Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: the FASE study

The APTIMA HPV Assay (AHPV) allows detection of 14 high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) RNA types in cervical specimens. Until present, the assay has been compared to HPV DNA tests only in triage settings. Herein, we compare AHPV with a DNA assay (Hybrid Capture 2; HC2) and liquid-based cytology (LBC; using PreservCyt ThinPrep liquid Pap) in a screening setting (French APTIMA screening evaluation [FASE] study). Women (N = 5,006) aged 20-65 were screened by gynecologists in 17 private practices in Paris, France. One cervical specimen was collected and tested with LBC, AHPV and HC2 assays. Women were referred to colposcopy if they were ASC-US+ in LBC or HPV positive in either HPV assay. To control for verification bias, a random group (14%) with normal LBC and dually HPV negative tests underwent colposcopy. Data from 4,429 women were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated for the three tests. AHPV and HC2 were highly sensitive for CIN2+ (92.0% and 96.7%) and CIN3+ (95.7% and 95.3%) detection and much more sensitive than LBC (69.1% for CIN2+ and 73.3% for CIN3+). Specificity of AHPV was higher than that of HC2, but similar to that of LBC (p < 0.001). Combining LBC with either HPV test slightly increased sensitivity but compromised specificity. AHPV assay is both specific and sensitive for the detection of high-grade precancerous lesions and may be considered as an option for routine cervical cancer screening for women over 20 years of age.     

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.     

A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid‐based cytology and computer assistance

Liquid‐based cytology (LBC) has replaced conventional cytology (CC) for cervical cancer screening in some countries. However, it remains unclear whether LBC is superior to CC. A randomized controlled trial was conducted between August 2007 and March 2009 in Germany to compare LBC, alone and in combination with computer‐assisted imaging technology (CAS), to CC in the detection of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The main outcome measures were detection rates, relative sensitivities, positive predictive values (PPVs) and relative PPVs comparing LBC without and with CAS to CC. Primary histological outcome was CIN2 or higher. Included were 20,627 women participating in opportunistic cervical cancer screening at 20 gynecologic practices. The practices were randomized weekly to use LBC (n = 11,331) or CC (n = 9,296). Patients with positive findings were invited to expert colposcopy. The relative sensitivity of LBC versus CC using the CIN2+ cut‐off was 2.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.66–4.53). The relative sensitivity of LBC/CAS versus CC for CIN2+ was 3.17 (95% CI 1.94–5.19). The PPV of LBC and CC for CIN2+ was 48% and 38%, respectively. The PPV ratio did not differ significantly from unity. Differences between LBC and CC were smaller in some sensitivity and subgroup analyses; however, relative sensitivity of LBC remained increased. LBC without and with CAS compared with CC under the field conditions of an opportunistic screening system had a significantly higher sensitivity for the detection of CIN without deterioration of PPVs. Additional use of CAS did not further improve sensitivity of LBC. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of single and combined visual, cytologic, and virologic tests as screening strategies in a region at high risk of cervical cancer.

Increased understanding of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection as the central cause of cervical cancer has permitted the development of improved screening techniques. To evaluate their usefulness, we evaluated the performance of multiple screening methods concurrently in a large population-based cohort of >8500 nonvirginal women without hysterectomies, whom we followed prospectively in a high-risk region of Latin America. Using Youden's index as a measure of the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, we estimated the performances of a visual screening method (cervicography), conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology (ThinPrep), and DNA testing for 13 oncogenic HPV types. The reference standard of disease was neoplasia > or = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3), defined as histologically confirmed CIN 3 detected within 2 years of enrollment (n=90) or invasive cancer detected within 7 years (n=20). We analyzed each technique alone and in paired combinations (n=112 possible strategies), and evaluated the significance of differences between strategies using a paired Z test that equally weighted sensitivity and specificity. As a single test, either liquid-based cytology or HPV DNA testing was significantly more accurate than conventional cytology or cervicography. Paired tests incorporating either liquid-based cytology or HPV DNA testing were not substantially more accurate than either of those two test strategies alone. However, a possibly useful synergy was observed between the conventional smear and cervicography. Consideration of age or behavioral risk profiles did not alter any of these conclusions. Overall, we conclude that highly accurate screening for cervical cancer and CIN 3 is now technically feasible. The remaining vital issue is to extend improved cervical cancer prevention programs to resource-poor regions.     

