HPV Testing With 16, 18, and 45 Genotyping Stratifies Cancer Risk for Women With Normal Cytology

Global prevalence of cervical human papillomavirus in women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the paucity of up-to-date empirical data on human papillomavirus (HPV) among older women, we aimed to estimate the global HPV prevalence in women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for quantitative studies (cross-sectional, longitudinal, case-control, randomised control trials) reporting HPV prevalence among women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology published until May 31, 2022, in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The pooled prevalence and 95% CIs of any-HPV and high-risk (HR)-HPV were estimated using random-effects models. Geographical differences were assessed in stratified meta-analyses and multiple meta-regression models. The prevalence by 5-year age groups and genotypes was estimated when reported using mixed-effects models. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021241365).

FINDINGS

From 9099 identified articles, 132 were included in the qualitative synthesis. 91 (68·9%) studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias and 41 (31·1%) a high risk of bias. We estimated a worldwide pooled any-HPV prevalence of 11·70% (95% CI 9·68-13·87) from 73 studies including 41 745 women and an HR-HPV prevalence of 6·45% (5·45-7·53) from 102 studies including 437 228 women. The pooled prevalence varied geographically, with the highest estimates in western Africa (any-HPV: 32·26% [4·53-70·22]; HR-HPV: 16·20% [0·70-45·95]) and central America (any-HPV: 24·50% [9·97-42·93]; HR-HPV: 13·52% [9·48-18·14]), and the lowest in western Europe (any-HPV: 5·98% [3·08-9·77]; HR-HPV: 4·09% [2·37-6·25]) and western Asia (for HR-HPV only: 3·27% [0·00-20·91]). Worldwide, any-HPV prevalence generally decreased with age, from 10·74% (5·84-18·95) at 50-54 years to 3·56% (2·33-5·40) after age 75 years. HR-HPV prevalence decreased from 6·04% (4·33-8·38) at age 50-54 years to 4·61% (3·25-6·51) at 60-64 years, increased again to 6·33% (4·03-9·79) at 65-69 years, and then decreased to 5·28% (2·83-9·63) after age 75 years. HPV types 16 (1·17% [0·67-2·03]) and 53 (0·90% [0·43-1·90]) were the most prevalent globally.

INTERPRETATION

HPV prevalence in women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology varies globally and mostly correlates with the cervical cancer burden. Research on HPV persistence, progression, and cost-effectiveness of HPV testing among older women should be conducted to fully inform future cervical cancer screening policies.

FUNDING

None.

Post-conization pathological upgrading and outcomes of 466 patients with low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Introduction

The management of patients with low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN1) remains controversial. We analyzed the pathological upgrading rates of patients with CIN1 undergoing conization, identifying influencing factors, and compared their outcomes to those of patients with CIN1 receiving follow-up only.

Methods

This retrospective study included 466 patients with CIN1 confirmed by histopathology and treated with conization. Postoperative pathological upgrading was determined and its influencing factors were identified. We also analyzed post-conization outcomes, examining the rate of persistent/recurrent CIN1 and its influencing factors, and comparing these results to those of patients receiving follow-up only.

Results

The pathological upgrading rate of patients with CIN1 after conization was 21.03% (98/466), and the influencing factors were preoperative high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection and cytological results. The upgrading rates of HR-HPV positive and negative patients were 22.05% and 0.00%, respectively (χ 2 = 5.03, P=0.03). The upgrading rate of patients with cytological results negative for intraepithelial lesion malignancy was 10.94%, while the upgrading rates of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade lesion(ASC-H) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion(HSIL) groups were 47.37% and 52.94%, respectively (χ 2 = 22.7, P=0.03). Persistent/recurrent CIN1 rates in the conization group were 21.24%, 15.97%, and 6.67% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, significantly lower than those in the follow-up only group. The CIN2 progression rate in the conization group (0.26%) during the 24-month follow-up period was also significantly lower than that in the follow-up only group (15.15%; χ 2 = 51.68, P<0.01). The only factor influencing postoperative persistent/recurrent CIN1 was preoperative HR-HPV status. No patients who were HR-HPV negative preoperatively exhibited persistent/recurrent CIN1, compared with 25.55% of those who were HR-HPV positive preoperatively (χ 2 = 4.40, P=0.04).

