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.     

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.     

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.     

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+.     

Triaging HPV‐positive women with normal cytology by p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology testing: Baseline and longitudinal data

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)‐based screening results in a 2–5% lower specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared to Pap cytology. To identify HPV‐positive women with CIN2+, we retrospectively evaluated the cross‐sectional and longitudinal performance of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology participating in population‐based cervical screening. Conventional Pap cytology specimens of 847 of these women derived from the VUSA‐Screen study were dual‐stained for p16/Ki‐67. Cross‐sectional clinical performance in detecting CIN3 or worse (CIN3+), and CIN2+ was compared to that of baseline HPV genotyping. Moreover, 5‐year cumulative incidence risks (CIR) for CIN3+ (CIN2+) were determined. The sensitivity of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology for CIN3+ (CIN2+) was 73.3% (68.8%) with a specificity of 70.0% (72.8%). HPV16/18 genotyping showed a sensitivity for CIN3+ (CIN2+) of 46.7% (43.8%), with a specificity of 78.3% (79.4%). The 5‐year CIR for CIN3+ in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology was 6.9%. Testing these women with p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology resulted in a significantly lower CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% (p = 0.017) in case of a negative test result. A negative HPV16/18 genotyping test result also led to a lower 5‐year CIN3+ CIR of 3.6%. p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology detects more than 70% of underlying CIN3+ lesions in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology at baseline and is therefore suitable for triaging these women to colposcopy. Furthermore, the CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% after a negative dual‐stain result is significantly lower compared to the 5‐year CIR of 6.9% in women without p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology triage.     

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.     

Primary cervical cancer screening with HPV testing compared with liquid-based cytology: results of round 1 of a randomised controlled trial �C the HPV FOCAL Study

Background:

Round 1 data of human papillomavirus (HPV) FOCAL, a three-arm, randomised trial, which aims to establish the efficacy of HPV DNA testing as a primary screen for cervical cancer, are presented.

Methods:

The three arms are: Control arm – liquid based cytology with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance (ASC-US) triage with hrHPV testing; Intervention Arm – hrHPV at entry with liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage of hrHPV positives, with exit screen at 4 years; Safety check arm – hrHPV at entry with LBC triage of hrHPV positives with exit screen at 2 years.

Results:

A total of 6154 women were randomised to the control arm and 12 494 to the HPV arms (intervention and safety check). In the HPV arm, the baseline cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ and CIN3+ rate was 9.2/1000 (95%CI; 7.4, 10.9) and 4.8/1000 (95%CI; 3.6, 6.1), which increased to 16.1/1000 (95%CI 13.2, 18.9) for CIN2+ and to 8.0/1000 (95%CI; 5.9, 10.0) for CIN3+ after subsequent screening of HPV-DNA-positive/cytology-negative women. Detection rate in the control arm remained unchanged after subsequent screening of ASC-US-positive/hrHPV DNA-negative women at 11.0/1000 for CIN2+ and 5.0/1000 for CIN3+.

Conclusion:

After subsequent screening of women who were either hrHPV positive/cytology negative or ASC-US positive/HPV negative, women randomised to the HPV arms had increased CIN2+ detection compared with women randomised to the cytology arm.     

Eight-type human papillomavirus E6/E7 oncoprotein detection as a novel and promising triage strategy for managing HPV-positive women

The management of HPV-positive women becomes particularly crucial in cervical cancer screening. Here we assessed whether detection of E6 or E7 oncoproteins targeting eight most prevalent HPV types could serve as a promising triage option. Women (N = 1,416) aged 50–60 from Shanxi, China underwent screening with HPV testing and liquid-based cytology (LBC), with any positive results referring to colposcopy and biopsy if necessary. Women with HPV-positive results received further tests using DNA-based genotyping, E6 or E7 oncoprotein detection targeting HPV16/18 (for short: E6 (16/18) Test) or HPV16/18/31/33/35/45/52/58 (for short: E6/E7 (8 types) Test), respectively. Among HPV-positive women, E6/E7 (8 types) oncoproteins had lower positivity (17.37%) compared to DNA-based genotyping for same eight types (58.30%) and LBC with ASC-US threshold (50.97%); HPV16 was the genotype showing the highest frequency (8.49%) for oncoprotein detection followed by HPV52 (3.47%), 58 (2.32%), 33 (1.54%), 18 (1.16%), 45 (0.77%), 35 (0.39%) and 31 (0%). For detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), E6/E7 (8 types) Test had similar sensitivity (100.00%) and superior specificity (85.94%) as well as positive predictive value (PPV, 22.22%) compared to both LBC and DNA-based genotyping (8 types); For detection of CIN2+, E6/E7 (8 types) Test was less sensitive (67.74%) but still more specific (89.47%) and risk predictive with PPV of 46.67%. Notably, E6/E7 (8 types) Test remarkably decreased the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+ and CIN3+ (2.14 and 4.50). E6/E7 oncoprotein detection showed a good “trade-off” between sensitivity and specificity with more efficient colposcopy referrals, which is of great importance to maximize the benefits of HPV-based screening program, especially applicable for the areas with high HPV prevalence and low-resources.     

