Comparative performance of novel self‐sampling methods in detecting high‐risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush‐based cervicovaginal self‐sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage‐based one for testing for hrHPV (high‐risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non‐responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33–63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n = 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush‐based or a lavage‐based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self‐sampling responders testing hrHPV‐positive were invited for a physician‐taken sample for cytology; triage‐positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush‐based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage‐based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8–4.2). The hrHPV‐positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87–1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83–1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92–1.70 for CIN3+. The two self‐sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush‐based device to non‐responders is noninferior to offering a lavage‐based device in terms of participation. The two self‐sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

Risk of high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia based on cytology and high-risk HPV testing at baseline and at 6-months

Adding a test for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) to cytological screening enhances the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (>or=CIN2), but data are required that enable long-term evaluation of screening. We investigated the >or=CIN2 risk for women participating in population-based screening as a function of hrHPV and cytology testing results at baseline and at 6 months. We included 2,193 women aged 30-60 years participating in a population-based screening trial who received colposcopy or a repeat testing advice at baseline. The main endpoint was histologically confirmed >or=CIN2 diagnosed within 36 months. hrHPV testing was more sensitive than cytology for >or=CIN2 (relative sensitivity 1.4, 95%CI: 1.3-1.5; absolute sensitivity 94.1 and 68.0%, respectively). The 18-month >or=CIN2 risks in women with a hrHPV-positive smear and in women with abnormal cytology were similar (relative risk 0.9, 95%CI: 0.8-1.1). Women with HPV16 and/or HPV18 had a higher >or=CIN2 risk than other hrHPV-positive women irrespective of the cytological grade. Repeat testing showed that both cytological regression and viral clearance were strongly associated with a decrease in >or=CIN2 risk. Notably, women who had a double negative repeat test at 6 months had a >or=CIN2 risk of only 0.2% (95%CI: 0.0-1.1) and hrHPV-negative women with baseline borderline or mild dyskaryosis and normal cytology at 6 months had a >or=CIN2 risk of 0% (95%CI: 0.0-0.8). Using hrHPV and/or cytology testing, risk of >or=CIN2 can be assessed more accurately by repeat testing than single visit testing. Hence, when hrHPV testing is implemented, patient management with repeat testing is a promising strategy to control the number of referrals for colposcopy.     

hrHPV DNA载量分型和E6蛋白对宫颈癌前病变进展的预测作用

  目的  探讨预测高危型人乳头瘤病毒（high risk human papillomavirus,hrHPV）阳性和宫颈上皮内瘤样病变1级（cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1,CIN1）妇女进展的生物学标志物。  方法  2010年10月至2012年8月在山西省、河南省和江西省招募7 543名妇女,采用hrHPV DNA检测和E6蛋白检测（Onco E6）等方法进行宫颈癌筛查,任一结果阳性者转诊阴道镜并取活检,于1年后随访。纳入基线hrHPV阳性或病理诊断CIN1者。  结果  共纳入794例满足条件妇女,1年后88例妇女病理级别发生进展。基线hrHPV DNA中高载量者进展的风险是低载量者的2.9倍（95%CI为1.8~4.8）,hrHPV16/18/45、E6蛋白阳性者进展的风险分别是阴性者的2.4倍（95%CI为1.5~3.9）、2.9倍（95%CI为1.5~5.9）,其进展至宫颈上皮内瘤样病变2级及以上（cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse,CIN2+）的绝对风险分别为4.9%（95%CI为3.2~7.4）、9.0%（95%CI为5.5~14.3）、18.8%（95%CI为10.2~31.9）。hrHPV16/18/45中高载量且E6蛋白（Onco E6）阳性妇女进展的绝对风险高达32.4%（11/34）。  结论  hrHPV DNA中高载量、hrHPV16/18/45分型以及E6蛋白（Onco E6）可作为妇女hrHPV阳性和CIN1进展的生物学标志物,特别是hrHPV中高载量且E6蛋白（Onco E6）阳性妇女,临床应给予密切随访。      

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+.     

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 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.     