Discussion

The risk of progression to CIN2+ in the medium term is higher in patients with CIN1 receiving follow-up than in those undergoing conization. Doctors should refer to the guidelines but comprehensively consider age, fertility requirements, preoperative HR-HPV and cytological results, follow-up conditions, and other factors to select the most appropriate treatment strategy for patients with CIN1.

Comparing the performance of 2 human papillomavirus assays for a new use indication: a real-world evidence-based evaluation in the United States

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration supports innovations to facilitate new indications for high-risk human papillomavirus testing. This report describes the retrospective testing of stored specimens and analysis of existing data to efficiently and cost-effectively support a new indication for the Onclarity human papillomavirus assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company, BD Life Sciences - Integrated Diagnostic Solutions, Sparks, MD). The performance of this index test was compared with that of a predicate test, the cobas human papillomavirus assay (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). Both human papillomavirus assays are based on real-time polymerase chain reaction platforms that detect the presence of 14 high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes. The predicate assay reports human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 as individual results and the other 12 human papillomavirus genotypes as 1 pooled result. The index assay reports 9 independent results (human papillomavirus types 16, 18, 31, 33/58, 35/39/68, 45, 51, 52, and 56/59/66). Both the index and predicate assays are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cervical cancer screening, but at the time that this study was initiated, the index human papillomavirus assay was not approved for use with cervical specimens collected in PreservCyt (Hologic, Inc, San Diego, CA) liquid-based cytology media.

OBJECTIVE

The performance of the index human papillomavirus assay was compared with that of the predicate human papillomavirus assay for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 or greater and 3 or greater (≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3) using PreservCyt liquid-based cytology specimens collected from women aged 21 to 65 years. In addition, the ability of the index test's extended genotyping to stratify ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risks, using these specimens, was evaluated.

STUDY DESIGN

The New Mexico HPV Pap Registry was used to select an age- and cytology-stratified random sample of 19,879 women undergoing opportunistic cervical screening and follow-up in routine clinical practice across New Mexico. A subset (n = 4820) of PreservCyt specimens was selected from 19,879 women for paired testing by the index and predicate human papillomavirus assays within age and cytology strata and included women with or without cervical biopsy follow-up. Point estimate differences and ratios were calculated for cervical disease detection and positivity rates, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals to determine statistical significance. The cumulative risk of ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3, with up to 5-year follow-up, was estimated for the index assay using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

The 5-year cumulative ≥CIN3 detection rates were 5.6% for the index assay and 4.6% for the predicate assay (difference, 1.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-1.5%). The ≥CIN3 positivity rates within <1 year were 95.3% for the index assay and 94.5% for the predicate assay (ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.06). The ≥CIN3 cumulative positivity rates for the index and predicate assays were also similar at 5 years. Among cases of ≥CIN3, the positive agreement rates between the index and predicate assays for human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 were 100.0% (95% confidence interval, 95.0%-100.0%) and 90.9% (95% confidence interval, 62.3%-98.4%), respectively. Human papillomavirus type 16 carried the highest ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3 risk, followed by human papillomavirus types 18/31/33/58/52/45 and human papillomavirus types 35/56/59/51/56/59/66.

CONCLUSION

The index and predicate human papillomavirus assays demonstrated equivalent performance, and extended human papillomavirus genotyping, using the index assay, provided effective ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risk stratification, supporting a new indication for use of the index assay with PreservCyt.