Management of HPV-positive women in cervical screening using results from two consecutive screening rounds

We studied whether triage of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women participating in an HPV-based screening programme can be improved by including the HPV result at the previous screen in the triage algorithm. We analyzed data of a subgroup of 366 women from the POBASCAM trial, screened by cytology and HPV cotesting. Women were included if they tested HPV-positive in the second HPV-based screening round. We evaluated the clinical performance of 16 strategies, consisting of cytology, HPV genotyping, and/or previous screen HPV result. The clinical endpoint was cervical precancer or cancer (CIN3+). The current Dutch triage testing policy for HPV-positive women is to refer women for colposcopy if they have abnormal cytology at baseline or after 6–18 months. In the second HPV-based screening round, this strategy yielded a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8% (95% confidence interval: 91.9–98.2) and colposcopy referral rate of 37.6% (32.3–43.2%). Replacing repeat cytology by the previous screen HPV result yielded a similar NPV (96.9%, 93.3–98.9) and colposcopy referral rate (38.8%, 33.4–44.4). A higher NPV (99.2%, 96.3–100%) at the cost of a higher colposcopy referral rate (49.2%, 43.6–54.8) was achieved when cytology was combined with HPV16/18 genotyping. The other 13 triage strategies yielded a lower NPV, a higher colposcopy referral rate or performed similarly but required additional testing. HPV-positive women in the second HPV-based screening round can be suitably managed by cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping and the HPV result at the previous screen, obviating the need for repeat testing of HPV-positive, cytology negative women.     

The influence of type‐specific human papillomavirus infections on the detection of cervical precancer and cancer: A population‐based study of opportunistic cervical screening in the United States

There are limited data on the prospective risks of detecting cervical precancer and cancer in United States (US) populations specifically where the delivery of opportunistic cervical screening takes place outside managed care and in the absence of organized national programs. Such data will inform the management of women with positive screening results before and after widespread human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and establishes a baseline preceding recent changes in US cervical cancer screening guidelines. Using data reported to the statewide passive surveillance systems of the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry, we measured the 3‐year HPV type‐specific cumulative incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) and grade 3 or more severe (CIN3+) detected during real‐world health care delivery across a diversity of organizations, payers, clinical settings, providers and patients. A stratified sample of 47,541 cervical cytology specimens from a screening population of 379,000 women underwent HPV genotyping. Three‐year risks for different combinations of cytologic interpretation and HPV risk group ranged from <1% (for several combinations) to approximately 70% for CIN2+ and 55% for CIN3+ in women with high‐grade (HSIL) cytology and HPV16 infection. A substantial proportion of CIN2+ (35.7%) and CIN3+ (30.9%) were diagnosed following negative cytology, of which 62.3 and 78.2%, respectively, were high‐risk HPV positive. HPV16 had the greatest 3‐year risks (10.9% for CIN2+,8.0% for CIN3+) followed by HPV33, HPV31, and HPV18. Positive results for high‐risk HPV, especially HPV16, the severity of cytologic interpretation, and age contribute independently to the risks of CIN2+ and CIN3+.     

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.     

Is HPV DNA testing specificity comparable to that of cytological testing in primary cervical cancer screening? Results of a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Human‐papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has been proposed as an alternative to primary cervical cancer screening using cytological testing. Review of the evidence shows that available data are conflicting for some aspects. The overall goal of the study is to update the performance of HPV DNA as stand‐alone testing in primary cervical cancer screening, focusing particularly on the aspects related to the specificity profile of the HPV DNA testing in respect to cytology. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Eight articles were included in the meta‐analysis. Three outcomes have been investigated: relative detection, relative specificity, and relative positive predictive value (PPV) of HPV DNA testing versus cytology. Overall evaluation of relative detection showed a significantly higher detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ for HPV DNA testing versus cytology. Meta‐analyses that considered all age groups showed a relative specificity that favored the cytology in detecting both CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions whereas, in the ≥30 years' group, specificity of HPV DNA and cytology tests was similar in detecting both CIN2+ and CIN3+ lesions. Results of the pooled analysis on relative PPV showed a not significantly lower PPV of HPV DNA test over cytology. A main key finding of the study is that in women aged ≥30, has been found an almost overlapping specificity between the two screening tests in detecting CIN2 and above‐grade lesions. Therefore, primary screening of cervical cancer by HPV DNA testing appears to offer the right balance between maximum detection of CIN2+ and adequate specificity, if performed in the age group ≥30 years.     