中国子宫颈癌机会性筛查多中心临床研究

目的调查我国目前省市级各类大医院开展子宫颈癌机会性筛查的基本现状，为我国探索城市地区子宫颈癌的防治策略提供依据。方法按照时间（2005～2007年）和医院类型（综合医院、肿瘤医院和妇幼保健院）分层分析全国不同地区14家医院子宫颈病变的筛查、诊断和治疗情况。结果在目前常用的筛查方法中，巴氏涂片所占比例为65．28％、液基细胞学检查占21．14％、HPV检测占6．84％、液基细胞学＋HPV检测占1．39％、巴氏涂片＋HPV检测占2．55％、肉眼检查占2．80％。但在2005—2007年期间，可以看出巴氏涂片所占比例均逐年降低（76．34％，68．98％，55．56％，X^2=29517．43，P〈0．0001），而液基细胞学呈逐年增加的趋势（8．23％，15．16％，32．72％，X^2=64438．34，P〈0．0001）。妇幼保健院采用巴氏涂片的比例（68．98％）要高于综合医院（54．49％）和肿瘤医院（41．13％）。液基细胞学在综合医院、肿瘤医院和妇幼保健院所占的比例分别为41．77％、12．86％和15．16％。在诊断的子宫颈病变中，浸润癌、原位癌／CIN3、CIN2和CIN1的比例分别为28．14％、22．02％、21．95％和27．89％。浸润癌在肿瘤医院所占比例（59．59％）最高，癌前病变（CIN3、CIN2、CIN1）在综合医院和妇幼保健院所占比例较高。治疗方式中LEEP所占比例（37．60％）最高，其在综合医院比例最高（56．19％），其次是妇幼保健院（36．96％），放化疗方式主要见于肿瘤医院（38．86％）。结论在我国城市的各类大医院中主要以细胞学为子宫颈病变的检测手段，液基细胞学正逐渐被广泛使用，作为一种新技术，HPV检测仍是我国城市妇女筛查的辅助手段。加强宣传、提高医院子宫颈癌机会性筛查的覆盖率、规范宫颈病变的早诊早治技术，是推动城市子宫颈癌防治的有效途径。     

HPV for cervical cancer screening (HPV FOCAL): Complete Round 1 results of a randomized trial comparing HPV‐based primary screening to liquid‐based cytology for cervical cancer

Complete Round 1 data (baseline and 12‐month follow‐up) for HPV FOCAL, a randomized trial establishing the efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage as a primary screen for cervical cancer are presented. Women were randomized to one of three arms: Control arm – Baseline liquid‐based cytology (LBC) with ASCUS results triaged with HPV testing; Intervention and Safety arms – Baseline HPV with LBC triage for HPV positives. Results are presented for 15,744 women allocated to the HPV (intervention and safety combined) and 9,408 to the control arms. For all age cohorts, the CIN3+ detection rate was higher in the HPV (7.5/1,000; 95%CI: 6.2, 8.9) compared to the control arm (4.6/1,000; 95%CI: 3.4, 6.2). The CIN2+ detection rates were also significantly higher in the HPV (16.5/1,000; 95%CI: 14.6, 18.6) vs. the control arm (10.1/1,000; 95%CI: 8.3, 12.4). In women ≥35 years, the overall detection rates for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were higher in the HPV vs. the control arm (CIN2+:10.0/1,000 vs. 5.2/1,000; CIN3+: 4.2/1,000 vs. 2.2/1,000 respectively, with a statistically significant difference for CIN2+). HPV testing detected significantly more CIN2+ in women 25–29 compared to LBC (63.7/1,000; 95%CI: 51.9, 78.0 vs. 32.4/1,000; 95%CI: 22.3, 46.8). HPV testing resulted in significantly higher colposcopy referral rates for all age cohorts (HPV: 58.9/1,000; 95%CI: 55.4, 62.7 vs. control: 30.9/1,000; 95%CI: 27.6, 34.6). At completion of Round 1 HPV‐based cervical cancer screening in a population‐based program resulted in greater CIN2+ detection of across all age cohorts compared to LBC screening.     