Advanced technologies towards improved HPV diagnostics

Persistent infection with high-risk types of human papillomaviruses (HPV) is a major cause of cervical cancer, and an important factor in other malignancies, for example, head and neck cancer. Despite recent progress in screening and vaccination, the incidence and mortality are still relatively high, especially in low-income countries. The mortality and financial burden associated with the treatment could be decreased if a simple, rapid, and inexpensive technology for HPV testing becomes available, targeting individuals for further monitoring with increased risk of developing cancer. Commercial HPV tests available in the market are often relatively expensive, time-consuming, and require sophisticated instrumentation, which limits their more widespread utilization. To address these challenges, novel technologies are being implemented also for HPV diagnostics that include for example, isothermal amplification techniques, lateral flow assays, CRISPR-Cas-based systems, as well as microfluidics, paperfluidics and lab-on-a-chip devices, ideal for point-of-care testing in decentralized settings. In this review, we first evaluate current commercial HPV tests, followed by a description of advanced technologies, explanation of their principles, critical evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses, and suggestions for their possible implementation into medical diagnostics.

A novel human papillomavirus and host DNA methylation score and detection of cervical adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The widespread introduction of Pap testing in the 1960s was followed by substantial reductions in the incidence of cervical squamous cell cancer (SCC). However, the incidence of cervical adenocarcinoma (ADC) did not decrease, likely because of low Pap test sensitivity for ADC and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). This study assessed a novel human papillomavirus (HPV) and host DNA Methylation Score for AIS and ADC screening.

METHODS

We measured methylation levels at CpG sites in the L2/L1 open reading frames of HPV16, HPV18, and HPV45-as well as 2 human loci, DCC and HS3ST2. Specifically, we tested exfoliated cervicovaginal cells from women in the HPV Persistence and Progression (PaP) cohort who were positive for 1 of HPV16, 18, or 45, including: 1) 176 with AIS/ADC, 2) 353 with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-3 (CIN3) or SCC, and 3) controls who either cleared (HPV-Clearers; n = 579) or had persistent HPV16, 18, or 45 infection (HPV-Persisters; n = 292). CpG site-specific methylation percentages were measured using our reported next-generation methods. The Methylation Score was the average methylation percentage across all 35 CpG sites tested.

RESULTS

Each individual CpG site had higher methylation percentages in exfoliated cervicovaginal cells collected from patients with AIS/ADC, and as well as those with CIN3/SCC, relative to either control group (weakest P  = .004). The Methylation Score for AIS/ADC had a sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 89%. The multivariate odds ratio (OR) between the Methylation Score (4th vs 1st quartile) for AIS/ADC was ORq4-q1 = 49.01 (PBenjamini-Hochberg = 4.64E-12), using HPV-Clearers as controls. CIN3/SCC had similar, albeit weaker, associations with the Methylation Score.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV16/18/45-infected women with Methylation Scores in the highest quartile had very high odds of AIS/ADC, suggesting they may warrant careful histologic evaluation of the cervical transition zone (eg, conization or loop electrosurgical excision procedure [LEEP]).

Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more diagnoses for human papillomavirus16/18-positive women by cytology and co-infection status

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancer cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether co-infected with other HPV genotypes will affect the risk of cervical carcinogenesis in HPV16/18 positive-women.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, cervical cytology and histological classifications from women who tested positive for HPV 16/18 and underwent colposcopy within 6 months, between January 2010 and May 2021 were obtained from West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Immediate risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more diagnoses (CIN 3+).

