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.     

The clinical value of HPV genotyping in triage of women with high‐risk‐HPV‐positive self‐samples

Cytology alone, or combined with HPV16/18 genotyping, might be an acceptable method for triage in hrHPV‐cervical cancer screening. Previously studied HPV‐genotype based triage algorithms are based on cytology performed without knowledge of hrHPV status. The aim of this study was to explore the value of hrHPV genotyping combined with cytology as triage tool for hrHPV‐positive women. 520 hrHPV‐positive women were included from a randomised controlled self‐sampling trial on screening non‐attendees (PROHTECT‐3B). Eighteen baseline triage strategies were evaluated for cytology and hrHPV genotyping (Roche Cobas 4800) on physician‐sampled triage material. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), referral rate, and number of referrals needed to diagnose (NRND) were calculated for CIN2+ and CIN3+. A triage strategy was considered acceptable if the NPV for CIN3+ was ≥98%, combined with maintenance or improvement of sensitivity and an increase in specificity in reference to the comparator, being cytology with a threshold of atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US). Three triage strategies met the criteria: HPV16+ and/or ≥LSIL; HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL; (HPV16+ and/or HPV18+) and/or ≥HSIL. Combining HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL yielded the highest specificity (74.9%, 95% CI 70.5–78.9), with a sensitivity (94.4%, 95% CI 89.0–97.7) similar to the comparator (93.5%, 95% CI 87.7–97.1), and a decrease in referral rate from 52.2% to 39.5%. In case of prior knowledge of hrHPV presence, triage by cytology testing can be improved by adjusting its threshold, and combining it with HPV16/18 genotyping. These strategies improve the referral rate and specificity for detecting CIN3+ lesions, while maintaining adequate sensitivity.     

A 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.     

Risk-stratification of HPV-positive women with low-grade cytology by FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation and HPV genotyping

Background The introduction of primary HPV screening has doubled the number of colposcopy referrals because of the direct referral of HPV-positive women with a borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) cytology (ASC-US/LSIL) triage test. Further risk-stratification is warranted to improve the efficiency of HPV-based screening.Methods This study evaluated the discriminative power of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 genotyping and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD (n = 294) in two Dutch screening trials. Absolute CIN3+ risks and colposcopy referrals within one screening round were calculated.Results Methylation analysis discriminated well, yielding a CIN3+ risk of 33.1% after a positive result and a CIN3+ risk of 9.8% after a negative result. HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping resulted in a 27.6% and 24.6% CIN3+ risk after a positive result, and a 13.2% and 9.1% CIN3+ risk after a negative result. Colposcopy referral percentages were 41.2%, 43.2%, and 66.3% for FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping, respectively. The CIN3+ risk after a negative result could be lowered to 2.8% by combining methylation and extended genotyping, at the expense of a higher referral percentage of 75.5%.Conclusion The use of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation and/or HPV genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD can lead to a substantial reduction in the number of direct colposcopy referrals.Subject terms: DNA methylation, Diagnostic markers, Cervical cancer, Molecular medicine     

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.     

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。      

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.     

HPV16/18 genotyping for the triage of HPV positive women in primary cervical cancer screening in Chile

Background

We previously conducted a population-based screening trial of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing and conventional cytology, demonstrating higher sensitivity (92.7 % vs 22.1 % for CIN2+) but lower positive predictive value (10.5 % vs 23.9 %) of hrHPV testing. Here we report the performance of HPV16/18 genotyping to triage the hrHPV positive participants.

Methods

Women aged 25 years and older received hrHPV (Hybrid Capture 2) and Papanicolaou testing; positives by either test underwent colposcopy and directed biopsy, as did a sample of double-negatives. hrHPV positive women were reflex-tested with HPV16/18 genotyping (Digene HPV Genotyping PS Test).

Results

Among the 8,265 participants, 10.7 % were hrHPV positive, 1.7 % had ASCUS+ cytology, 1.2 % had CIN2+; 776 (88 %) hrHPV positive women had complete results, of whom 38.8 % were positive for HPV16 (24.0 %), HPV18 (9.7 %) or both (5.1 %). CIN2+ prevalence in HPV16/18 positive women (16.3 %, 95 % CI 12.3-20.9) was twice that of HPV16/18 negative women (8.0 %, 95 % CI 5.7-10.8). HPV16/18 genotyping identified 40.5 % of CIN2, 66.7 % of CIN3 and 75.0 % of cancers. Compared to hrHPV screening alone, HPV16/18 triage significantly reduced the referral rate (10.7 % vs 3.7 %) and the number of colposcopies required to detect one CIN2+ (9 vs 6). When HPV16/18 negative women with baseline ASCUS+ cytology were also colposcopied, an additional 14 % of CIN2+ was identified; referral increased slightly to 4.2 %.

