JAM3 methylation status as a biomarker for diagnosis of preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the cervix

DNA methylation is clinically relevant to important tumorigenic mechanisms. This study evaluated the methylation status of candidate genes in cervical neoplasia and determined their diagnostic performance in clinical practice. Cervical cancer and normal cervix tissue was used to select the top 5 discriminating loci among 27 loci in 4 genes (CCNA1, CADM1, DAPK1, JAM3), and one locus of JAM3 (region M4) was identified and confirmed with 267 and 224 cervical scrapings from 2 independent colposcopy referral studies. For patients with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance and those with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, with JAM3-M4 compared to a triage marker of hrHPV testing, the specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 CIN3 and cancer cases (CIN3+) / no neoplasia and CIN1 (CIN1−) was significantly increased, from 21.88 to 81.82 and 15.38 to 85.18, respectively. The corresponding positive predictive value (PPV) was increased from 26.47 to 57.14 and 18.52 to 63.64, respectively. For hrHPV-positive patients, compared to a triage marker of cytology testing, JAM3-M4 showed increased specificity and PPV, from 30.67 to 87.65 and 38.82 to 82.14, respectively. We assessed whether JAM3-M4 could distinguish productive from transforming CIN2; the coincidence rate of JAM3-M4 and P16 was as high as 60.5%.     

CADM1 and MAL methylation status in cervical scrapes is representative of the most severe underlying lesion in women with multiple cervical biopsies

Recent studies have shown that CADM1/MAL methylation levels in cervical scrapes increase with severity and duration of the underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesion. Multiple lesions of different histological grades and duration are frequently present on the cervix. To gain more insight into the possible epigenetic heterogeneity and its consequences for the methylation status in cervical scrapes, we performed an exploratory study of CADM1/MAL methylation in different grades of CIN lesions present in women with multiple cervical biopsies. CADM1‐M18 and MAL‐M1 methylation was assessed using a standardised, multiplex, quantitative methylation specific PCR on 178 biopsies with various grades of CIN in 65 women, and in their corresponding cervical scrapes. CADM1/MAL methylation positivity increased with disease severity, from 5.5% in normal biopsies to 63.3% and 100% in biopsies with CIN3 and cervical cancer, respectively. In the majority (8/9) of women where besides a CIN2/3 lesion a biopsy from normal cervical tissue was present, the CIN2/3 biopsy was CADM1/MAL methylation positive and the normal biopsy was CADM1/MAL methylation negative. A good concordance (78%) was found between CADM1/MAL methylation results on the scrapes and the biopsy with the worst diagnosis, particularly between samples of women with CIN3 and cervical cancer (92% and 100% concordance, respectively). Thus, in women with multiple cervical biopsies, CADM1/MAL methylation increases with severity of the lesion and is lesion‐specific. CADM1/MAL methylation status in cervical scrapes appears to be representative of the worst underlying lesion, particularly for CIN3 and cervical cancer.     

Methylation marker analysis of self‐sampled cervico‐vaginal lavage specimens to triage high‐risk HPV‐positive women for colposcopy

Methylation markers were studied for their suitability to triage human papillomavirus (HPV)‐positive women by testing self‐collected cervico‐vaginal lavage specimens. For this purpose, we analyzed 355 hrHPV‐positive self‐collected specimens with three methylation markers, that is, CADM1‐m18, MAL‐m1 and miR‐124‐2 by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR. The areas under the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curve for end‐point cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) were 0.637 for CADM1‐m18, 0.767 for MAL‐m1 and 0.762 for miR‐124‐2. This indicates that CADM1‐m18 is not suitable as single marker. By varying the thresholds of both markers in the bi‐marker panels CADM1‐m18/MAL‐m1, CADM1‐m18/miR‐124‐2 and MAL‐m1/miR‐124‐2 upper and lower ROC curves were obtained, depicting the maximum and minimum CIN3+ sensitivity, respectively, at given specificity. For all these bi‐marker combinations, the upper curves were similar. However, for the MAL‐m1/miR‐124‐2 panel, the distance between upper and lower ROC curves was closest and this panel displayed the highest assay thresholds, indicating that this combination was most robust. At clinical specificities of 50 and 70%, the MAL‐m1/miR‐124‐2 sensitivity for detection of CIN3+ ranged from 77.0 to 87.8% and from 64.9 to 71.6%, respectively. At 70% specificity thresholds no carcinomas were missed. By comparison, the CIN3+ sensitivity of HPV16/18 genotyping on the self‐sampled lavage specimens was 58.1% (95%CI: 46.6–68.8) at a specificity of 87.7% (95%CI: 83.2–91.2). In conclusion, methylation analysis is a promising triage tool that in combination with HPV‐DNA testing offers feasible, full molecular screening on self‐collected cervico‐vaginal lavage specimens.     

