Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors

Efficacy of Cobas HPV testing for predicting grade 2+ cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a cancer prevention center and a gynecologic oncology clinic: A single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of Cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or higher (CIN2+), Cobas HPV testing results were correlated with follow-up biopsy in patients from Cancer Prevention Center (CPC) and Gynecologic Oncology Clinic (GOC) of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

METHODS

Institutional data for patients who underwent Cobas HPV and Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology cotesting from 2019 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical follow-up results were compared with Cobas HPV testing results in two populations.

RESULTS

A total of 2226 patients, including 921 women (mean age, 55.2 years) seen at the CPC and 1305 women (mean age, 49.3 years) seen at the GOC, were included. Specimens from GOC patients had a significantly higher HPV positivity rate than did those from CPC patients (22.9% vs. 10.1%; p < .001). Cobas HPV testing was positive in all seven CPC patients with surgical follow-up results showing CIN2+. Among 36 GOC patients with CIN2+ lesions, five patients had HPV-/Pap+ testing results. Although only seven CPC patients had CIN2+, Cobas HPV testing showed 100% sensitivity for predicting CIN2+ in this group. Sensitivity for CIN2+ was 86.5% in the GOC group, whereas 13.9% of GOC patients with CIN2+ had negative HPV testing results.

CONCLUSIONS

Cobas HPV testing was highly efficacious for predicting CIN2+ lesions in the low-risk CPC population, which supports HPV primary screening for cervical cancer in low-risk populations. For high-risk patients, especially those with a history of CIN2+/cervical cancer, HPV/Pap cotesting may still be necessary to maintain a high clinical sensitivity for CIN2+.

Exosomes: a promising avenue for cancer diagnosis beyond treatment

Exosomes, extracellular vesicles secreted by cells, have garnered significant attention in recent years for their remarkable therapeutic potential. These nanoscale carriers can be harnessed for the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents, such as pharmaceuticals, proteins, and nucleic acids, across biological barriers. This versatile attribute of exosomes is a promising modality for precision medicine applications, notably in the realm of cancer therapy. However, despite their substantial therapeutic potential, exosomes still confront challenges tied to standardization and scalability that impede their practice in clinical applications. Moreover, heterogeneity in isolation methodologies and limited cargo loading mechanisms pose obstacles to ensuring consistent outcomes, thereby constraining their therapeutic utility. In contrast, exosomes exhibit a distinct advantage in cancer diagnosis, as they harbor specific signatures reflective of the tumor's genetic and proteomic profile. This characteristic endows them with the potential to serve as valuable liquid biopsies for non-invasive and real-time monitoring, making possible early cancer detection for the development of personalized treatment strategies. In this review, we provide an extensive evaluation of the advancements in exosome research, critically examining their advantages and limitations in the context of cancer therapy and early diagnosis. Furthermore, we present a curated overview of the most recent technological innovations utilizing exosomes, with a focus on enhancing the efficacy of early cancer detection.

A Glimmer of Hope for Patients with a T3 Transformation Zone: miRNAs Are Potential Biomarkers for Cervical Dysplasia

BACKGROUND

This pilot study assesses the potential use of miRNAs in the triage of colposcopy patients with type 3 (nonvisible) cervical transformation zone (TZ). Type 3 TZ is a constitutional finding associated with many problems and controversies in colposcopy patient management. Here, we present miRNAs as a potential biomarker for the detection of CIN3 in these cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cervical mucosa samples (CMS) were collected from patients presenting with T3 transformation zone during routine workup using the Cytobrush. Depending on the histological and cytological result, as well as the result of the routinely performed HPV PCR, patients were divided into three groups: patients with a high-grade intraepithelial lesion (CIN3) and a positive high-risk HPV test (CIN3 group), patients without an intraepithelial lesion and a positive high-risk HPV test (HPV group), and healthy controls (N = no intraepithelial lesion and negative HPV test). The cervical mucus samples included in the study were tested for their expression levels of distinct miRNAs using qPCR.

RESULTS

All investigated miRNAs were consistently detectable in every sample. The CMSs of histologically graded CIN 3 showed consistently high expression levels of all eight miRNAs, whereas the CMSs from healthy patients (N) show generally lower expression levels. However, CMSs from patients of the HPV group represented a very heterogeneous group.

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented here can provide a solid basis for future research into a triage test for patients with a T3 transformation zone on the basis of commonly used clinical equipment.

Adapting a model of cervical carcinogenesis to self-identified Black women to evaluate racial disparities in the United States

BACKGROUND

Self-identified Black women in the United States have higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality than the general population, but these differences have not been clearly attributed across described cancer care inequities.

METHODS

A previously established microsimulation model of cervical cancer was adapted to reflect demographic, screening, and survival data for Black US women and compared with a model reflecting data for all US women. Each model input with stratified data (all-cause mortality, hysterectomy rates, screening frequency, screening modality, follow-up, and cancer survival) was sequentially replaced with Black-race specific data to arrive at a fully specified model reflecting Black women. At each step, we estimated the relative contribution of inputs to observed disparities.

