Long-term cervical precancer outcomes after a negative DNA- or RNA-based human papillomavirus test result

RNA extended interventional nucleic acid longitudinal study: Clinical performance of Aptima messenger RNA HPV testing in cervical cancer screening with a 9-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is a need for additional longitudinal studies with the Aptima messenger RNA human papillomavirus test (AHPV) to support the safety of extended screening intervals. RNA-based extended interventional nucleic acid (REINA) provides relevant information on the clinical performance of AHPV.

METHODS

This is a longitudinal prospective analysis of 1538 participants after AHPV and liquid-based cytology (LBC) co-test complemented with REINA interventional protocol with a second co-test 4 years after negative screening on 2000 women. Diagnostic accuracy and cumulative risks for CIN2+ up to 9 years were calculated for all test combinations.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ were 96.9% and 88.0% for AHPV and 72.3% and 92.0% for LBC. Negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of AHPV were 99.9% and 23.6%. The 5- and 9-year risks of AHPV-negative women were 0.4% and 1.0% (CIN2+) and 0.3% and 0.7% (CIN3+), a 73% and 64% lower risk than with negative LBC (p ≤ .002). REINA participants with an AHPV-positive result at second co-test after a negative AHPV in first round had a significantly lower 5-year risk of CIN2+ (11.1%) than AHPV-positive women with unknown HPV history (29.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, this constitutes the longest European longitudinal study with AHPV testing in screening population. It reveals 99.9% NPV and a significant protective effect of a previous negative test 5 years after a new HPV infection. These findings support the safety of Aptima for screening intervals beyond 5 years. The risk of disease is lower 9 years after a negative AHPV test than 3 years after a negative LBC. High specificity and PPV of Aptima may benefit controlling overtreatment and colposcopy referrals.

Evidence of Decreased Long-term Risk of Cervical Precancer after Negative Primary HPV Screens Compared with Negative Cytology Screens in a Longitudinal Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The growing use of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening requires determining appropriate screening intervals to avoid overtreatment of transient disease. This study examined the long-term risk of cervical precancer after HPV screening to inform screening interval recommendations.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study (British Columbia, Canada, 2008 to 2022) recruited women and individuals with a cervix who received 1 to 2 negative HPV screens (HPV1 cohort, N = 5,546; HPV2 cohort, N = 6,624) during a randomized trial and women and individuals with a cervix with 1 to 2 normal cytology results (BCS1 cohort, N = 782,297; BCS2 cohort, N = 673,778) extracted from the provincial screening registry. All participants were followed through the registry for 14 years. Long-term risk of cervical precancer or worse [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+)] was compared between HPV and cytology cohorts.

RESULTS

Cumulative risks of CIN2+ were 3.2/1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-4.7] in HPV1 and 2.7/1,000 (95% CI, 1.2-4.2) in HPV2 after 8 years. This was comparable with the risk in the cytology cohorts after 3 years [BCS1: 3.3/1,000 (95% CI, 3.1-3.4); BCS2: 2.5/1,000 (95% CI, 2.4-2.6)]. The cumulative risk of CIN2+ after 10 years was low in the HPV cohorts [HPV1: 4.7/1,000 (95% CI, 2.6-6.7); HPV2: 3.9 (95% CI, 1.1-6.6)].

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of CIN2+ 8 years after a negative screen in the HPV cohorts was comparable with risk after 3 years in the cytology cohorts (the benchmark for acceptable risk).

IMPACT

These findings suggest that primary HPV screening intervals could be extended beyond the current 5-year recommendation, potentially reducing barriers to screening.

Are we ready for human papillomavirus testing? Assessment of patient knowledge of and preferences for cervical cancer screening in Ontario

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient knowledge and preferences about primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Two family practice clinics (urban and suburban) and the social media platforms of 2 hospitals in the greater Toronto area between January and February 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 413 Ontario residents aged 25 to 69 years, with a cervix, who qualified for Papanicolaou (Pap) screening and could communicate in English.

METHODS

Electronic survey containing questions about knowledge of, and preferences for, cervical cancer screening, including types of screening and screening intervals, and about education related to HPV and screening intervals.

MAIN FINDINGS

Of 441 potential participants, 426 were eligible and consented to participate in the study; ultimately 413 provided completed or partially completed surveys (96.9% response rate). Of those who completed a recent Pap test, 57.8% (208 of 360) knew of HPV testing. Initially, 27.8% thought HPV testing was better than Pap testing for cervical cancer screening. After learning HPV tests exist and have self-sampling options, most participants preferred HPV testing (self-sampling 46.3%, provider sampling 34.1%). Annual cervical cancer screening was preferred by 50.1% of participants despite knowing that, for most people, Pap tests should be conducted every 3 years (74.8%). After learning about HPV testing, participants were more likely to prefer 5-year screening intervals (43.8%); however, those in the family practice group were still more likely to prefer 3-year intervals compared with those in the social media group (P<.01).