CyclinA1 Promoter Methylation in Self-Sampling Test

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

Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program

We evaluated the effect of offering brush-based vaginal self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to non-attendees of the cervical screening program on response rate, compliance to follow-up and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2+/CIN3+) yield. In addition, concordance of hrHPV test results between physician-taken cervical scrapes and vaginal self-samples was determined. A total of 26,409 nonattending women were randomly assigned to receive a vaginal brush device for hrHPV testing by Hybrid Capture-2 method (i.e., self-sampling group, n = 26,145) or a reinvitation for regular cytology-based screening (i.e., recall control group, n = 264). hrHPV-positive self-sampling responders were invited for a physician-taken scrape for cytology and blinded hrHPV testing. If cytology was abnormal, women were referred for colposcopy. Response rate in the self-sampling group was significantly increased compared to the recall control group (30.8% versus 6.5%; p < 0.001). The concordance rate between hrHPV detection in self-samples and corresponding physician-taken cervical scrape samples was 68.8%. Amongst women with CIN3+ and CIN2+, the concordance rates in hrHPV positivity between both samples were 95.5% and 93.8%, respectively. Adherence at baseline to cytology triage of hrHPV-positive self-sampling women (89.1%) and colposcopy referral of those with abnormal cytology (95.8%) was high. The CIN2+/CIN3+/carcinoma yields were 1.5%, 1.0% and 0.1%, respectively, in self-sampling responders. In conclusion, offering hrHPV testing on self-sampled vaginal material with a brush device to non-attendees significantly increases the attendance to the regular screening program, yields hrHPV test results that are in very good concordance with those of physician-taken scrapes in women with CIN2+/CIN3+, and is effective in detecting CIN2+/CIN3+.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

DNA methylation analysis in self-sampled brush material as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women

Background:

Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in cervical cancer screening shows relatively low specificity, which makes triage testing necessary. In this study, DNA methylation analysis was compared with cytology for triage testing in hrHPV-positive women. Moreover, feasibility of DNA methylation analysis directly on brush-based self-sampled specimens was assessed.

Methods:

Non-responding women from population-based screening were invited to self-collect a cervico-vaginal specimen for hrHPV testing; hrHPV-positive women were referred to a physician for triage liquid-based cytology. DNA methylation analysis was performed on 128 hrHPV-positive physician-collected triage samples and 50 matched brush self-samples with QMSP for C13ORF18, EPB41L3, JAM3 and TERT.

Results:

In physician-taken triage material, DNA methylation analysis of JAM3 showed the highest combined specificity (88%) and sensitivity (82%) for detection of CIN3+, whereas cytology showed a specificity of 48% and a sensitivity of 91%. Out of 39 women with abnormal cytology and normal histology (false-positive by cytology), 87% were negative for JAM3 and 90% for C13ORF18 methylation. Agreement between DNA methylation analysis performed directly on the matched self-sampled material and physician-taken samples was 88% for JAM3 (κ=0.75, P<0.001) and 90% for C13ORF18 (κ=0.77; P<0.001).

Conclusions:

DNA methylation analysis as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women is an attractive alternative to cytology. Furthermore, DNA methylation is feasible directly on brush-based self-samplers and showed good correlation with matched physician-taken samples. Direct molecular triage on self-collected specimens could optimise the screening program, especially for non-responders, as this would eliminate the need for an additional physician-taken scraping for triage testing.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Determination of viral load thresholds in cervical scrapings to rule out CIN 3 in HPV 16, 18, 31 and 33-positive women with normal cytology

An increased high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) viral load in cervical scrapings has been proposed as a determinant for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer (> or =CIN 2), but data so far for HPV types different from HPV 16 are limited and inconsistent. In addition, a viral load threshold to distinguish hrHPV positive women without > or =CIN 2 still has not been defined. Here, we used baseline cervical scrapings of women with normal cytology participating in a large population-based cervical screening trial (i.e. POBASCAM) who were GP5+/6+-PCR positive for 4 common hrHPV types, i.e. HPV 16, 18, 31 or 33, as a reference to arbitrarily define various viral load thresholds (i.e. 25th, 33rd, 50th, 67th and 75th percentiles of the lowest viral load values) for distinguishing women having single infections with these types without high-grade CIN. Viral load assessment was performed by real time type-specific PCR. The viral load threshold values were subsequently validated on abnormal cervical scrapes of 162 women with underlying, histologically confirmed CIN lesions containing 1 of these 4 hrHPV types. All 59 women with CIN 3 had viral load levels that were higher than those of 33% of the women with normal cytology containing the respective hrHPV type detectable by GP5+/6+-PCR (i.e. higher than the 33rd percentile of viral load). By using this 33rd percentile viral load cut-off, sensitivity for CIN 3 of 100% (95% CI 93.9-100) was obtained. Hence, application of this viral load threshold would increase the specificity of HPV testing for HPV 16, 18, 31 and 33-associated prevalent CIN 3 without the cost of a marked reduction in sensitivity. In practice, on the basis of viral load analysis, a less aggressive management can be foreseen for 33% of the women with normal cytology participating in a population-based screening program who are GP5+/6+-PCR positive for HPV 16, 18, 31 or 33.     