Conclusions

HPV16/18 triage effectively stratified hrHPV positive women by their risk of high-grade lesions. HPV16/18 positive women must be referred immediately; referral could be deferred in HPV16/18 negative women given the slower progression of non-HPV16/18 lesions, however, they will require active follow-up.

     

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+.     

Performance of an HPV 16/18 E6 oncoprotein test for detection of cervical precancer and cancer

HPV testing is a better alternative for cervical cancer screening, but additional procedures are required for triage of HPV positive women. HPV encoded oncoproteins E6 and E7, as the main effectors of HPV carcinogenicity represent promising triage alternatives. To evaluate performance of the test, we included 155 women from a screening study and 59 from the same referral population attending colposcopy and with precancerous lesions. All were HPV-tested with HC2 and genotyped with LiPA, and cervical swabs were tested for HPV16/18 E6 oncoproteins. Histologic specimens were reviewed and adjudicated using p16 immunohistochemistry and 55 women had confirmed histologic HSIL, 31 (56.3%) associated with HPV 16/18, 23 with other HPV types and one HPV negative. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated with histologic HSIL/cancer as gold standard. E6 oncoprotein was detectable in all but one HSIL and in all cancers where HPV16/18 DNA was detected, but in none of the cases associated with other HPV types or HPV negatives. Among the few HPV16/18 DNA positive subjects initially without HSIL (n = 4) who were E6 oncoprotein positive, precancer was detected during follow-up in 2 out of 3 with available information. Estimated sensitivity for HPV16/18-related HSIL+ was 96.8% (95%CI = 83.8–99.8) and for all HSIL+ regardless of HPV type it was 56.4% (95%CI = 43.3–68.6). Specificity was 97.5% (95%CI = 93.7–99.0). E6 oncoprotein proved as a highly sensitive and specific marker for detection of HPV16/18-related HSIL lesions in this Honduran population with limited previous screening and may be useful as a triage method in screening programs, particularly in low income countries.     

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.     

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。      

Methylation testing for the detection of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Women treated for CIN2/3 remain at increased risk of recurrent CIN and cervical cancer, and therefore posttreatment surveillance is recommended. This post hoc analysis evaluates the potential of methylation markers ASCL1/LHX8 and FAM19A4/miR124-2 for posttreatment detection of recurrent CIN2/3. Cervical scrapes taken at 6 and 12 months posttreatment of 364 women treated for CIN2/3 were tested for methylation of ASCL1/LHX8 and FAM19A4/miR124-2 using quantitative multiplex methylation-specific PCR. Performance of the methylation tests were calculated and compared with the performance of HPV and/or cytology. Methylation levels of recurrent CIN were compared between women with a persistent HPV infection, and women with an incident HPV infection or without HPV infection. Recurrent CIN2/3 was detected in 42 women (11.5%), including 28 women with CIN2 and 14 with CIN3. ASCL1/LHX8 tested positive in 13/14 (92.9%) of recurrent CIN3 and 13/27 (48.1%) of recurrent CIN2. FAM19A4/miR124-2 tested positive in 14/14 (100%) of recurrent CIN3 and 10/27 (37.0%) of recurrent CIN2. Combined HPV and/or methylation testing showed similar positivity rates as HPV and/or cytology. The CIN2/3 risk at 12 months posttreatment was 30.8% after a positive ASCL1/LHX8 result at 6 months posttreatment. Methylation levels of CIN2/3 in women with a persistent HPV infection were significantly higher compared with women with an incident or no HPV infection. In conclusion, posttreatment monitoring by methylation analysis of ASCL1/LHX8 and FAM19A4/miR124-2 showed a good performance for the detection of recurrent CIN. DNA methylation testing can help to identify women with recurrent CIN that require re-treatment.     