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   

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.     

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.     

Disease detection at the 48-month exit round of the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial in women per-protocol eligible for routine screening

HPV FOCAL is a randomized control trial of cervical cancer screening. The intervention arm received baseline screening for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and the control arm received liquid-based cytology (LBC) at baseline and 24 months. Both arms received 48-month exit HPV and LBC cotesting. Exit results are presented for per-protocol eligible (PPE) screened women. Participants were PPE at exit if they had completed all screening and recommended follow-up and had not been diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) earlier in the trial. Subgroups were identified based upon results at earlier trial screening. There were 9,457 and 9,552 and women aged 25–65 randomized to control and intervention and 7,448 (77.8%) and 8,281 (86.7%), respectively, were PPE and screened. Exit cotest results were similar (p = 0.11) by arm for PPE and the relative rate (RR) of CIN2+ for intervention vs. control was RR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56–1.23). The RR for CIN2+ comparing intervention women baseline HPV negative to control women with negative cytology at baseline and at 24 months, was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.43–1.06). PPE women who had a negative or CIN1 colposcopy in earlier rounds had elevated rates (per 1,000) of CIN2+ at exit, control 31 (95% CI: 14–65) and intervention 43 (95% CI: 25–73). Among PPE women HPV negative at exit LBC cotesting identified little CIN2+, Rate = 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1–0.7). This per-protocol analysis found that screening with HPV using a 4-year interval is as safe as LBC with a 2-year screening interval. LBC screening in HPV negative women at exit identified few additional lesions.     

Comparison of Efficacy in Abnormal Cervical Cell Detection between Liquid-based Cytology and Conventional Cytology

This study was conducted to 1206 women who had cervical cancer screening at Chonburi Cancer Hospital.The spilt-sample study aimed to compare the efficacy of abnormal cervical cells detection between liquid-basedcytology (LBC) and conventional cytology (CC). The collection of cervical cells was performed by broom anddirectly smeared on a glass slide for CC then the rest of specimen was prepared for LBC. All slides were evaluatedand classified by The Bethesda System. The results of the two cytological tests were compared to the gold standard.The LBC smear significantly decreased inflammatory cell and thick smear on slides. These two techniques werenot difference in detection rate of abnormal cytology and had high cytological diagnostic agreement of 95.7%. Thehistologic diagnosis of cervical tissue was used as the gold standard in 103 cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positivepredictive value, negative predictive value, false positive, false negative and accuracy of LBC at ASC-US cut offwere 81.4, 75.0, 70.0, 84.9, 25.0, 18.6 and 77.7%, respectively. CC had higher false positive and false negativethan LBC. LBC had shown higher sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy than CC but no statisticalsignificance. In conclusion, LBC method can improve specimen quality, more sensitive, specific and accurate atASC-US cut off and as effective as CC in detecting cervical epithelial cell abnormalities.     

