Effect of Several Negative Rounds of Human Papillomavirus and Cytology Co-testing on Safety Against Cervical Cancer: An Observational Cohort Study

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.

Emerging trends and hotspots in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia research from 2013 to 2023: A bibliometric analysis

Background

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) encompasses a range of cervical lesions that are closely linked to cervical invasive carcinoma. Early detection and timely treatment of CIN are crucial for preventing the progression of the disease. However, no bibliometric analysis has been conducted in this area. This research aimed to employ bibliometric analysis to summarize the current research hotspots and estimate future research trends in the CIN field.

Methods

Publications related to CIN (2013-2023) were retrieved from the Science-Citation-Index-Expanded-of-Web-of-Science-Core-Collection. CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and the bibliometric-Online-Analysis-Platform-of-Literature-Metrology were employed to analyze the yearly research output, collaborating institutions or countries, leading researchers, principal journals, co-referenced sources, and emerging keywords.

Results

In total, 4677 articles on CIN that were published from 2013 to 2023 and met our criteria were extracted. Major publishing platforms were predominantly USA until 2017 when China emerged as the leading source of publications about CIN. The USA was the leading nation in international collaborations. The National-Cancer-Institute (NCI) was the institution with the most publications. Schiffman Mark produced the highest number of articles, with a total of 92. Ten major clusters were identified through co-cited keyword clustering, including prevalence, human papillomavirus, DNA methylation, p16, methylation, conization, HPV genotyping tests (VALGENT), deep learning, vaginal microbiome, and immunohistochemistry. Keyword burst analysis showed that photodynamic therapy and deep learning emerged as prominent research focal points with significant impact in resent three years.

Conclusion

Global publications on CIN research showed a relatively stable trend over the past eleven years. Current research hotspots are deep learning and photodynamic therapy. This research offered organized data and insightful guidance for future studies, which may help better prevent, screen, and treat CIN.

Current status and challenges in timely detection of cervical cancer in Mexico: expert consensus

Cervical cancer is a significant public health problem in low- and middle-income countries, accounting for 85% of new cases worldwide. Due to poorly organized screening programs, cervical cancer is more likely to develop in vulnerable groups who do not initiate or rarely undergo screening. Cervical cytology and detecting high-risk human papillomavirus types are the recommended screening tools. Further, these strategies allow for accurately identifying women at a higher risk of cervical cancer and establishing screening times. New detection tools, such as novel biomarkers or automatic HPV detection in the vagina or urine, can improve screening coverage. This review aims to identify the challenges faced by detection programs and screening tools in Mexico to provide evidence-based recommendations to improve early detection programs for cervical cancer.

Predicting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and determining the follow-up period in high-risk human papillomavirus patients

Purpose

Despite strong efforts to promote human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and cervical cancer screening, cervical cancer remains a threat to women's reproductive health. Some high-risk HPV types play a crucial role in the progression of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions. Therefore, HPV screening has become an important means to prevent, diagnose, and triage cervical cancer. This study aims to leverage artificial intelligence to predict individual risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in women with high-risk HPV infection and to recommend the appropriate triage strategy and follow-up period according to the risk level.

Materials and methods

A total of 475 cases were collected in this study. The sources were from the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics in a tertiary hospital, a case report on HPV from the PubMed website, and clinical data of cervical cancer patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Through in-depth study of the interaction between high-risk HPV and its risk factors, the risk factor relationship diagram structure was constructed. A Classification of Lesion Stages (CLS) algorithm was designed to predict cervical lesion stages. The risk levels of patients were analyzed based on all risk factors, and follow-up periods were formulated for each risk level.

Results

Our proposed CLS algorithm predicted the probability of occurrence of CIN3-the precancerous lesion stage of cervical cancer. This prediction was based on patients' HPV-16 and -18 infection status, age, presence of persistent infection, and HPV type. Follow-up periods of 3-6 months, 6-12 months, and 3- to 5-year intervals were suggested for high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk patients, respectively.

Conclusion

A lesion prediction model was constructed to determine the probabilities of occurrence of CIN by analyzing individual data, such as patient lifestyle, physical assessments, and patient complaints, in order to identify high-risk patients. Furthermore, the potential implications of the calculated features were mined to devise prevention strategies.

Validation in Zambia of a cervical screening strategy including HPV genotyping and artificial intelligence (AI)-based automated visual evaluation

BACKGROUND

WHO has recommended HPV testing for cervical screening where it is practical and affordable. If used, it is important to both clarify and implement the clinical management of positive results. We estimated the performance in Lusaka, Zambia of a novel screening/triage approach combining HPV typing with visual assessment assisted by a deep-learning approach called automated visual evaluation (AVE).