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study identified a preference for HPV testing and self-sampling options. Concerns were raised about extended screening intervals and the safety of self-collected samples that need to be addressed in public health education initiatives during rollout of new screening programs.

Performance of Aptima-HPV in the cervical cancer screening program of Portugal: a cost-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a major concern to women's health, being the fourth most common cancer worldwide. A great percentage of these cancer is consequence of an HPV infection, namely from specific genotypes such as 16/18. Portuguese screening program subjects women to a reflex cytology triage every 5 years. Aptima® HPV is a screening test which presents better specificity than other tests which are used in Portugal (Hybrid Capture® 2 and Cobas® 4800) and still have a comparable sensitivity. The present study aims to estimate the number of diagnostic tests and costs that are avoided using Aptima® HPV compared to the use of two other tests, Hybrid Capture® 2 and Cobas® 4800, within the cervical cancer screening programme in Portugal.

METHODS

A model, consisting of a decision-tree, was developed to represent the full Portuguese screening program for cervical cancer. This model is used to compare the costs resulting from using Aptima® HPV test versus the other tests used in Portugal, during 2 years. Other outcomes such as the number of additional tests and exams were also computed. This comparison considers the performance of each test (sensitivity and specificity) and assumes an equal price for every test compared.

RESULTS

Cost savings resulting from the use of Aptima® HPV are estimated at approximately €382 million versus Hybrid Capture® 2 and €2.8 million versus Cobas® 4800. Moreover, Aptima® HPV prevents 265,443 and 269,856 additional tests and exams when compared with Hybrid Capture® 2 and Cobas® 4800.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Aptima® HPV resulted in lower costs as well as less additional test and exams. These values result from the greater specificity of Aptima® HPV, which signals less false positive cases and consequently avoids carrying out additional tests.

Performance of HPV E6/E7 mRNA Assay as Primary Screening Test. Results from the NTCC2 Trial

As the primary screening test, E6/E7 mRNA has shown similar sensitivity for CIN3+ and lower positivity rate than the HPV DNA test. Nevertheless, the overall mRNA positivity is too high for immediate colposcopy, making a triage test necessary. The aim was to estimate the mRNA performance as a primary test with different triage strategies. All HPV DNA-positives were tested for mRNA, cytology and p16/ki67. A sample of HPV DNA-negatives were also tested for mRNA to estimate test specificity. We included all CIN3+ histologically diagnosed within 24 months since recruitment. Of the 41127 participants, 7.7% were HPV DNA-positive, of which 66.4% were mRNA-positive. Among the HPV DNA-negatives, 10/1108 (0.9%) were mRNA-positive. Overall, 97 CIN3+ were found. If mRNA was used as the primary test, it would miss about 3% of all CIN3+ with a 22% reduction of positivity compared to HPV DNA. The weighted specificity estimate for <CIN2 was 94.5% (95% CI=93.9%-94.9%) and sensitivity for CIN3+ was 96.9% (95% CI=91.3%-99.1%). If all the weighted estimated 6.0% mRNA-positive women had been referred to colposcopy, PPV for CIN3+ would have been 4.2%. Cytology or p16/ki67 triage would decrease immediate referral to 1.7% and 2.0%, increasing PPV to 11.2% and 11.7%, respectively; total colposcopy referral would be 4.0% and 3.9%, respectively. As the primary screening test, the mRNA assay showed a positivity rate lower than that of HPV DNA, with a small number of CIN3+ missed. Triage with cytology or p16/ki67 would only marginally decrease overall colposcopy referral.

HPV-based screening at extended intervals missed fewer cervical precancers than cytology in the HPV FOr CervicAL Cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial

While cervix screening using cytology is recommended at 2-3-year intervals, given the increased sensitivity of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening to detect precancer, HPV-based screening is recommended every 4-5-year. As organized cervix screening programs transition from cytology to HPV-based screening with extended intervals, there is some concern that cancers will be missed between screens. Participants in HPV FOr CervicAL Cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial received cytology (Cytology Arm) at 24-month intervals or HPV-based screening (HPV Arm) at 48-month intervals, and co-testing (cytology and HPV testing) at exit. We investigated the results of the co-test to identify participants with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) who would not have had their precancer detected if they had only their arm's respective primary screen. In the Cytology Arm, 25/62 (40.3%) identified CIN2+s were missed by primary screen (i.e., normal cytology/positive HPV test) and all 25 had normal cytology at the prior 24-month screen. In the HPV arm, three CIN2+s (3/49, 6.1%) were missed by primary screen (i.e., negative HPV test/abnormal cytology). One of these three misses had low-grade cytology findings and would also not have been referred to colposcopy outside of the trial. Multiple rounds of cytology did not detect some precancerous lesions detected with one round of HPV-based screening. In our population, cytology missed more CIN2+, even at shorter screening intervals, than HPV-based screening. This assuages concerns about missed detection post-implementation of an extended interval HPV-based screening program. We recommend that policymakers consider a shift from cytology to HPV-based cervix screening. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.