Addition of high-risk HPV testing improves the current guidelines on follow-up after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

We assessed a possible role for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in the policy after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 (moderate to severe dysplasia). According to the Dutch guidelines follow-up after treatment consists of cervical cytology at 6, 12 and 24 months. Colposcopy is only performed in case of abnormal cervical cytology. In this observational study 184 women treated for CIN 2 or 3 were prospectively monitored by cervical cytology and high-risk HPV testing 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 months after treatment. Post-treatment CIN 2/3 was present in 29 women (15.8%). A positive high-risk HPV test 6 months after treatment was more predictive for post-treatment CIN 2/3 than abnormal cervical cytology (sensitivity 90% and 62% respectively, with similar specificity). At 6 months the negative predictive value of a high-risk HPV negative, normal smear, was 99%. Largely overlapping, partly different groups of women with post-treatment CIN 2/3 were identified by HPV testing and cervical cytology. Based on these results we advocate to include high-risk HPV testing in monitoring women initially treated for CIN 2/3. In case of a high-risk HPV positive test or abnormal cervical cytology, colposcopy is indicated. All women should be tested at 6 and 24 months after treatment and only referred to the population-based cervical cancer screening programme when the tests are negative on both visits.     

A Descriptive Study of Different Methods of Cervical Cancer Screening among Ever-Married Women in 35-Year and 45-Year Cohorts in Kalutara District,Sri Lanka

Objective: Screening for cervical cancer in Sri Lankan females with Pap smears (conventional cytology) has shown no marked reduction in cervical cancer incidence over the past two decades. The study aims to compare the efficacy of Pap smear, with other screening tools such as Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) and Human Papilloma Virus/deoxyribonucleic acid (HPV/DNA) (using cobas 4800) in detection of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer among 35 and 45 year old ever married women in Kalutara districtin Sri Lanka. Methods: Women from 35-year cohort and 45-year cohort were selected from all Public Health Midwife areas (n=413) in Kalutara district by random sampling. Pap smear, LBC, and HPV/DNA specimen were collected s from women who attended the Well Woman Clinics (WWC) . Women with positive results from any method were confirmed by colposcopy.  Results: Of the, 510 and 502 women in the 35-year cohort and 45-year cohort, respectively, included in the analysis, nine women among 35-year cohort (1.8%) and 7 women among 45-year cohort (1.4%) had cytological abnormality (positive results) with Pap smears. Thirteen women among 35-year cohort (2.5%) and 10 women among 45-year cohort (2%) age groups had cytological abnormality (positive results) with Liquid Based Cytology reports. Total of 32 women among 35-year cohort (6.2%) and 24 women among 45-year cohort (4.8%)  were positive for HPV/DNA test. Of  the women tested positive on screening, colposcopy revealed that HPV/DNA method was superior to Pap and LBC for detecting CIN while the results of latter two were comparable. Conclusions and Recommendations: The CIN detection rate by colposcopy was high with HPV/DNA screening with cobas 4800, whereas the detection rate by LBC was insignificantly higher than Pap smears.     

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.     

Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older

Given the strong etiologic link between high-risk HPV infection and cervical cancer high-risk HPV testing is now being considered as an alternative for cytology-based cervical cancer screening. Many test systems have been developed that can detect the broad spectrum of hrHPV types in one assay. However, for screening purposes the detection of high-risk HPV is not inherently useful unless it is informative for the presence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3) or cancer. Candidate high-risk HPV tests to be used for screening should reach an optimal balance between clinical sensitivity and specificity for detection of high-grade CIN and cervical cancer to minimize redundant or excessive follow-up procedures for high-risk HPV positive women without cervical lesions. Data from various large screening studies have shown that high-risk HPV testing by hybrid capture 2 and GP5+/6+-PCR yields considerably better results in the detection of CIN 2/3 than cytology. The data from these studies can be used to guide the translation of high-risk HPV testing into clinical practice by setting standards of test performance and characteristics. On the basis of these data we have developed guidelines for high-risk HPV test requirements for primary cervical screening and validation guidelines for candidate HPV assays.     