RESULTS

A total of 7940 HPV 16/18-positive women were included, with a median age of 40 years (range 25-84 years). Among them, 2710 (34.1%) were infected with multiple genotypes, 6533 (82.28%) had cytology results and 2116 (26.65%) women were diagnosed with CIN 3+. The effects of HPV 16/18 coinfecting with other HPV on CIN3 + risk varied with specific HPV genotypes. After adjusting for cofactors, compared to single HPV 16 infection, the CIN 3 + risk was significantly reduced in women infected with HPV 16 + other high-risk HPV (hrHPV) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.621, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.511-0.755], HPV 16 + low-risk HPV (lrHPV) (OR = 0.620, 95% CI 0.436-0.883), and HPV 16 + lrHPVs + other hrHPVs (OR = 0.248, 95% CI 0.157-0.391). The prevalence of CIN 3 + was associated with increased severity of cytologic abnormalities in HPV 16/18-positive women and peaked at cytology HSIL + (89.9% and 82.3%), which held a substantially greater risk than that of NILM (OR = 65.466, 95% CI 50.234-85.316).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cross-sectional study of HPV 16/18-positive women, the effects of multiple infection were likely complicated and varied with specific HPV genotypes. The coinfection of HPV 16 and other genotypes of HPV except HPV 18 was associated with decreased CIN 3 + risk. Cytologic results were informative when HPV 16/18 was positive. It might be reasonable to recommend expedited treatment for patients with HPV 16/18 positive and HSIL + cytology in the Chinese population.

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.

Utility of Extended HPV Genotyping as Primary Cervical Screen in an Unscreened Population With High HIV Co-Infection Rate

OBJECTIVE

Screening with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been evaluated in highly prescreened populations with lower HPV and HIV prevalence than what is the case in South Africa. High prevalence of HPV and underlying precancer in women living with HIV (WLWH) affect the clinical performance of screening tests significantly. This study investigates the utility and performance of an extended genotyping HPV test in detection of precancer in a population with a high coinfection rate with HIV.

METHODS

A total of 1,001 women aged 25 to 65 years with no cervical cancer screening in the preceding 5 years were tested with cytology and primary extended genotyping HPV testing. The cohort of 1,001 women included 430 WLWH (43.0%) and 564 HIV-negative (56.3%) women.

RESULTS

Abnormal cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher) was significantly higher in WLWH (37.2% vs 15.9%) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or above (23.5% vs 5.2%). The WLWH also tested positive more often for any HPV type (44.3% vs 19.6%; p < .0001) The specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ at 91.2% of a combination of HPV types, 16/18/45 (very high risk) and 31/33/58/52 (moderate risk), performed better than cytology or any HPV-positive result to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3+ on histology. The additional genotype information supports direct referral to treatment or colposcopy in a larger proportion of the screen-positive population.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential contribution of extended genotyping is demonstrated. The ideal choice of sensitivity and specificity ultimately depends on the health budget. More information will allow a screening algorithm, guiding management according to risk.

Which is the best management for women with normal cervical cytologic findings despite positivity for non-16/18 high risk human papillomaviruses?

Women who test positive for the human papillomavirus (HPV) but have normal cytology constitute the predominant subgroup of patients in the screening population in the post-vaccination era. The distribution of HPV genotypes changed dramatically, which was attributable to an increase in HPV vaccination coverage. These changes have created uncertainty about how to properly manage women with normal cytology, non-HPV16/18 infections, or persistent infections. Current recommendations include retesting and continued surveillance in the absence of HPV16/18 infection. However, these are not always applicable. The ability to implement genotyping or incorporate HPV16/18 with some additional high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) types for triage and management with the aim of identifying type-specific risks in this population could be acceptable. When the next set of guidelines is updated, generating potential triage strategies for detecting high-grade cervical lesions, such as the p16/Ki67 cytology assay and other alternatives that incorporate genotyping with newer tests, should be considered. Current clinical management is shifting to risk-based strategies; however, no specific risk threshold has been established in this population. Importantly, innovative triage testing should be evaluated in combination with primary screening and management. Furthermore, there is an untapped opportunity to coordinate HPV genotyping in combination with colposcopic characteristics to modify risk in this group. Hence, providing a more personalized schedule through the efficient application of risk stratification and improving the detection of pre-cancer and cancer is an option worth exploring.

