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.     

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     

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.     

宫颈癌多种筛查方案的研究

目的 探索适宜我国不同地区的宫颈癌筛查方案,以提高我国妇女宫颈癌的防治水平.方法 利用1999年在山西省襄垣县开展的一项以人群为基础的宫颈癌筛查横断面研究的资料,所有筛查对象均进行了薄层液基细胞学(LBC)、荧光镜检、醋酸染色法(VIA)、阴道镜检查、自我取样人乳头瘤病毒(HPv)检测和医生取样HPV检测等6种宫颈癌筛查方法 ,而且每位筛查对象均有病理诊断结果 .采用筛查试验的串、并联法组合各种筛查技术,比较所得方案识别宫颈高度以上病变[≥宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)2]的灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率等指标,以受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下面积综合分析各筛查方案.结果 LBC检测以未明确意义的不典型鳞状细胞(ASC-US)为阳性,HPV检测以HPV DNA≥1.0 ps/mi为阳性.在LBC和HPV检测组合方案中,并联初筛方法 (即两者任一项阳性即判断为筛查阳性)的灵敏度为100.O%,特异度为68.6%,阴道镜转诊率为34.4%;LBC初筛HPV分流方法 (即ASC-US者进行HPV检测)的灵敏度为93.0%,特异度为89.9%,阴道镜转诊率为13.7%;HPV初筛LBC分流方法 (即 HPV阳性者进行LBC检测)的灵敏度为91.7%,特异度为93.0%,阴道镜转诊率为10.6%.经ROC分析,LBC初筛HPV分流方法 和HPV初筛LBC分流方法 明显优于单纯并联初筛方法 (P=0.0003;P=0.0002).单独以LBC或HPV检测作为筛查方案时,以ASC-US或低度病变(LSIL)为筛查阳性的LBC方法 灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率分别为94.2%、77.3%、25.7%和87.2%、93.5%、10.O%;医生取样HPV检测方法 和自我取样HPV检测方法 的灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率分别为97.6%、84.8%、18.8%和83.5%、85.9%、17.1%.经ROC分析,医生取样HPV检测方法 优于以ASC-US为筛查阳性的LBC方法 或自我取样HPV检测方法 (P=0.005,P=0.002).在VIA及其与HPV检测的组合方案中,单独采用VIA筛查方法 的灵敏度为70.9%,特异度为74.3%,阴道镜转诊率为27.6%;HPV初筛VIA分流方法 (即自我取样HPV检测阳性者进行VIA检查)的灵敏度、特异度和阴道镜转诊率分别为65.9%、95.2%和7.4%.经ROC分析,HPV初筛VIA分流方法 明显优于单独使用VIA方法 (P=0.004).结论 根据地区资源条件和个人意愿,我国经济发达地区可选用HPV初筛LBC分流方法 或LBC初筛HPV分流方法 作筛查手段;中等经济发展水平的中小城市可选用单独以LBC或HPV检测方法 作为筛查手段;VLA是欠发达地区可行的筛查方法 ,在廉价HPV检测试剂盒上市后,可选择HPV初筛VIA分流方法 ,以进一步提高宫颈癌的筛查效力.     

A Model Approach for Assessing the Benefits of HPV Testing against Cytology in Screening for Cervical Cancer Precursors in Thailand

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of HPV 16/18 genotyping test, high risk HPV DNA testing, alone and in conjunction with the liquid-based cytology method in screening for cervical cancer precursors. Methods: A Markov model was used to describe the course of the cases of CIN2+ that had been detected over a 35 year period. Screening programs started at age 30 and were performed at an interval of once every five years. The model compared three strategies of HPV 16/18 genotyping with reflex cytology triage, high-risk HPV testing alone with referral to colposcopy and cytology-based screening with referral to colposcopy. We assumed the rate of patients lost to follow-up for those referred to colposcopy would be 0%. The clinical parameters were estimated using the data from a study conducted by the Thailand National Cancer Institute. Result: Of the three screening strategies evaluated, the high risk HPV DNA testing alone was the most effective for detecting CIN2+ over the 35 year study period. It detected 143 and 510 cases per 100,000 women more than the HPV 16/18 genotyping test and cytology-based strategy, respectively. The HPV genotyping test detected 368 cases per 100,000 women more than the cytology-based approach. In addition, when viewed with five year intervals, there were missed cases totaling approximately half of the detected cases screened by the cytology strategy and 10% of cases detected with screening by the HPV genotyping test. Conclusion: This study strongly indicates that HPV/DNA testing is preferable to cytology-based screening for cervical cancer precursors. However, the balance between the benefits, burdens and cost of each screening program should be considered.     