Human papilloma virus genotyping for the cross‐sectional and longitudinal probability of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more

Human papilloma virus (HPV) testing is more sensitive but less specific than cytology. We evaluated stand‐alone genotyping as a possible triage method. During a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HPV testing to conventional cytology, HPV‐positive women were referred to colposcopy and followed up if no high‐grade lesion was detected. HPV‐positive samples were genotyped by GP5+/GP6+ primed polymerase chain reaction followed by reverse line blot. Genotypes were hierarchically ordered by positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN grade 2 or more (CIN2+), and grouped by cluster analysis into three groups (A, B and C in decreasing order). Receiver operating characteristic curves were computed. Among 2,255 HPV‐positive women with genotyping, 239 CIN2+ (including 113 CIN3+) were detected at baseline or during a 3‐year follow‐up. HPV33 had the highest PPV with CIN2+ and CIN3+ as the endpoint and when considering lesions detected at baseline or also during follow‐up. HPV16 and HPV35 were the second and third, respectively. Cross‐sectional sensitivity for CIN2+ at baseline was 67.3% (95% CI 59.7–74.2), 91.8% (95% CI 86.6–95.5) and 94.7% (95% CI 90.2–97.6), respectively, when considering as “positive” any of the HPV types in group A (33, 16 and 35), A or B (31, 52, 18, 59 and 58) and A or B or C (39, 51, 56, 45 and 68). The corresponding cross‐sectional PPVs for CIN2+ were 15.8% 95% (CI 13.2–18.7), 12.0% (95% CI 10.3–13.9) and 9.6% (95% CI 8.2–11.1), respectively. HPV33, 16 and 35 confer a high probability of CIN2+ but this rapidly decreases when adding other genotypes.     

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

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

The health and economic effects of HPV DNA screening in The Netherlands

We studied the health and economic effects of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing in cervical screening using a simulation model. The key data source was a Dutch longitudinal screening trial. We compared cytological testing with repeat cytology (for borderline/mildly abnormal smears) to HPV testing with cytology triage (for HPV‐positive smears), combination testing (combined HPV and cytology) and cytological testing with HPV triage (for borderline/mildly abnormal smears). We varied the screening interval from 5 to 10 years. The main outcome measures were the number of cervical cancer cases, the number of quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER). The base‐case estimates were accompanied with ranges across 118 calibrated parameter settings (calibration criteria: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3, cancer and mortality rates). In comparison to 5‐yearly cytology, 5‐yearly HPV testing with cytology triage gave a reduction in the number of cancer cases of 23% (range, 9–27%). The reduction was 26% (range, 10–29%) for combination testing and 3% (range, ?1 to 8%) for cytology with HPV triage. For strategies with primary HPV testing, the model also estimated a reduction in cancer cases when the screening interval was extended to 7.5 years. Five‐yearly cytology with HPV triage and 5 to 7.5‐yearly HPV testing with cytology triage were cost effective for the base‐case settings and the majority of calibrated parameter settings (ICER below Dutch willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €20,000/QALY). Our model indicates that HPV testing with cytology triage is likely to be cost effective. An extension of the screening interval may be considered to control costs.     

The Impact of Triage for Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance with Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening in Japan

Background: One of the features of cervical cancer screening using the combination of cytology and humanpapillomavirus (HPV) testing is the triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). Theeffectiveness of the triage has been recognized widely. However, there are few reports evaluating this triage process inJapan. Material and Methods: We retrospectively examined the results of cytology and HPV co-testing for cervicalcancer screening in the Oyama area of Tochigi Prefecture between 2012 and 2014. Women who were ASC-US/HPVpositive and had cytologic abnormalities [low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) or worse] were examinedby colposcopy. The results of the colposcopy testing were evaluated. In addition, we also examined the results of thosewho underwent co-testing a year after a ASC-US/HPV-negative result. Results: A total of 21,342 women receivedtheir first screening test during the study period, with 542 (2.5%) found to have ASC-US. Of the ASC-US-positivewomen, 289 (53.3%) were also HPV positive. The prevalence of CIN+ (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or higher)in the ASC-US/HPV-positive group was 63.2%, with 81.8%, 16.4% and 4.8%. showing CIN 1, CIN 2 and CIN 3+,respectively. The prevalence of CIN+ in the LSIL group was 66.8%, with the majority having a low risk CIN 1 (76.6%)compared to CIN 2 (18.6%), and CIN 3+ (4.8%). No significant difference was observed between the LSIL and ASC-US/HPV-positive groups. The prevalence of women diagnosed with CIN in the ASC-US/HPV-negative group, followingco-testing a year after colposcopy was low (3%). Conclusions: The ASC-US/HPV-positive group was comparable tothe LSIL group in terms of prevalence of CIN+ lesions. Furthermore, low CIN prevalence after one year in the ASCUS/HPV-negative group provides confirmation that the screening interval could be extended. The application of HPVtriage (which is routine in other countries) to identify these groups would be of benefit in Japan.     