The clinical utility of extended high-risk HPV genotyping in risk-stratifying women with L-SIL cytology: A retrospective study of 8726 cases

BACKGROUND

The value of extended high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotyping for cervical cancer screening in women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (L-SIL) cytology has been recognized, but few studies have investigated this.

METHODS

Women with L-SIL Papanicolaou results who underwent human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping between October 2017 and October 2021 at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University were identified. Their HPV results were correlated with immediate histopathologic follow-up findings.

RESULTS

In total, 8726 women who had L-SIL cytology and extended HPV genotyping results were analyzed. The overall hrHPV-positive rate was 84% in women with L-SIL, and the most prevalent hrHPV genotypes were type 52 (HPV52) (20.7%), HPV53 (15.7%), and HPV16 (14.3%). Single and multiple coinfections of hrHPV genotypes were detected in 57.2% and 42.8% of women with positive hrHPV results, respectively. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 (CIN2+) was identified in 8.5% of hrHPV-positive women. The CIN2+ detection rate in women who had multiple hrHPV infections (9.9%) was significantly higher than the rate in those who had infection with a single HPV type (7.2%). The top 5 CIN2+-associated HPV infections were HPV16 (25.2%), HPV82 (17.8%), HPV33 (16.3%), HPV31 (14.6%), and HPV26 (13.8%). For the composite group with HPV types HPV16, HPV26, HPV82, HPV31, HPV18, HPV33, HPV58, HPV35, HPV52, and HPV51, the risk of CIN2+ was 11.5% and represented 97.1% of all CIN2+ in biopsied, hrHPV-positive patients. The composite group of 8 remaining HPV genotypes (HPV39, HPV45, HPV53, HPV56, HPV59, HPV66, HPV68, and HPV73) was identified in 29.7% of hrHPV-positive patients, and the risk of CIN2+ for this composite group was similar to the risk of CIN2+ in hrHPV-negative patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This large retrospective study in a predominantly unvaccinated cohort demonstrated that extended hrHPV genotyping improves genotype-specific risk stratification in women with L-SIL.

Risk Assessment of Human Papillomavirus-Positive Cytology-Negative Cervical Cancer Screening in Black and White Women

OBJECTIVES

As we move toward human papillomavirus (HPV) only as the preferred cervical cancer screening method, we performed a retrospective analysis of Black and White women with negative cytology (Papanicolaou negative [PAPneg]) and positive high-risk HPV (hrHPV) (HPVpos) results and determined follow-up.

METHODS

We searched our pathology data system for patients with PAPneg/HPVpos results (2017-2019). Follow-up data were reviewed (39 months), and a comparison among race was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 1,728 patients were identified (Black, 53%; White, 47%). Twenty-nine percent of the patients had no follow-up with no difference among the races. HPV 16 was more common among Whites (P < .01), while non-16/18 hrHPV was more common among Black patients (P = .01). A total of 30 (3.3%) Black and 26 (3.2%) White patients were diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (CIN 2/3). More White women were diagnosed on biopsy alone (negative endocervical curettage) compared with Black women (20 vs 9, P < .01). Meanwhile, there were 21 Black and 6 White women with CIN 2/3 on endocervical curettage (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up of women with PAPneg/HPVpos remains a challenge. There was no disparity in follow-up when cohorts were compared. However, Black women had higher numbers of high-grade intraepithelial lesions on endocervical curettage.

The Risk Stratification for Cervical Cancer and Precursors of Domestic HPV Testing With HPV 16/18 Genotyping in Women With NILM Cytology in CentralChina: A Cohort Study

Objective

To evaluate the clinical performance and utility for risk stratification of DH3 HPV assay in women (≥30 years) with NILM cytology.

