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.     

Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample

High‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA tests have excellent sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or higher (CIN2+). A drawback of hrHPV screening, however, is modest specificity. Therefore, hrHPV‐positive women might need triage to reduce adverse events and costs associated with unnecessary colposcopy. We compared the performance of HPV16/18 genotyping with a predefined DNA methylation triage test (S5) based on target regions of the human gene EPB41L3, and viral late gene regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31 and HPV33. Assays were run using exfoliated cervical specimens from 710 women attending routine screening, of whom 38 were diagnosed with CIN2+ within a year after triage to colposcopy based on cytology and 341 were hrHPV positive. Sensitivity and specificity of the investigated triage methods were compared by McNemar's test. At the predefined cutoff, S5 showed better sensitivity than HPV16/18 genotyping (74% vs 54%, P = 0.04) in identifying CIN2+ in hrHPV‐positive women, and similar specificity (65% vs 71%, P = 0.07). When the S5 cutoff was altered to allow equal sensitivity to that of genotyping, a significantly higher specificity of 91% was reached (P < 0.0001). Thus, a DNA methylation test for the triage of hrHPV‐positive women on original screening specimens might be a valid approach with better performance than genotyping.     

Methylation of viral and host genes and severity of cervical lesions associated with human papillomavirus type 16

Methylation of human papillomavirus (HPV) and host genes may predict cervical cancer risk. We examined the methylation status of selected sites in HPV16 and human genes in DNA extracted from exfoliated cervical cell samples of 244 women harboring HPV16‐positive cancer or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or negative for intraepithelial lesions or malignancy (NILM). We quantified the methylation of CpG sites in the HPV16 L1 gene (CpG 6367 and 6389) and in the human genes EPB41L3 (CpG 438, 427, 425) and LMX1 (CpG 260, 262, 266, 274) following bisulfite treatment and pyrosequencing. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to analyze the diagnostic utility of methylation level for the different sites and for a joint predictor score. Methylation in all sites significantly increased with lesion severity (p < 0.0001). Area under the curve (AUC) was highest among the CIN2/3 vs. cancer ranging from 0.786 to 0.853 among the different sites. Site‐specific methylation levels strongly discriminated CIN2/3 from NILM/CIN1 and cancer from CIN2/3 (range of odds ratios [OR]: 3.69–12.76, range of lower 95% confidence bounds: 1.03–4.01). When methylation levels were mutually adjusted for each other EPB41L3 was the only independent predictor of CIN2/3 vs. NILM/CIN1 contrasts (OR = 9.94, 95%CI: 2.46–40.27). High methylation levels of viral and host genes are common among precancerous and cancer lesions and can serve as independent risk biomarkers. Methylation of host genes LMX1 and EPB41L3 and of the viral HPV16 L1 sites has the potential to distinguish among precancerous lesions and to distinguish the latter from invasive disease.     

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.     

DNA methylation markers as a triage test for identification of cervical lesions in a high risk human papillomavirus positive screening cohort

Objective triage strategies are required to prevent unnecessary referrals for colposcopy in population-based screening programs using primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing. We have identified several DNA methylation markers with high sensitivity and specificity for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+) in women referred for colposcopy. Our study assessed diagnostic potential of these methylation markers in a hrHPV-positive screening cohort. All six markers (JAM3, EPB41L3, C13orf18, ANKRD18CP, ZSCAN1 and SOX1) showed similar association across histology in the hrHPV-positive cohort when compared to the Dutch cohort (each p > 0.15). Sensitivity for CIN2+ was higher using methylation panel C13orf18/EPB41L3/JAM3 compared to the other 2 panels (80% vs. 60% (ANKRD18CP/C13orf18/JAM3) and 63% (SOX1/ZSCAN1), p = 0.01). For CIN3+ all three methylation panels showed comparable sensitivity ranging from 68% (13/19) to 95% (18/19). Specificity of SOX1/ZSCAN1 panel (84%, 167/200) was considerably higher compared to ANKRD18CP/C13orf18/JAM3 (68%, 136/200, p = 2 × 10⁻⁵) and C13orf18/EPB41L3/JAM3 (66%, 132/200, p = 2 × 10⁻⁷). High negative predictive value (NPV) (91–95% and 96–99%) was observed for CIN2+ and CIN3+, for all three methylation panels, while positive predictive value (PPV) varied from 25 to 40% for CIN2+ and 15–27% for CIN3+. Interestingly, 118/235 samples were negative for all six markers (including 106 controls (89.8%), 6 CIN1 (5.1%), 5 CIN2 (4.2%) and 1 CIN3 (0.8%)). Methylation results from both independent cohorts were comparable as well as high sensitivity for detection of cervical cancer and its high-grade precursors in hrHPV-positive population. Our study therefore validates these methylation marker panels as triage test either in hrHPV-based or abnormal cytology-based screening programs.     