A study of the risks of CIN3+ detection after multiple rounds of HPV testing: Results of the 15-year cervical cancer screening experience at Kaiser Permanente Northern California

Many countries are transitioning to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening, despite a lack of long-term experience. To anticipate multi-round screening performance, we analyzed 15-year HPV testing results at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). We evaluated HPV test result patterns among women aged 30–64 undergoing triennial HPV/cytology cotesting at KPNC during 2003–2018. We calculated incidence rates and proportion of CIN3+ diagnoses associated with the most frequent HPV testing patterns overall and stratified by age. From 2003 to 2018, a total of 1,361,581 women had a valid HPV test result, and 7,087 were diagnosed with CIN3+. Incidence rates of CIN3+ after HPV positivity were lowest when HPV detection was new and highest in women with prevalent infections (770 vs. 13,910/100,000 person-years). Repeat test negativity reduced subsequent incidence rates of CIN3+ to extremely low levels (18/100,000 person-years following four consecutive negative results). For mixed patterns of positivity/negativity, the recency and frequency of positive tests were associated with increased rates of CIN3+ diagnosis. Most CIN3+ cases (76%) were diagnosed in women who were positive at baseline (the first known positive HPV result); 16% were attributed to apparent newly detected infections and 3% to possible reappearing infections. These results corroborate previous findings that current HPV positivity, particularly when prevalent rather than new, is associated with the highest rates of CIN3+. In a screening program implementing HPV testing, most CIN3+ is detected at the first HPV positive test.     

Assessing the time dependence of prognostic values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening

Accurate assessment of risks for developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) after a given set of screening test results is instrumental to reaching valid conclusions and informing cervical cancer screening recommendations. Using data from the Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial (CCCaST), we assessed prognostic values of enrollment screening test results to predict CIN2+ among women attending routine cervical screening using multivariable Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression and its flexible extension during each of two follow-up periods (protocol-defined and extended). Nonproportional (time-dependent (TD)) and/or nonlinear effects were modeled, as appropriate. Women with abnormal cytology had hazard ratios (HRs) for CIN2+ detection of 17.61 (95% CI: 11.25–27.57) and 10.46 (95% CI: 5.41–20.24) relative to women with normal cytology during the protocol-defined and extended follow-up periods, respectively. High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) positivity was an even stronger predictor of CIN2+ risk, with significant TD effects during both follow-up periods (p <0.001 for both TD effects). Risks among women co-testing HR-HPV+ with and without abnormal cytology (relative to women co-testing negative) were highest immediately after baseline, and decreased significantly thereafter (p <0.001 for both TD effects). HRs for HPV16+ and HPV18+ women (relative to those testing HR-HPV-) did not vary significantly over time (HR = 182.96; 95% CI: 95.16–351.77 and HR = 111.81; 95% CI: 44.60–280.31, respectively). Due to TD effects, conventional Cox model estimates considerably underestimated adjusted HRs associated with positive HR-HPV testing results early on in the follow-up periods.     

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+.     

Cervical cancer risk in HPV‐positive women after a negative FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation test: A post hoc analysis in the POBASCAM trial with 14 year follow‐up

DNA methylation analysis of cervical scrapes using FAM19A4 and mir124‐2 genes has shown a good clinical performance in detecting cervical cancer and advanced CIN lesions in need of treatment in HPV‐positive women. To date, longitudinal data on the cancer risk of methylation test‐negative women are lacking. In our study, we assessed the longitudinal outcome of FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation analysis in an HPV‐positive screening cohort with 14 years of follow‐up. Archived HPV‐positive cervical scrapes of 1,040 women (age 29–61 years), who were enrolled in the POBASCAM screening trial (ISRCTN20781131) were tested for FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation. By linkage with the nationwide network and registry of histo‐ and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), 35 cervical cancers were identified during 14 years of follow‐up comprising three screens (baseline, and after 5 and 10 years). The baseline scrape of 36.1% (n = 375) women tested positive for FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation, including 24 women with cervical cancer in follow‐up, and 30.6% (n = 318) had abnormal cytology (threshold borderline dyskaryosis or ASCUS), including 14 women with cervical cancer in follow‐up. Within screening round capability of FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation to detect cervical cancer was 100% (11/11, 95% CI: 71.5–100). Kaplan–Meier estimate of 14‐year cumulative cervical cancer incidence was 1.7% (95% CI: 0.66–3.0) among baseline methylation‐negative and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.4–3.6) among baseline cytology‐negative women (risk difference: 0.71% [95% CI: 0.16–1.4]). In conclusion, a negative FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation test provides a low cervical cancer risk in HPV‐positive women of 30 years and older. FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation testing merits consideration as an objective triage test in HPV‐based cervical screening programs.