Cervical screening by visual inspection, HPV testing, liquid-based and conventional cytology in Amazonian Peru

Cervical cancer is an important public health problem in many developing countries, where cytology screening has been ineffective. We compared four tests to identify the most appropriate for screening in countries with limited resources. Nineteen midwives screened 5,435 women with visual inspection (VIA) and collected cervical samples for HPV testing, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and conventional cytology (CC). If VIA was positive, a doctor performed magnified VIA. CC was read locally, LBC was read in Lima and HPV testing was done in London. Women with a positive screening test were offered colposcopy or cryotherapy (with biopsy). Inadequacy rates were 5% and 11% for LBC and CC respectively, and less than 0.1% for VIA and HPV. One thousand eight hundred eighty-one women (84% of 2,236) accepted colposcopy/cryotherapy: 79 had carcinoma in situ or cancer (CIS+), 27 had severe- and 42 moderate-dysplasia on histology. We estimated a further 6.5 cases of CIS+ in women without a biopsy. Sensitivity for CIS+ (specificity for less than moderate dysplasia) was 41.2% (76.7%) for VIA, 95.8% (89.3%) for HPV, 80.3% (83.7%) for LBC, and 42.5% (98.7%) for CC. Sensitivities for moderate dysplasia or worse were better for VIA (54.9%) and less favourable for HPV and cytology. In this setting, VIA and CC missed the majority of high-grade disease. Overall, HPV testing performed best. VIA gives immediate results, but will require investment in regular training and supervision. Further work is needed to determine whether screened-positive women should all be treated or triaged with a more specific test.     

Test positivity cutoff level of a high risk human papillomavirus test could be increased in routine cervical cancer screening

We present data on test positivity, relative sensitivity, rates of detection and relative specificity for primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing with different cutoff levels for test positivity, in comparison to conventional cytology. In 2003-2004, 18,438 women were screened primarily with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC 2) assay, a test for oncogenic HPV DNA, and 21,446 with conventional cytology within the organised screening programme in Finland. A cytological triage test was performed for the HPV positives. Women with cytology equal to low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or worse were referred for colposcopy. The relative sensitivity measured as relative risk (RR) of any cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer was 1.58 for the HPV test at the relative light units (rlu) ratio cutoff 1.00, in comparison to cytology. With the cutoff 3.00, all CIN 2+ lesions were detected. With cutoff 10.00, 2 of the 22 CIN 3+ lesions were missed. Relative specificity for HPV screening for any CIN was 92.6% at cutoff 1.00, 94.6% at cutoff 3.00 and 96.3% at cutoff 10.00. For CIN 3+ specificity estimates for these cutoffs were 92.1%, 94.1% and 95.8%, respectively. Used for routine screening as the sole test, the HPV test cutoff can be increased from the level recommended for clinical use. With HC 2, the detection rate at rlu ratio cutoff 10.00 is still at the level of high-quality conventional screening. At that level, the false positive rate is reduced by about half and the specificity of the HPV test becomes equal to the average specificity of conventional cytology.     

Chapter 14: Role of triage testing in cervical cancer screening

The classic model of cervical cancer prevention-primary screening with cytology, followed by diagnostic colposcopically directed biopsy, and finally treatment of cancer precursors-is undergoing dynamic change. The introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and other new modalities provides more options but increases complexity in the sequence of screening, triage, diagnosis, and patient management. This chapter will focus on the role of triage and risk stratification in management. The utility of HPV testing has been established for triage of cytologic findings of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance but not for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse. Countries without established cytology services may consider alternative screening, triage, and treatment programs that may be more readily implemented than a resource-rich "cytology followed by colposcopy" paradigm requiring an infrastructure of highly trained personnel. The diagnostic step of colposcopy and directed biopsy is not completely sensitive in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 as is sometimes assumed. The partial insensitivity of this diagnostic step results in a population of women with negative colposcopically directed-biopsy findings but at increased risk for missed prevalent disease: these women may require additional triage rather than resumption of routine screening. As more efficient screening, triage, and diagnosis increase the sensitivity of detection of even very small CIN2 or CIN3, overtreatment of lesions that might otherwise regress becomes a concern and highlights the need to identify accurate markers of risk of progression to cancer. Markers of molecular events further along the pathway from HPV infection to development of cancer may ultimately provide more specificity in triage and diagnosis.