Evaluation of a validated methylation triage signature for human papillomavirus positive women in the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening requires triage of HPV positive women to identify those at risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse. We conducted a blinded case–control study within the HPV FOCAL randomized cervical cancer screening trial of women aged 25–65 to examine whether baseline methylation testing using the S5 classifier provided triage performance similar to an algorithm relying on cytology and HPV genotyping. Groups were randomly selected from women with known HPV/cytology results and pathology outcomes. Group 1: 104 HPV positive (HPV+), abnormal cytology (54 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 2: 103 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV persistence at 12 mo. (53 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 3: 50 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV clearance at 12 mo. (assumed <CIN2), total n=257. For the combined groups, S5 risk score CIN2/3 relative sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared with other triage approaches. Methylation showed a highly significant increasing trend with disease severity. For CIN3, S5 relative sensitivity and specificity were: 93.2% (95%CI: 81.4–98.0) and 41.8% (35.2–48.8), compared to 86.4% (75.0–95.7) and 49.8% (43.1–56.6) respectively for combined abnormal cytology/HPV16/18 positivity (differences not statistically significant at 5% level); adjusted PPVs were 18.2% (16.2–20.4) and 19.3% (16.6–22.2) respectively. S5 was also positive in baseline specimens from eight cancers detected during or after trial participation. The S5 methylation score had high sensitivity and PPV for CIN3, compatible with US and European thresholds for colposcopy referral. Methylation signatures can identify most HPV positive women at increased risk of cervical cancer from their baseline screening specimens.     

Switch from cytology-based to human papillomavirus test-based cervical screening: implications for colposcopy

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology; some cervical cancer prevention programs will switch from cytology to carcinogenic HPV test-based screening. The objective of our study is to evaluate the clinical implications of a switch to HPV test-based screening on performance and workload of colposcopy. Women in the population-based, 7-year Guanacaste cohort study were screened at enrollment using cytology. We also took another specimen for HPV DNA testing and collected magnified cervical photographic images (cervigrams). A final case diagnosis (≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 3, CIN2, 相似文献   

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.     

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

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

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.     

Human papillomavirus testing and genotyping in cervical screening

Mass vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes 16 and 18 will, in the long term, reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, but screening will remain an important cancer control measure in both vaccinated and unvaccinated women. Since the 1960s, cytology screening has helped to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, but has a low sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and requires frequent testing. Several HPV tests have become available commercially. They appear to be more sensitive for high-grade CIN, and may further reduce the incidence of cervical cancer compared with cytology. However, they are associated with an increased frequency of positive tests without underlying CIN, and therefore increase the need for colposcopy and repeated testing. This problem will pose a major challenge for switching from cytology-based to HPV-based screening. The aim of this article is to discuss the role and the use of HPV tests and HPV genotyping in unvaccinated women.     

Stratifying HPV‐positive women for CIN3+ risk after one and two rounds of HPV‐based screening

A main challenge of human papilloma (HPV)‐based screening for cervical cancer is to adequately identify HPV‐positive women at highest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, CIN3+. The prognostic value of currently used adjunct markers (HPV16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology) may change after multiple rounds of HPV‐based screening because of a change in the proportion of HPV‐positive women with incident infections. To this end, we re‐analyzed results from the POBASCAM trial (Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam). Women were randomized to HPV/cytology cotesting (intervention group) or to cytology‐only (HPV blinded; control group) at enrolment. Our analytical population consisted of women with an HPV‐positive result at the second round, 5 years after enrolment (n = 381 intervention, n = 392 control). Nine‐year CIN3+ risks were estimated by Kaplan–Meier. HPV‐positive women were stratified by risk markers: HPV16/18 genotyping, reflex cytology and preceding HPV results. When comparing one to two rounds of HPV‐based screening, the prognostic value of an abnormal cytology result did not change (40.0% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.5617), but diminished for an HPV16/18 positive result (25.4% vs. 38.0%, p = 0.0132). HPV16/18 genotyping was nondiscriminative in women with incident HPV infections (HPV16/18 positive 10.0% vs. negative 12.1%, p = 0.3193). Women from the intervention group were more likely to have incident infections compared to women from the control group (incident screen‐positive results 75.6% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.001) Our results indicate that at a second round of HPV‐based screening, risk differentiation by cytology remained strong, but was diminished for HPV 16/18 genotyping because of a larger proportion of incident infections.     

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.     