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.     

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.     

HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications

Background:

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We evaluated the performance of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing in routine screening.

Methods:

In all, 25 871 women (29–61) enrolled in our population-based cohort study were offered both cytology and hrHPV testing. High-risk HPV-positive women with normal cytology and an age-matched subcohort of hrHPV-negative women with normal cytology were invited for repeat testing after 1 and/or 2 years and were referred for colposcopy if they presented with abnormal cytology and/or a positive hrHPV test. The hrHPV-positive women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) and all women with moderate dyskaryosis or worse (>BMD) were directly referred for colposcopy. Women with BMD and an hrHPV-negative test were advised to repeat cytology at 6 and 18 months and were referred for colposcopy if the repeat cytology test was abnormal. The main outcome measure was CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). Results were adjusted for non-attendance at repeat testing.

Results:

The hrHPV-positive women with abnormal cytology had a CIN3+ risk of 42.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 36.4–48.2), whereas the hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology had a much lower risk of 5.22% (95% CI: 3.72–7.91). In hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology, an additional cytology step after 1 year reduced the CIN3+ risk to only 1.6% (95% CI: 0.6–4.9) if the repeat test was normal. The CIN3+ risk in women with hrHPV-positive normal cytology was higher among women invited for the first time (29–33 years of age) (9.1% 95% CI: 5.6–14.3) than among older women (3.0% 95% CI: 1.5–5.5).

Conclusion:

Primary hrHPV screening with cytology triage in women aged ⩾30 years is an effective way to stratify women on CIN3+ risk and seems a feasible alternative to cytological screening. Repeat cytology after 1 year for hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology is however necessary before returning women to routine screening.     

The current position and the future perspectives of cervical cancer screening

Cervical screening programs for detecting cancer and precancer have dramatically reduced the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer since the 1960s. The efficacy of the screening programs depends on participation and the accuracy of the screening tests. Unfortunately, the participation rates are suboptimal; more than half the women with cervical cancer have not or have only sporadically been screened. Increasing participation is the best way of maximizing the program’s benefit. Furthermore, cytology screening lacks high sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN2). High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening is more sensitive in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than cytology screening, but less specific, so that additional triage testing is still mandatory. The aim of this article is to reflect on the efficacy of current cervical cancer screening and on promising future screening strategies with primary hrHPV testing and additional triage strategies for hrHPV-positive screening results.     

Approaches to triage optimization in HPV primary screening: Extended genotyping and p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology—Retrospective insights from ATHENA

The objective of our study was to assess the performance of different triage strategies for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive results utilizing either extended genotyping or a p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology (DS) approach, with or without partial genotyping. A subset of women with hrHPV infections participating in the Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics (ATHENA) study were analyzed to determine the number of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (≥CIN3) cases detected, and the absolute risk for ≥CIN3 of each genotype. A clinical utility table was constructed to compare the impact of different triage strategies. In all, 2,339 women with single-genotype hrHPV infections were identified. Among these were 171 ≥CIN3 cases. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved algorithm (HPV16/18 positive, or 12-other hrHPV positive and Pap positive, i.e., ≥ atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) for primary HPV screening detected 132/171 (77.2%) ≥CIN3 cases and required 964 colposcopies (colposcopies per ≥CIN3 ratio: 7.3). An approach that uses DS instead of cytology in the FDA-approved algorithm detected 147/171 (86.0%) ≥CIN3 cases, requiring 1,012 colposcopies (ratio: 6.9). Utilizing DS for triage of all hrHPV-positive women identified 126/171 (73.7%) ≥CIN3 cases, requiring 640 colposcopies (ratio: 5.1). A strategy that detected HPV16/18/31/33/35+ captured 130/171 (76.0%) ≥CIN3 cases, requiring 1,025 colposcopies (ratio: 7.9). Inclusion of additional genotypes resulted in greater disease detection at the expense of higher colposcopy ratios. Substituting cytology with a DS triage approach improved disease detection and the colposcopy detection rate. Further reduction of colposcopy rates can be achieved by using DS without partial genotyping. Extended genotyping strategies can identify a comparable number of cases but requires an increased number of colposcopies.