Human papillomavirus E7 protein detection as a method of triage to colposcopy of HPV positive women,in comparison to genotyping and cytology. Final results of the PIPAVIR study

The objective of the presented cross‐sectional‐evaluation‐screening study is the clinical evaluation of high‐risk(hr)HPVE7‐protein detection as a triage method to colposcopy for hrHPV‐positive women, using a newly developed sandwich‐ELISA‐assay. Between 2013‐2015, 2424 women, 30‐60 years old, were recruited at the Hippokratio Hospital, Thessaloniki/Greece and the Im Mare Klinikum, Kiel/Germany, and provided a cervical sample used for Liquid Based Cytology, HPV DNA genotyping, and E7 detection using five different E7‐assays: “recomWell HPV16/18/45KJhigh”, “recomWell HPV16/18/45KJlow”, “recomWell HPV39/51/56/59”, “recomWell HPV16/31/33/35/52/58” and “recomWell HPVHRscreen” (for 16,18,31,33,35,39,45,51,52,56,58,59 E7), corresponding to different combinations of hrHPVE7‐proteins. Among 1473 women with eligible samples, those positive for cytology (ASCUS+ 7.2%), and/or hrHPV DNA (19.1%) were referred for colposcopy. Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was detected in 27 women (1.8%). For HPV16/18‐positive women with no triage, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and the number of colposcopies needed to detect one case of CIN2+ were 100.0%, 11.11% and 9.0 respectively. The respective values for E7‐testing as a triage method to colposcopy ranged from 75.0‐100.0%, 16.86‐26.08% and 3.83‐5.93. Sensitivity and PPV for cytology as triage for hrHPV(non16/18)‐positive women were 45.45% and 27.77%; for E7 test the respective values ranged from 72.72‐100.0% and 16.32‐25.0%. Triage of HPV 16/18‐positive women to colposcopy with the E7 test presents better performance than no triage, decreasing the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+. In addition, triage of hrHPV(non16/18)‐positive women with E7 test presents better sensitivity and slightly worse PPV than cytology, a fact that advocates for a full molecular screening approach.     

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 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.     

Molecular progression to cervical precancer,epigenetic switch or sequential model?

The evolution of precancerous cervical lesions is poorly understood. A widely held model of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) development is sequential progression from normal through CIN1 and CIN2 to CIN3. Another hypothesis, the “molecular switch” model, postulates that CIN3 can evolve directly from human papillomavirus (HPV)‐infected normal epithelium without progressing through CIN1 and CIN2. To shed light on this process, we compared DNA methylation of selected human biomarkers and HPV types in two groups of CIN1: CIN1 that were near or adjacent to CIN3 (adjacent‐CIN1) and CIN1 that were the principal lesions with no CIN3 detected (principal‐CIN1). 354 CIN (CIN1 and CIN3) and normal tissue areas were dissected and typed for HPV from 127 women who underwent loop electrosurgical excision procedures (LEEP). Methylation of genes EPB41L3 and the viral regions of HPV16‐L1/L2, HPV18‐L2, HPV31‐L1, and HPV33‐L2 were determined by a highly accurate quantitative pyrosequencing of bisulfite converted DNA. There was a significant trend of increased methylation with disease grade comparing normal to CIN1 and CIN3 (p < 0.0001). Adjacent‐CIN1 predominantly shared the same HPV types as the CIN3, however, methylation differed substantially between adjacent‐CIN1 and CIN3 (p = 0.008). In contrast diagnostically principal‐CIN1 had an indistinguishable methylation distribution compared to adjacent‐CIN1 (EPB41L3: p = 0.49; HPVme‐All: p = 0.11). Our results suggest that progression from normal epithelium to CIN1 or CIN3 is usually promoted by the same HPV type but occurs via distinct DNA epigenotypes, thus favoring the “molecular switch” model.     