RESULTS

Estimated (hysterectomy-adjusted) cervical cancer incidence was 8.6 per 100 000 in the all-race model vs 10.8 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (relative risk [RR] = 1.24, range = 1.23-1.27). Estimated all-race cervical cancer mortality was 2.9 per 100 000 vs 5.5 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (RR = 1.92, range = 1.85-2.00). We found the largest contributors of incidence disparities were follow-up from positive screening results (47.3% of the total disparity) and screening frequency (32.7%). For mortality disparities, the largest contributor was cancer survival differences (70.1%) followed by screening follow-up (12.7%).

CONCLUSION

To reduce disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, it is important to understand and address differences in care access and quality across the continuum of care. Focusing on the practices and policies that drive differences in treatment and follow-up from cervical abnormalities may have the highest impact.

A cross-sectional survey examining clinician characteristics, practices, and attitudes associated with adoption of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines

BACKGROUND

The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) risk-based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. These guidelines benefit patients by concentrating testing and treatment in those at highest cervical cancer risk. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, with few studies examining the factors associated with guideline-adherent management of abnormal results.

METHODS

To elucidate the factors associated with the use of the 2019 ASCCP guidelines among clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening, physicians and advanced practice professionals who perform cervical cancer screening were cross-sectionally surveyed. Clinicians responded to screening vignettes with differing recommendations for management between the 2019 and prior management guidelines. Screening vignette 1 involved reduction of invasive testing on a low-risk patient; screening vignette 2 involved increased surveillance testing on a high-risk patient. Binomial logistic regression models determined the factors associated with the use of the 2019 guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 1251 clinicians participated from across the United States. For screening vignettes 1 and 2, guideline-adherent responses were given by 28% and 36% of participants, respectively. Management recommendations differed by specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by obstetrics and gynecology physicians (vignette 1) and inappropriate discontinuation of screening by family and internal medicine physicians (vignette 2). Regardless of their chosen response, over half erroneously believed they were guideline adherent.

CONCLUSIONS

Many clinicians who believe they are following appropriate guidelines may not realize their management strategy is inconsistent with the 2019 guidelines. Education initiatives tailored to clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening test management. We surveyed over 1200 obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their screening and abnormal results follow-up practices in relation to guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2019 guidelines. Management recommendations differed by clinician specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by OB/GYN physicians and inappropriate screening discontinuation by family and internal medicine physicians. Education tailored by clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms.

Cervical Cancer Screening: A Review

Importance

Each year in the US, approximately 100 000 people are treated for cervical precancer, 14 000 people are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and 4000 die of cervical cancer.

Observations

Essentially all cervical cancers worldwide are caused by persistent infections with one of 13 carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes: 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68. HPV vaccination at ages 9 through 12 years will likely prevent more than 90% of cervical precancers and cancers. In people with a cervix aged 21 through 65 years, cervical cancer is prevented by screening for and treating cervical precancer, defined as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. High-grade lesions can progress to cervical cancer if not treated. Cervicovaginal HPV testing is 90% sensitive for detecting precancer. In the general population, the risk of precancer is less than 0.15% over 5 years following a negative HPV test result. Among people with a positive HPV test result, a combination of HPV genotyping and cervical cytology (Papanicolaou testing) can identify the risk of precancer. For people with current precancer risks of less than 4%, repeat HPV testing is recommended in 1, 3, or 5 years depending on 5-year precancer risk. For people with current precancer risks of 4% through 24%, such as those with low-grade cytology test results (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US] or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL]) and a positive HPV test of unknown duration, colposcopy is recommended. For patients with precancer risks of less than 25% (eg, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 [CIN1] or histologic LSIL), treatment-related adverse effects, including possible association with preterm labor, can be reduced by repeating colposcopy to monitor for precancer and avoiding excisional treatment. For patients with current precancer risks of 25% through 59% (eg, high-grade cytology results of ASC cannot exclude high-grade lesion [ASC-H] or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL] with positive HPV test results), management consists of colposcopy with biopsy or excisional treatment. For those with current precancer risks of 60% or more, such as patients with HPV-16-positive HSIL, proceeding directly to excisional treatment is preferred, but performing a colposcopy first to confirm the need for excisional treatment is acceptable. Clinical decision support tools can facilitate correct management.

Conclusions and Relevance

Approximately 100 000 people are treated for cervical precancer each year in the US to prevent cervical cancer. People with a cervix should be screened with HPV testing, and if HPV-positive, genotyping and cytology testing should be performed to assess the risk of cervical precancer and determine the need for colposcopy or treatment. HPV vaccination in adolescence will likely prevent more than 90% of cervical precancers and cancers.