Evaluation of partial genotyping with HPV16/18 for triage of HPV positive,cytology negative women in the COMPACT study

ObjectiveWhile cytology-based screening programs have significantly reduced mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer, the global consensus is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancer. However, the optimal triage strategy for HPV+ women to avoid over-referral to colposcopy may be setting specific. We compared absolute and relative risk (RR) of >CIN2/3 within 12 months of a negative cytologic result in women HPV16/18+ compared to those with a 12-other high-risk HPV (hrHPV) genotype to identify women at greatest risk of high-grade disease and permit less aggressive management of women with other hrHPV infections.MethodsParticipants were 14,160 women aged 25–69 years with negative cytology participating in the COMparison of HPV genotyping And Cytology Triage (COMPACT) study. Women who were HPV16/18+ were referred to colposcopy. Those with a 12-other hrHPV type underwent repeat cytology after 6 months and those with >abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance went to colposcopy.ResultsAbsolute risk of >CIN2 in HPV16/18+ women was 19.5% (95% CI=12.4%–29.4%). In women 25–29 years and HPV16+ it was 40.0% (95% CI=11.8%–76.9%). Absolute risk of >CIN3 in women HPV16/18+ was 11.0% (95% CI=5.9%–19.6%). For women 30–39 years and HPV16+ it was 23.1% (95% CI=5.0%–53.8%). Overall risk of >CIN2, >CIN3 in women with a 12-other hrHPV HPV type was 5.6% (95% CI=3.1%–10.0%) and 3.4% (95% CI=1.6%–7.2%) respectively. RR of >CIN2, >CIN3 in HPV16/18+ vs. 12-other hrHPV was 3.5 (95% CI=1.7–7.3) and 3.3 (95% CI=1.2–8.8), respectively.ConclusionPrimary HPV screening with HPV16/18 partial genotyping is a promising strategy to identify women at current/future risk of >CIN2 in Japan without over-referral to colposcopy.Trial RegistrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000013203     

Good performance of p16/ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology for surveillance of women treated for high‐grade CIN

Women treated for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are at risk of recurrent CIN Grade 2 or worse (rCIN2+). Currently, posttreatment monitoring is performed using cytology or cytology/high‐risk (hr)HPV cotesting. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology (p16/Ki‐67) for posttreatment monitoring. Three hundred and twenty‐three women treated for high‐grade CIN in the SIMONATH study underwent close surveillance by cytology, hrHPV and DNA methylation marker testing up to 12 months posttreatment. Histological endpoints were ascertained by colposcopy with biopsy at 6 and/or 12 months. p16/Ki‐67 dual‐staining was performed on residual liquid‐based cytology samples obtained at, or shortly before biopsy collection. Clinical performance estimates of cytology, hrHPV, p16/Ki‐67 testing and combinations thereof for the detection of rCIN2+ were determined and compared to each other. Sensitivity of p16/Ki‐67 for rCIN2+ (69.2%) was nonsignificantly lower than that of cytology (82.1%; ratio 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71–1.01), but significantly lower than that of hrHPV testing (84.6%; ratio 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68–0.99). Specificity of p16/Ki‐67 for rCIN2+ (90.4%) was significantly higher compared to both cytology (70.8%; ratio 1.28, 95% CI: 1.19–1.37) and hrHPV testing (76.2%; ratio 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12–1.26). Overall, hrHPV testing showed very high sensitivity, along with a good specificity. When considering cotesting, combined p16/Ki‐67/hrHPV testing showed rCIN2+ sensitivity comparable to cytology/hrHPV cotesting (87.2% vs. 89.7%; ratio 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92–1.03), but with significantly increased specificity (74.2% vs. 58.1%; ratio 1.28, 95% CI: 1.19–1.38). Thus, when considered in combination with hrHPV, p16/Ki‐67 might be an attractive approach for surveillance of women treated for high‐grade CIN.     

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。      

FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation in invasive cervical cancer: A retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study

Widespread adoption of primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening has encouraged the search for a triage test which retains high sensitivity for the detection of cervical cancer and precancer, but increases specificity to avoid overtreatment. Methylation analysis of FAM19A4 and miR124-2 genes has shown promise for the triage of high-risk (hr) HPV-positive women. In our study, we assessed the consistency of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in the detection of cervical cancer in a series of 519 invasive cervical carcinomas (n = 314 cervical scrapes, n = 205 tissue specimens) from over 25 countries, using a quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP)-based assay (QIAsure Methylation Test®). Positivity rates stratified per histotype, FIGO stage, hrHPV status, hrHPV genotype, sample type and geographical region were calculated. In total, 510 of the 519 cervical carcinomas (98.3%; 95% CI: 96.7–99.2) tested FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation-positive. Test positivity was consistent across the different subgroups based on cervical cancer histotype, FIGO stage, hrHPV status, hrHPV genotype, sample type and geographical region. In conclusion, FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis detects nearly all cervical carcinomas, including rare histotypes and hrHPV-negative carcinomas. These results indicate that a negative FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation assay result is likely to rule out the presence of cervical cancer.     

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.     

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.     

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.