartile range: 33–37) were randomized to HPV and cytology double testing (intervention arm, n = 6,257 enrolled, n = 5,888 followed‐up) or to cytology, with samples frozen for future HPV testing (control arm, n = 6,270 enrolled, n = 5,795 followed‐up). We estimated the HPV type‐specific, long‐term absolute risks (AR), and population attributable proportions (PAR) for cytological diagnoses of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) and for histopathologically diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1). The women were followed using comprehensive, nationwide register‐based follow‐up. During a mean follow‐up time of 11.07 years, 886 ASCUS and LSIL lesions were detected, 448 in the intervention arm and 438 in the control arm. Poisson regression estimated the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of low‐grade lesions by HPV type. The IRRs were strongly dependent on follow‐up time. The IRRs for ASCUS/LSIL associated with high‐risk HPV positivity were 18.6 (95% CI: 14.9–23.4) during the first screening round, 4.1 (95% CI: 2.8–6.2) during the second, 2.6 (95% CI: 1.7–4.1) during the third, and 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7–1.8) for >9 years of follow‐up, with similar declines seen for the individual types. Type 16 contributed consistently to the greatest proportion of ASCUS, LSIL, and CIN1 risk in the population (first screening round PAR: ASCUS: 15.5% (95% CI: 9.7–21.9), LSIL: 14.7% (95% CI: 8.0–20.9), and CIN1: 13.4% (95% CI: 3.2–22.5)), followed by type 31 [8.4% (95% CI: 4.2–12.5) for ASCUS to 17.3% (95% CI: 6.8–26.6) for CIN1]. In summary, most ASCUS/LSIL lesions associated with HPV infection are caused by new HPV infections and most lesions are found during the first screening round.