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.     

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

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

Incidence risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or more severe lesions is a function of human papillomavirus genotypes and severity of cytological and histological abnormalities in adult Japanese women

We examined incidence probabilities of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (CIN3) or more severe lesions (CIN3+) in 1,467 adult Japanese women with abnormal cytology in relation to seven common human papillomavirus (HPV) infections (16/18/31/33/35/52/58) between April 2000 and March 2008. Sixty‐seven patients with multiple HPV infection were excluded from the risk factor analysis. Incidence of CIN3+ in 1,400 patients including 68 with ASCUS, 969 with low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), 132 with HSIL without histology‐proven CIN2 (HSIL/CIN2(?)) and 231 with HSIL with histology‐proven CIN2 (HSIL/CIN2(+)) was investigated. In both high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)/CIN2(?) and HSIL/CIN2(+), HPV16/18/33 was associated with a significantly earlier and higher incidence of CIN3+ than HPV31/35/52/58 (p = 0.049 and p = 0.0060, respectively). This association was also observed in LSIL (p = 0.0002). The 1‐year cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of CIN3+ in HSIL/CIN2(?) and HSIL/CIN2(+) according to HPV genotypes (16/18/33 vs. 31/35/52/58) were 27.1% vs. 7.5% and 46.6% vs. 19.2%, respectively. In contrast, progression of HSIL/CIN2(+) to CIN3+ was infrequent when HPV DNA was undetected: 0% of 1‐year CIR and 8.1% of 5‐year CIR. All cervical cancer occurred in HSIL cases of seven high‐risk HPVs (11/198) but not in cases of other HPV or undetectable/negative‐HPV (0/165) (p = 0.0013). In conclusion, incidence of CIN3+ depends on HPV genotypes, severity of cytological abnormalities and histology of CIN2. HSIL/CIN2(+) associated with HPV16/18/33 may justify early therapeutic intervention, while HSIL/CIN2(?) harboring these HPV genotypes needs close observation to detect incidence of CIN3+. A therapeutic intervention is not indicated for CIN2 without HPV DNA.     

Differences in human papillomavirus type distribution in high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer in Europe

Knowledge of differences in human papillomavirus (HPV)‐type prevalence between high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (HG‐CIN) and invasive cervical cancer (ICC) is crucial for understanding the natural history of HPV‐infected cervical lesions and the potential impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer prevention. More than 6,000 women diagnosed with HG‐CIN or ICC from 17 European countries were enrolled in two parallel cross‐sectional studies (108288/108290). Centralised histopathology review and standardised HPV‐DNA typing were applied to formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded cervical specimens dated 2001–2008. The pooled prevalence of individual HPV types was estimated using meta‐analytic methods. A total of 3,103 women were diagnosed with HG‐CIN and a total of 3,162 with ICC (median ages: 34 and 49 years, respectively), of which 98.5 and 91.8% were HPV‐positive, respectively. The most common HPV types in women with HG‐CIN were HPV16/33/31 (59.9/10.5/9.0%) and in ICC were HPV16/18/45 (63.3/15.2/5.3%). In squamous cell carcinomas, HPV16/18/33 were most frequent (66.2/10.8/5.3%), and in adenocarcinomas, HPV16/18/45 (54.2/40.4/8.3%). The prevalence of HPV16/18/45 was 1.1/3.5/2.5 times higher in ICC than in HG‐CIN. The difference in age at diagnosis between CIN3 and squamous cervical cancer for HPV18 (9 years) was significantly less compared to HPV31/33/‘other’ (23/20/17 years), and for HPV45 (1 year) than HPV16/31/33/‘other’ (15/23/20/17 years). In Europe, HPV16 predominates in both HG‐CIN and ICC, whereas HPV18/45 are associated with a low median age of ICC. HPV18/45 are more frequent in ICC than HG‐CIN and associated with a high median age of HG‐CIN, with a narrow age interval between HG‐CIN and ICC detection. These findings support the need for primary prevention of HPV16/18/45‐related cervical lesions.     