METHODS

In this well-established cervical cancer screening program nested inside public sector primary care health facilities, experienced nurses examined women with high-quality digital cameras; the magnified illuminated images permit inspection of the surface morphology of the cervix and expert telemedicine quality assurance. Emphasizing sensitive criteria to avoid missing precancer/cancer, ~ 25% of women screen positive, reflecting partly the high HIV prevalence. Visual screen-positive women are treated in the same visit by trained nurses using either ablation (~ 60%) or LLETZ excision, or referred for LLETZ or more extensive surgery as needed. We added research elements (which did not influence clinical care) including collection of HPV specimens for testing and typing with BD Onclarity™ with a five channel output (HPV16, HPV18/45, HPV31/33/52/58, HPV35/39/51/56/59/66/68, human DNA control), and collection of triplicate cervical images with a Samsung Galaxy J8 smartphone camera™ that were analyzed using AVE, an AI-based algorithm pre-trained on a large NCI cervical image archive. The four HPV groups and three AVE classes were crossed to create a 12-level risk scale, ranking participants in order of predicted risk of precancer. We evaluated the risk scale and assessed how well it predicted the observed diagnosis of precancer/cancer.

RESULTS

HPV type, AVE classification, and the 12-level risk scale all were strongly associated with degree of histologic outcome. The AVE classification showed good reproducibility between replicates, and added finer predictive accuracy to each HPV type group. Women living with HIV had higher prevalence of precancer/cancer; the HPV-AVE risk categories strongly predicted diagnostic findings in these women as well.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the theoretical efficacy of HPV-AVE-based risk estimation for cervical screening. If HPV testing can be made affordable, cost-effective and point of care, this risk-based approach could be one management option for HPV-positive women.

Examining the association of clinician characteristics with perceived changes in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods assessment

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed method study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings and colposcopies.

Methods

In 2021, a national sample of 1251 clinicians completed surveys, including 675 clinicians who performed colposcopy; a subset (n=55) of clinicians completed qualitative interviews.

Results

Nearly half of all clinicians reported they were currently performing fewer cervical cancer screenings (47%) and colposcopies (44% of those who perform the procedure) than before the pandemic. About one-fifth (18.6%) of colposcopists reported performing fewer LEEPs than prior to the pandemic. Binomial regression analyses indicated that older, as well as internal medicine and family medicine clinicians (compared to OB-GYNs), and those practicing in community health centers (compared to private practice) had higher odds of reporting reduced screening. Among colposcopists, internal medicine physicians and those practicing in community health centers had higher odds of reporting reduced colposcopies. Qualitative interviews highlighted pandemic-related care disruptions and lack of tracking systems to identify overdue screenings.

Conclusions

Reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy among nearly half of clinicians more than 1 year into the pandemic raise concerns that inadequate screening and follow-up will lead to future increases in preventable cancers.

Funding

This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study's design, conduct, or reporting.

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.

DNA methylation as a triage marker for colposcopy referral in HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Screening plays a key role in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, a highly sensitive test but with limited specificity, has become the gold standard frontline for screening programs. Thus, the importance of effective triage strategies, including DNA methylation markers, has been emphasized. Despite the potential reported in individual studies, methylation markers still require validation before being recommended for clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of DNA methylation-based biomarkers for detecting high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in hrHPV-positive women.

METHODS

Hence, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that assessed methylation in hrHPV-positive women in cervical scrapes. Histologically confirmed HSIL was used as endpoint and QUADAS-2 tool enabled assessment of study quality. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to pool the estimated sensitivity and specificity as well as positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis, from which cohort and referral population-based studies corresponded to nearly 65%. Most of the women analyzed were Dutch, and CADM1, FAM19A4, MAL, and miR124-2 were the most studied genes. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.68 (CI 95% 0.63-0.72) and 0.75 (CI 95% 0.71-0.80) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection, respectively. For CIN3+ detection, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (CI 95% 0.74-0.82) and 0.74 (CI 95% 0.69-0.78), respectively. For pooled prevalence, PPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.514 and 0.392, respectively. Furthermore, NPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.857 and 0.938, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis confirmed the great potential of DNA methylation-based biomarkers as triage tool for hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Standardization and improved validation are, however, required. Nevertheless, these markers might represent an excellent alternative to cytology and genotyping for colposcopy referral of hrHPV-positive women, allowing for more cost-effective screening programs.

