The study of the combination detection of HPV-DNA and p16INK4a in cervical lesions

The Role of p16/Ki-67 Immunostaining, hTERC Amplification and Fibronectin in Predicting Cervical Cancer Progression: A Systematic Review

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are common sexually transmitted infectious agents responsible for several anogenital and head and neck cancers. Cervical cancer (CC) is the fourth leading cause of death in women with cancer. The progression of a persistent HPV infection to cancer takes 15–20 years and can be preventable through screening. Cervical cytology (Pap smear) is the standard screening test for CC and precancerous lesions. For ASC-US and ASC-H lesions, a combination of Pap smear and HR-HPV analysis is recommended as a triage step before colposcopy. However, these tests cannot predict progression to CC. For this purpose, we summarized current scientific data on the role of p16/Ki-67 immunohistostaining, telomerase and fibronectin in predicting progression to CC. p16 and p16/Ki-67 dual staining (DS) were more specific than HR-HPV DNA testing for the detection of CIN2+/CIN3+ in women with ASC-US and LSIL. Similarly, hTERC FISH analysis significantly improved the specificity and positive predictive value of HPV DNA testing in differentiating CIN2+ from CIN2 cytological samples. In conclusion, p16 IHC, p16/Ki-67 DS and hTERC FISH amplification are all valid adjunctive biomarkers which significantly increase the sensitivity and specificity of cervical dysplasia diagnosis, especially when combined with HPV DNA testing. However, considering the global socioeconomic background, we can postulate that p16 and p16/ Ki-67 IHC can be used as a next step after positive cytology for ASC-US or LSIL specimens in low-income countries, instead of HPV DNA testing. Alternatively, if HPV DNA testing is covered by insurance, p16 or p16/Ki-67 DS and HPV DNA co-testing can be performed. In middle- and high-income countries, hTERC amplification can be performed as an adjunctive test to HPV DNA testing in women with ASC-US and LSIL.

Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer screening has traditionally been based on cervical cytology. Given the aetiological relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis, HPV testing has been proposed as an alternative screening test.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV testing for detecting histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), including adenocarcinoma in situ, in women participating in primary cervical cancer screening; and how it compares to the accuracy of cytological testing (liquid-based and conventional) at various thresholds.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of articles in MEDLINE and Embase (1992 to November 2015) containing quantitative data and handsearched the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included comparative test accuracy studies if all women received both HPV testing and cervical cytology followed by verification of the disease status with the reference standard, if positive for at least one screening test. The studies had to include women participating in a cervical cancer screening programme who were not being followed up for previous cytological abnormalities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed a 2 x 2 table with the number of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives for each screening test (HPV test and cytology) used in each study. We calculated the absolute and relative sensitivities and the specificities of the tests for the detection of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ at various thresholds and computed sensitivity (TP/(TP + TN) and specificity (TN/ (TN + FP) for each test separately. Relative sensitivity and specificity of one test compared to another test were defined as sensitivity of test-1 over sensitivity of test-2 and specificity of test-1 over specificity of test-2, respectively. To assess bias in the studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. We used a bivariate random-effects model for computing pooled accuracy estimates. This model takes into account the within- and between-study variability and the intrinsic correlation between sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 40 studies in the review, with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old. Many studies were at low risk of bias. There were a sufficient number of included studies with adequate methodology to perform the following test comparisons: hybrid capture 2 (HC2) (1 pg/mL threshold) versus conventional cytology (CC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)+ and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL)+ thresholds) or liquid-based cytology (LBC) (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds), other high-risk HPV tests versus conventional cytology (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds) or LBC (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds). For CIN 2+, pooled sensitivity estimates for HC2, CC and LBC (ASCUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, and pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively. The results did not differ by age of women (less than or greater than 30 years old), or in studies with verification bias. Accuracy of HC2 was, however, greater in European countries compared to other countries. The results for the sensitivity of the tests were heterogeneous ranging from 52% to 94% for LBC, and 61% to 100% for HC2. Overall, the quality of the evidence for the sensitivity of the tests was moderate, and high for the specificity.The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 2+ was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.86) and the relative specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96), and versus LBC for CIN 2+ was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.26) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 3+ was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.91) and the relative specificity 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus LBC for CIN 3+ was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whilst HPV tests are less likely to miss cases of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+, these tests do lead to more unnecessary referrals. However, a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative cytological test, as the cytological test has a greater chance of being falsely negative, which could lead to delays in receiving the appropriate treatment. Evidence from prospective longitudinal studies is needed to establish the relative clinical implications of these tests.

Management of HPV-related cervical disease: role of p16INK4a immunochemistry. Review of the literature

This systematic review of 43 studies aims to evaluate the absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of p16INK4a with regard to uterine cervix lesions, describing innovations and techniques for the detection of high-grade cervical dysplasia and allowing correct treatment. Studies were identified in the PubMed database up to March 2015. The keywords hrHPV, p16INK4a gene, and uterine cervical disease (MeSH terms) were used. Only English-language articles were included. We considered retrospective and prospective studies that assessed p16INK4a or p16INK4a/Ki67 staining, with or without HPV-DNA testing (HC2/PCR) as a comparator test, in cytological/histological specimens for which the diagnosis of ASCUS, LSIL or HSIL was verified with a reference standard. The primary outcome for cervical lesions was evaluation of the absolute p16INK4a immunoreactivity; the secondary outcome was evaluation of the relative p16INK4a immunoreactivity versus HPV testing in those studies where comparator tests were available. p16INK4a was more specific than HPV-DNA test (median values of 56.1% vs. 52.25% in CIN grade ≥2 lesions; 82.5% vs. 53% in negative and CIN grade ≥1 lesions). The main limitation of this study is linked to both qualitative and quantitative p16INK4a levels of expression, while the second limitation is the lack of standardized scales. p16INK4a and HPV-DNA used together increased the sensitivity and negative predictive value for CIN detection. p16INK4a can be considered a biomarker of CIN2 or CIN3, indicating a high risk of relapse or evolution to invasive carcinoma. Also p16INK4a-negative CIN should be considered and further research should be performed.

Molecular targets of HPV oncoproteins: potential biomarkers for cervical carcinogenesis

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women worldwide and is responsible for 275,000 deaths each year. Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) is an essential factor for the development of cervical cancer. Although the process is not fully understood, molecular mechanisms caused by HPV infection are necessary for its development and reveal a large number of potential biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis. These molecules are host genes and/or proteins, and cellular microRNAs involved in cell cycle regulation that result from disturbed expression of HR-HPV E5, E6 and E7 oncoproteins. One of the current challenges in medicine is to discover potent biomarkers that can correctly diagnose cervical premalignant lesions and standardize clinical management. Currently, studies are showing that some of these molecules are potential biomarkers of cervical carcinogenesis, and it is possible to carry out a more accurate diagnosis and provide more appropriate follow-up treatment for women with cervical dysplasia. In this paper, we review recent research studies on cell cycle molecules deregulated by HPV infections, as well as their potential use for cervical cancer screening.