阴道镜结果正常或低度病变妇女发生宫颈癌前病变的前瞻性风险分层研究

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

高危型 HPV 载量与分型检测对宫颈高级别病变预测价值的前瞻性队列研究*

目的:评价高危型人乳头瘤病毒（highriskhumanpapillomavirus,hrHPV ）载量和分型检测在中国农村地区妇女人群中预测宫颈鳞状上皮高级别病变发生的价值。方法:2012年5 月至2015年5 月以农村妇女人群为基础选取江西省兴国县、靖安县和玉山县2 257 例,年龄35～64岁纳入本前瞻性队列研究。同时采用HC- 2（hybridcapture-2）和导流杂交技术（HybriMax ）两种方法分别检测hrHPV 载量和亚型,两种方法中任一亚型阳性者行阴道镜及活检检查,并将HC- 2 检测阳性结果中病毒载量< 10.0 RLU/CO认定为低病毒载量,病毒载量≥ 10.0 RLU/CO为高病毒载量。对hrHPV 结果阴性或病理诊断为CIN 1 的2 211 例妇女行24个月无干预随访。根据随访分别评价hrHPV 载量和HybriMax 分型两种检测方法预测宫颈鳞状上皮高级别病变（CINgrade2 orworse,CIN 2 +）的效果。结果:纳入基线、随访数据完整的女性共1 636 例。2 年内采用HC- 2 检测的132 例基线高病毒载量妇女中CIN 2 +的发生率为3.03%（4/ 132）,其相对危险度（RR）值为42.24（95%CI 为4.76～375.2）;采用HybriMax 分型检测的159 例基线分型HPV 16或18型阳性妇女中CIN 2 + 的发生率为2.51%（4/ 159）,RR值为33.06（95%CI 为3.72～293.9）。 对2 年内HC- 2 检测中高病毒载量例数和HybriMax 分型检测中HPV 16/ 18型别阳性例数进行比较,CIN 2 + 的发病率差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。 结论:HPV高载量和HPV 16/ 18型别阳性妇女人群进展为CIN 2 + 的风险均较高。在不具有持续监测hrHPV 条件的农村地区,HC- 2 检测的病毒载量≥ 10.0 RLU/CO阈值设定,与HybriMax 分型检测HPV 16/ 18型别均对hrHPV 初筛有分流作用,并对CIN 2+ 发生有预测作用。      

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.     

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.     

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.     

Human papillomavirus type-specific 18-month risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with a normal or borderline/mildly dyskaryotic smear.

INTRODUCTION: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing is an increasingly used instrument in cervical cancer prevention along cervical cytology. The inclusion of hrHPV testing in cervical screening requires efficient management as many hrHPV infections are transient. We investigated the potential value of hrHPV genotyping in normal and borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) smears. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a screening population of 44,102 women in the Netherlands, we included hrHPV-positive women with a normal or BMD smear. We assessed the type-specific 18-month risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). RESULTS: In hrHPV-positive women, 18-month risk of CIN grade 3 or invasive cancer (> or =CIN3) was 6% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 4-9] after normal cytology and 20% (95% CI, 16-25) after BMD. If positive for HPV16, > or =CIN3 risks were 14% (95% CI, 9-21) and 37% (95% CI, 28-48), respectively. In the subset of hrHPV-positive women without HPV16, HPV18 was associated with an increased risk of high-grade CIN after normal cytology and HPV31 and HPV33 were associated with an increased risk, particularly after BMD. HPV16 and HPV18 were also associated with an increased risk of high-grade CIN in women with an hrHPV-positive normal baseline smear and a repeat normal smear at 6 months. DISCUSSION: HrHPV-positive women without type 16, 18, 31, or 33 had a relatively low risk of high-grade CIN. Among women with baseline normal cytology and among women with a baseline and repeat normal smear, HPV16/18-positive women showed an increased risk of high-grade CIN. This warrants more aggressive management of HPV16/18-positive women compared with other hrHPV-positive women.     

High‐risk HPV testing in the management of atypical glandular cells: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Whereas the utility of high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) testing is widely accepted in triage of women with atypical squamous lesions, its role in managing atypical glandular cells (AGC) is not fully elucidated. A systematic review and meta‐analysis were performed to evaluate the accuracy of hrHPV testing in the management of women with AGC to detect underlying high‐grade intraepithelial neoplasia or worse, and adenocarcinoma in situ or worse (AIS+). Additionally, the diagnosis of extra‐cervical cancer was considered as an outcome in this review. A bibliographic database search (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL) identified twelve eligible studies. The occurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse including AIS+ (CIN2+/AIS+), was 19.8% among women with AGC, and 55.7% among women with AGC and concurrent squamous lesions (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse, ASC‐US+). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of hrHPV‐testing with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) to detect CIN2+/AIS+ in women with AGC was 90.0% (95% CI = 85.1–93.4%) and 75.1% (95% CI = 64.8–83.2%), respectively. Women who were hrHPV‐negative, demonstrated an increased risk for extra‐cervical malignancy (endometrium, fallopian tube, ovary). In women of 50y and older, a hrHPV‐negative result was linked with a 18.0% chance of extra‐cervical malignancy, while the chance of cervical pre‐cancer and cancer was 0.4 and 0.0%, respectively. In conclusion, given the high risk of underlying CIN2+/AIS+, women with AGC should be referred directly to colposcopy. However, hrHPV test results in combination with the age, appears to improve the diagnostic process by distinguishing the risk for cervical versus non‐cervical lesions.     

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.