Comparative performance evaluation of different HPV tests and triaging strategies using self-samples and feasibility assessment of thermal ablation in ‘colposcopy and treat’ approach: A population-based study in rural China

Human papillomavirus (HPV) test, self-sampling and thermal ablation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) have been developed separately to increase screening coverage and treatment compliance of cervical cancer screening programmes. A large-scale study in rural China screened 9,526 women with their combinations to explore the optimal cervical cancer-screening cascade in the real-world. Participants received careHPV and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) HPV tests on self-collected samples. Women positive on either HPV test underwent colposcopy, biopsy and thermal ablation in a single visit. Samples positive on either HPV test were retested for genotyping. Absolute and relative performance of HPV tests, triage strategies, ‘colposcopy and thermal ablation’ approach were statistically evaluated. PCR HPV test detected 33.3% more CIN grade two or worse (CIN2+) at a cost of 28.1% more colposcopies compared to careHPV. Sensitivities of PCR HPV and careHPV tests to detect CIN2+ were 96.7 and 72.5%. Specificities for the same disease outcome were 82.1 and 86.0%. Triaging HPV-positive women with HPV16/18 genotyping considerably improved the positive predictive value for CIN2+ (4.8–5.0 to 18.2–19.2%). Ninety-six women positive on HPV and having abnormal colposcopy were eligible for thermal ablation and all accepted same-day treatment, contributing to 64.6% being treated appropriately (CIN1+ on histopathology), which reached up to 84.8% among women positive on HPV 16/18 triage. No serious side-effects/complications were reported. The combination of PCR HPV test followed by HPV 16/18 triaging on self-collected samples and colposcopy of triage positive women followed by immediate thermal ablation might be the appropriate screening cascade for rural China.     

A daunting challenge: Human Papillomavirus assays and cytology in primary cervical screening of women below age 30 years

We compared cytology with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), cobas, CLART and APTIMA Human Papillomavirus (HPV) assays in primary cervical screening at age 23–29 years based on data from the Danish Horizon study. SurePath samples were collected from 1278 women undergoing routine cytology-based screening. Abnormal cytology was managed according to the routine recommendations, and women with cytology-normal/HPV-positive samples were invited for repeated cytology and HPV testing in 1.5 years. Loss to follow-up was similar between HPV assays. ⩾CIN3 was detected in 44 women. The sensitivity of HC2 for ⩾CIN3 was 95% (95% confidence interval (CI): 85–99), of cobas 98% (95% CI: 88–100), of CLART 100% (95% CI: 92–100), of APTIMA 82% (95% CI: 67–92), and of cytology 59% (95% CI: 43–74). Specificity for ⩾CIN3 varied between 61% (95% CI: 59–64) for cobas and 75% (95% CI: 73–78) for APTIMA, and was 94% (95% CI: 93–96) for cytology. Similar results were observed for ⩾CIN2 (N = 68). HPV screening with cytological triage doubled the number of colposcopies compared to cytology screening, and increased the frequency of repeated testing by four (APTIMA) to seven (cobas) times. The positive predictive value of a referral for colposcopy was relatively high for all screening tests (⩾30% for ⩾CIN3, and ⩾50% for ⩾CIN2). CIN1 was detected by cytology in ∼1% of women, and in ∼2% by any of the four HPV assays. Although highly sensitive, HPV-based screening of young Danish women should be approached cautiously, as it resulted in large reductions in specificity, and increased the demand for additional testing.     

A rapid HPV typing assay to support global cervical cancer screening and risk-based management: A cross-sectional study

The World Health Organization recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening. Extended genotyping can identify the highest-risk HPV-positive women. An inexpensive, rapid, mobile isothermal amplification assay (ScreenFire HPV RS test) was recently redesigned to yield four channels ordered by cancer risk (ie, hierarchical approach): HPV16, HPV18/45, HPV31/33/35/52/58 and HPV39/51/56/59/68. Stored specimens from 2076 women (mean age 30.9) enrolled in a colposcopy clinic, with high HPV prevalence, were tested with ScreenFire. We calculated hierarchical channel positivity and non-hierarchical channel and type positivity, according to histologic diagnosis (256 cancer, 350 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]3, 409 CIN2, 1020 < CIN2) and known virologic reference results (Linear Array and TypeSeq). Additionally, we analyzed ScreenFire time-to-positive up to 60 min by channel and histology. Overall clinical sensitivity for CIN3+ was 94.7% (95% confidence interval 92.6-96.4), similar to Linear Array (92.3, 89.7-94.3) and TypeSeq (96.0, 93.9-97.6). Sensitivity was high for all types and channels. The hierarchical approach was well in line with HPV typing and histologic diagnosis, prioritizing higher risk women having HPV16 and precancer. For HPV16, time-to-positive was shorter in women with precancer. ScreenFire showed excellent agreement with research reference typing tests and detection of CIN2+. Risk-based type results could help guide clinical management of HPV-positive women. Time-to-positive combined with genotyping might be useful. ScreenFire is rapid, mobile, relatively inexpensive and designed for implementation of HPV-based screening and management, including in lower-resource settings. Further validation in screening by self-sampling and practical effectiveness merit evaluation.     

