Clinical validation of the Cervista® high-risk human papillomavirus test in Chinese women from Fujian province: a cross-sectional study

Evaluation of p16/Ki-67 dual-stain as triage test for high-risk HPV-positive women: A hospital-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Most human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women recover from infections and do not develop cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer. Additional triage approaches are needed to reduce unnecessary colposcopy referrals. The aim of this study is to determine the high-risk HPV prevalence in a hospital-based population and to evaluate the performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stain test for the triage of high-risk HPV-positive women to detect precursor lesions and cervical cancer compared with the ThinPrep cytologic test (TCT).

METHODS

In a hospital-based population, 100,801 women were provided with a primary HPV DNA test and only women with high-risk HPV infections were triaged using TCT and p16/Ki-67 dual-stain test. CIN2 or worse (≥CIN2) or CIN3 or worse (≥CIN3) were defined as the clinical end points.

RESULTS

The p16/Ki-67 dual-stain indicated a statistically significant higher sensitivity (82.8% vs. 66.7%%), specificity (51.6% vs. 44.4%), positive predictive value (33.2% vs. 25.8%), negative predictive value (91.2% vs. 82.1%), and accuracy (58.6% vs. 49.4%) compared with TCT examination within ≥CIN2 cases. Similar patterns were observed for the ≥CIN3 end point.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that p16/Ki-67 dual-stain test could achieve better performance compared with TCT examination for ≥CIN2 or ≥ CIN3 detection, representing a promising approach as a specific and efficient triage strategy for high-risk HPV-positive women.

Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study

Background

New screening techniques may affect the optimal approaches for the prevention of cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and accuracy of alternative screening strategies to provide evidence for cervical cancer screening guidelines in China.

Methods

In total, 32,306 women were enrolled. The current screening with Cervista^® high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping and cytology cotesting (Cervista^® cotesting) was compared with PCR-reverse dot blot HR-HPV genotyping and cytology cotesting (PCR-RDB cotesting). All eligible participants were divided into Arm 1, in which both HR-HPV assays were performed, and Arms 2 and 3, in which the PCR-RDB HPV or Cervista^® HR-HPV assay, respectively, was performed. Outcome indicators included the cases, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), colposcopy referral rate and cost of identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+).

Results

Among the eligible participants, 18.4% were PCR-RDB HR-HPV-positive, while 16.9% were Cervista^® HR-HPV-positive, which reflects good agreement (k = 0.73). PCR-RDB cotesting identified more CIN3+ cases than Cervista^® cotesting in the first round of screening in Arm 1 (37 vs 32) and Arms 2/3 (252 vs 165). The sensitivity and NPV of PCR-RDB cotesting for identifying CIN3+ in Arm 1 (sensitivity: 94.9% vs 86.5%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.7%) and Arms 2/3 (sensitivity: 95.1% vs 80.9%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.6%) were higher than those of Cervista^® cotesting, but the cost was similar.

Conclusions

The PCR-RDB HR-HPV genotyping and Cervista^® HR-HPV assay results were consistent. PCR-RDB cotesting possesses optimal cost-effectiveness for cervical cancer screening in China, which has the highest number of cases globally but low screening coverage.