Baseline prevalence and type distribution of human papillomavirus in healthy Chinese women aged 18–25 years enrolled in a clinical trial

Baseline human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence and type distribution were evaluated in young Chinese women enrolled in a clinical trial of an HPV vaccine ( ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT00779766). Cervical specimens and blood samples were collected at baseline from women aged 18–25 years (n = 6,051) from four sites across Jiangsu province. Cervical specimens were tested for HPV DNA by SPF₁₀ PCR‐DEIA‐LiPA₂₅ version 1, and HPV‐16/18 type‐specific polymerase chain reaction. Anti‐HPV‐16 and anti‐HPV‐18 antibody titres were quantified by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. At baseline, 15.3% of women were DNA positive for any of 14 HPV high‐risk (hr) types (HPV‐16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68). The most commonly detected hrHPV types in cervical specimens were HPV‐52 (4.0%) and HPV‐16 (3.7%). High‐risk HPV DNA‐positivity increased with severity of cytological abnormalities: 39.3% in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, 85.0% in low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and 97.8% in high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). The hrHPV types most frequently detected in HSIL were HPV‐16 (63.0%), HPV‐18 (17.4%), HPV‐52 (17.4%), HPV‐58 (15.2%) and HPV‐33 (15.2%). The hrHPV types most frequently detected in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ were HPV‐16 (66.1%), HPV‐33 (16.1%), HPV‐52 (16.1%), HPV‐58 (14.5%) and HPV‐51 (11.3%). Multiple hrHPV infections were reported for 24.4% of hrHPV DNA positive women. Regardless of baseline HPV DNA status, 30.5% and 16.0% of subjects were initially seropositive for anti‐HPV‐16 and anti‐HPV‐18, respectively. In conclusion, the high baseline seropositivity rate and intermediate prevalence of cervical hrHPV types in Chinese women aged 18–25 years underlines the importance of early HPV vaccination in this population.     

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

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

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

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

HPV16 L1 and L2 DNA methylation predicts high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with mildly abnormal cervical cytology

DNA methylation changes in human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) DNA are common and might be important for identifying women at increased risk of cervical cancer. Using recently published data from Costa Rica we developed a classification score to differentiate women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2/3) from those with no evident high‐grade lesions. Here, we aim to investigate the performance of the score using data from the UK. Exfoliated cervical cells at baseline and 6‐months follow‐up were analyzed in 84 women selected from a randomized clinical trial of women undergoing surveillance for low‐grade cytology. Selection of women for the methylation study was based on detectable HPV16 in the baseline sample. Purified DNA was bisulfite converted, amplified and pyrosequenced at selected CpG sites in the viral genome (URR, E6, L1 and L2), with blinding of laboratory personnel to the clinical data. The primary measure was a predefined score combining the mean methylation in L1 and any methylation in L2. At the second follow‐up visit, 73/84 (87%) women were HPV16 positive and of these 25 had a histopathological diagnosis of CIN2/3. The score was significantly associated with CIN2/3 (area under curve = 0.74, p = 0.002). For a cutoff with 92% sensitivity, colposcopy could have been avoided in 40% (95% CI 27–54%) of HPV16 positive women without CIN2/3; positive predictive value was 44% (32–58%) and negative predictive value was 90% (71–97%). We conclude that quantitative DNA methylation assays could help to improve triage among HPV16 positive women.     

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

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

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+.