Epidemiologie,Prävention und Früherkennung des Zervixkarzinoms

Background

Persisting infections with human papillomaviruses (HPV) are the indisputable cause of cervical cancer. The development of HPV-based preventive procedures, HPV vaccination and HPV testing are currently leading to major changes in cervical cancer prevention programs worldwide. A reduction of HPV infections and cancer precursors has been observed for young women in many countries one decade after the introduction of HPV vaccination. The focus is now on the integration of new testing approaches for screening of populations with increasing vaccination rates.

Results and conclusion

A successful cervical cancer prevention program consists of various components including primary screening, triage of screening positives and colposcopy with biopsy to identify women with precursor cancer stages who require treatment. The role of primary screening is to identify a small subset of women with an increased risk of a precancerous stage, while the majority of women can be reassured that the risk is very low. Depending on the primary screening test, additional triage testing is required to decide who should be referred for colposcopy. Currently, there are three major approaches to cervical cancer screening: cervical cytology, HPV testing and HPV cytology co-testing. Several triage tests for HPV-positive women are currently being evaluated, including cytology, HPV genotyping, p16/Ki-67 cytology and various methylation tests. The increasing number of options for cervical cancer screening represent a challenge for clinical guidelines to remain up to date and comprehensible. The increasing complexity can lead to confusion among providers and women who participate in screening programs about the best approaches. Precision prevention is a novel approach to cervical cancer screening that integrates comprehensive risk data based on the individual medical history with test results for uniform, risk-based management decisions.

     

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.     

Cervical cancer screening in developing countries at a crossroad: Emerging technologies and policy choices

Cervical cancer (CC) represents the fourth most common malignancy affecting women all over the world and is the second most common in developing areas. In these areas, the burden from disease remains important because of the difficulty in implementing cytology-based screening programmes. The main obstacles inherent to these countries are poverty and a lack of healthcare infrastructures and trained practitioners. With the availability of new technologies, researchers have attempted to find new strategies that are adapted to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to promote early diagnosis of cervical pathology. Current evidence suggests that human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more effective than cytology for CC screening. Therefore, highly sensitive tests have now been developed for primary screening. Rapid molecular methods for detecting HPV DNA have only recently been commercially available. This constitutes a milestone in CC screening in low-resource settings because it may help overcome the great majority of obstacles inherent to previous screening programmes. Despite several advantages, HPV-based screening has a low positive predictive value for CC, so that HPV-positive women need to be triaged with further testing to determine optimal management. Visual inspection tests, cytology and novel biomarkers are some options. In this review, we provide an overview of current and emerging screening approaches for CC. In particular, we discuss the challenge of implementing an efficient cervical screening adapted to LMIC and the opportunity to introduce primary HPV-based screening with the availability of point-of-care (POC) HPV testing. The most adapted screening strategy to LMIC is still a work in progress, but we have reasons to believe that POC HPV testing makes part of the future strategies in association with a triage test that still needs to be defined.     

Triage options to manage high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women: A population-based cross-sectional study from rural China

Improvement in managing HPV-positive women is urgently needed. Based on a population-based study which included 2112 women aged 49 to 69 from Shanxi, China, we aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of multiple triage strategies based on liquid-based cytology (LBC), p16^INK4a, viral load and partial genotyping, as a single or combined strategy for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or higher (CIN2+/CIN3+) in women who tested positive by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2). Among 452 HC2-positive women, the test positivity of LBC (ASC-US+), p16^INK4a, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 were 39.6%, 38.5%, 18.0% and 40.0%, respectively. Compared to LBC (ASC-US+) triage, a single triage strategies using p16^INK4a or extended genotyping (SureX HPV16/18/31/33/45) achieved comparable sensitivity (relative sensitivity: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.26 and 0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.22) and specificity (relative specificity: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.14 and 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.14) for CIN3+. Viral load triage using a ≥50 RLU/CO cut-point also yielded similar results with LBC (ASC-US+). Among combined triage strategies, HPV16/18 genotyping with reflex p16^INK4a showed higher sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than LBC (ASC-US+) for CIN3+ detection, however, the differences were not statistically significant. Of note, after a negative result by p16^INK4a or LBC among HPV16/18 negative women, the posttest probability of CIN3+ was lower than 1%. Our study suggested that p16^INK4a, extended genotyping and increased viral load cut-point could be promising alternatives to cytology triage. Combined triage algorithms of HPV16/18 with reflex p16^INK4a or cytology, if negative, are associated with the substantial low posttest risk sufficient to release women to next screening round.