Methods

A prospective cohort was established in Central China between November 8 to December 14, 2016 which consisted of 2180 women aging 30-64 years with NILM cytology. At baseline, all women were screened using DH3 HPV assay. HPV 16/18 positive women would be assigned to colposcopy and biopsied if necessary. Then, hr-HPV positive women without CIN2+ lesions would be followed up by cytology every 12 months for two years. In the 3^rd year of follow up, all women that were not biopsy proven CIN2+ would be called back and screened by cytology again. In follow-up period, women with ASC-US and above were referred to colposcopy and biopsied if clinically indicated. CIN2+ was the primary endpoint in analysis. The clinical performance and utility for risk stratification of DH3 HPV assay were assessed by SPSS 22.0 and SAS 9.4.

Results

Of 2180 qualified women, the prevalence of hr-HPV was 8.5% (185/2180), 45(2.1%) were HPV 16/18 positive. The clinical performance for HPV16/18 was 91.7% for sensitivity, 98.4% for specificity, respectively against CIN2+ detection at baseline. In four years of study, the corresponding rates of HPV 16/18 were 51.5% and 98.7%, respectively. The cumulative absolute risk for the development of CIN2+ was as high as 37.8% for HPV 16/18 positive women, followed by hr-HPV positive (14.6%), other hr-HPV positive (11.0%) and HPV negative (0.3%) in three years. The relative risk was 125.6 and 3.4 for HPV 16/18 positive group when compared with HPV negative and other hr-HPV positive group, respectively.

Conclusions

DH3 HPV assay demonstrated excellent clinical performance against CIN2+ detection in cervical cancer screening and utility of risk stratification by genotyping to promote scientific management of women with NILM cytology.

Evaluation of the Onclarity HPV assay on the high-throughput COR system

Background: Here we compare the performance of the high-throughput BD COR System (COR) to the Viper LT System (Viper) using the BD Onclarity HPV assay.Research Design and Methods: Remnant clinical specimens, contrived specimens in SurePath (BD) and PreservCyt (Hologic) media, and prospective clinical specimens in BD Cervical Brush Diluent (CBD) were tested. Outcomes included intra-laboratory agreement of Onclarity results on COR and inter-system agreement between COR and Viper.Results: Onclarity reproducibility on COR resulted in standard deviation and correlation of variation of Ct values ranging from 0.14 to 1.98 and 0.49% to 2.15%, respectively, for contrived specimens, and 0.9-3.08 and 2.89-9.21%, respectively, for clinical specimens. In the COR and Viper clinical agreement study, OPA for Onclarity ranged from 97.1%-98.9%, depending on the collection media type. PPA values for pooled, HPV(+) specimens at low positive (C₉₅), and moderate positive (3XC₉₅) target concentrations were ≥95.0% and 100%, respectively; PPA values associated with HPV 16, 18, 31, 45, 33/58, 52, 35/39/68, 51, and 56/59/66, individually, ranged from 93.8%-100%.Conclusions: Onclarity performance on COR is equivalent to Viper, and is accurate and reproducible for detection of all high-risk HPV genotypes, with a throughput of 330 results from a single 8-hour shift.

A proposed new generation of evidence-based microsimulation models to inform global control of cervical cancer

Health decision models are the only available tools designed to consider the lifetime natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and pathogenesis of cervical cancer, and the estimated long-term impact of preventive interventions. Yet health decision modeling results are often considered a lesser form of scientific evidence due to the inherent needs to rely on imperfect data and make numerous assumptions and extrapolations regarding complex processes. We propose a new health decision modeling framework that de-emphasizes cytologic-colposcopic-histologic diagnoses due to their subjectivity and lack of reproducibility, relying instead on HPV type and duration of infection as the major determinants of subsequent transition probabilities. We posit that the new model health states (normal, carcinogenic HPV infection, precancer, cancer) and corollary transitions are universal, but that the probabilities of transitioning between states may vary by population. Evidence for this variability in host response to HPV infections can be inferred from HPV prevalence patterns in different regions across the lifespan, and might be linked to different average population levels of immunologic control of HPV infections. By prioritizing direct estimation of model transition probabilities from longitudinal data (and limiting reliance on model-fitting techniques that may propagate error when applied to multiple transitions), we aim to reduce the number of assumptions for greater transparency and reliability. We propose this new microsimulation model for critique and discussion, hoping to contribute to models that maximally inform efficient strategies towards global cervical cancer elimination.

Clinical relevance of partial HPV16/18 genotyping in stratifying HPV-positive women attending routine cervical cancer screening: a population-based cohort study

Objective

To evaluate partial HPV16/18 genotyping as a possible biomarker to select women attending HPV‐based cervical cancer screening at higher risk to be referred to colposcopy.

Design

Population‐based cohort study.

Setting

Organised cervical cancer screening programmes (Italy).

Population

Women with high‐risk HPV infection (period: 2015–2019).

Methods

We analysed the association between partial HPV16/18 genotyping, cytology triage and histologically confirmed diagnosis of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3⁺) lesions.

Main outcome measures

Detection rate (DR) and positive predictive value (PPV) for histologically confirmed CIN3⁺ (any episode in the 2 years after baseline); sensitivity for CIN3⁺ and number of colposcopies needed for lesion detection.

Results

The study included 145 437 women screened with HPV testing by the clinically validated COBAS 4800 HPV assay (Roche). Overall, 9601 (6.6%) women were HPV⁺ at baseline; HPV16 and HPV18 were present in 1865 and 594 samples, respectively. The cumulative (baseline plus 1‐year repeat) cytology positivity was 42.8% and high‐grade cytology was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) among women with HPV16 infection at baseline (15.2%). The cumulative CIN3⁺ DR for women with HPV16, HPV18 and other HPV‐type infections was 9.8%, 3.4% and 1.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

Partial HPV16 genotyping may play a role in triage, whereas HPV18 seems to behave much more similarly to the other HPV types and does not provide additional stratification. HPV16 genotyping combined with high‐grade cytology can be envisaged as a triage biomarker in cervical screening to maximise CIN3⁺ detection while minimising colposcopy at baseline or 1‐year repeat.

Tweetable abstract

HPV16 genotyping combined with high‐grade cytology can be used as triage biomarker for CIN3⁺ in HPV‐positive women.

HPV16 genotyping combined with high‐grade cytology can be used as a triage biomarker for CIN3⁺ in HPV‐positive women.

Analytical and Clinical Sample Performance Characteristics of the Onclarity Assay for the Detection of Human Papillomavirus

The objective of this study was to determine the result reproducibility and performance of the BD Onclarity human papillomavirus (HPV) assay (Onclarity) on the BD Viper LT platform using both contrived and clinical specimens. Reproducibility was assessed in BD SurePath liquid-based cytology (LBC) medium (SurePath) using contrived panels (HPV genotype 16 [HPV16] positive, HPV18 positive, or HPV45 positive) or clinical specimens (HPV16, -18, -31, -33/58, -45, or -52 positive or HPV negative). In addition, specimens from 3,879 individuals from the Onclarity trial were aliquoted prior to or following cytology processing and tested for HPV. Finally, specimens were collected using either the Cervex-Brush or Cytobrush (or Cytobrush/spatula) for comparison of HPV results. Contrived specimens showed >95% concordance with the expected results, and pooled clinical specimens had standard deviations and coefficients of variation ranging from 0.87 to 1.86 and 2.9% to 5.6%, respectively. For precytology and postcytology aliquot analyses, specimens showed >98.0% overall agreement and mean differences in cycle threshold (C_T ) scores for HPV ranging from -0.07 to 0.31. Positivity rates were close between the Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush/spatula for all age groups tested. Onclarity results are reproducible and reliable, regardless of sample collection before or after cytology aliquoting. Onclarity performs well regardless of the method of specimen collection (Cervex-Brush or Cytobrush/spatula) for cervical cancer screening.