Women's Health Maintenance Efforts at a Student-Run Free Clinic in South Florida Exceeded National Trends During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic posed a setback to health maintenance screenings worldwide. These delays have impacted minorities and those of low socioeconomic status in the same way that disparities in cancer screenings have historically trended. Here, we evaluated the performance of a student-run free clinic in maintaining women up-to-date with cancer screenings before, during, and after the pandemic in relation to national trends. We identified all women eligible for screening mammography and cervical cancer screenings between 2018 and 2022 at the clinic (N = 185). Adequate adherence to screening was defined according to the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendations for breast mammography, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for cervical cancer screenings. For cervical cancer screening, 166 female patients seen between 2018 and 2022 were eligible, and up-to-date proportions were as follows: 81.3% in 2018; 90.9% in 2019; 83.3% in 2020; 93.3% in 2021; 93.8% in 2022. For breast surveillance, 143 women were eligible for screening mammography, and up-to-date proportions were as follows: 66.7% in 2018; 62.5% in 2019; 91.7% in 2020; 73.1% in 2021; 84.1% in 2022. These proportions were higher than or near national averages.In conclusion, adherence remained steady during the pandemic and was not subject to the declines seen nationally. Our clinic represents an effective model for promoting women's health maintenance and tempering the disparities seen among women of low socioeconomic status.

Sexually Transmitted Human Papillomavirus: Update in Epidemiology, Prevention, and Management

This review presents the epidemiology, pathophysiology, prevention, and management of sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) and its associated diseases. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection worldwide. Prevalence varies regionally. Low-risk strains cause anogenital warts, which can be managed with patient- or provider-applied therapies. High-risk strains cause lower anogenital cancers. Primary and secondary prevention strategies include vaccination and screening for precancerous lesions, respectively. Management of abnormal screening results vary by test result, anatomic site, and individual cancer risk. Approaches include close rescreening, high-resolution visualization with biopsy, and-when biopsy-proven precancer is identified-removal or destruction of the lesion.

Managing an extension of screening intervals: Avoiding boom and bust in health care workloads

Extending screening intervals in ongoing cancer screening programmes can lead to challenging year-on-year variations in the number of screening tests. We explored how such variation could be diminished with a managed transition to the extended interval. We defined three extension scenarios: immediate extension for the entire target population; stepped transition by birth cohort; and gradual transition by reducing the number of available screening appointments. These were compared to a situation in which the interval remains unchanged in a demographic model covering a 15-year period. The model was populated with observed parameters from England, a real-world setting recommending cervical screening with 3-year intervals at age 25-49 and 5-year intervals at age 50-64. Informed by typical changes currently considered by several European programmes including the programme in England, we explored the effect on screening test numbers of an extension of the 3-year interval to 5 years for women younger than 50. All three extension scenarios resulted in similar cumulative numbers of screening tests, which were about 30% lower compared to a situation in which the interval would remain unchanged. However, the year-on-year variation in the number of screening tests varied between the scenarios. This variation was around 4-fold for the immediate scenario. In the stepped scenario, the yearly numbers could differ by around 20%, whereas in the gradual scenario they were virtually constant. A managed interval extension, transitioning different groups of the target population at different times, can substantially reduce the yearly variation in screening workload without increasing the total number of screening tests in the long term.

A low-cost, paper-based hybrid capture assay to detect high-risk HPV DNA for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings

Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer death for women in low-resource settings. The World Health Organization recommends that cervical cancer screening programs incorporate HPV DNA testing, but available tests are expensive, require laboratory infrastructure, and cannot be performed at the point-of-care. We developed a two-dimensional paper network (2DPN), hybrid-capture, signal amplification assay and a point-of-care sample preparation protocol to detect high-risk HPV DNA from exfoliated cervical cells within an hour. The test does not require expensive equipment and has an estimated cost of <$3 per test without the need for batching. We evaluated performance of the paper HPV DNA assay with short synthetic and genomic HPV DNA targets, HPV positive and negative cellular samples, and two sets of clinical samples. The first set of clinical samples consisted of 16 biobanked, provider-collected cervical samples from a study in El Salvador previously tested with careHPV and subsequently tested in a controlled laboratory environment. The paper HPV DNA test correctly identified eight of eight HPV-negative clinical samples and seven of eight HPV-positive clinical samples. We then performed a field evaluation of the paper HPV DNA test in a hospital laboratory in Mozambique. Cellular controls generated expected results throughout field testing with fully lyophilized sample preparation and 2DPN reagents. When evaluated with 16 residual self-collected cervicovaginal samples previously tested by the GeneXpert HPV assay ("Xpert"), the accuracy of the HPV DNA paper test in the field was reduced compared to testing in the controlled laboratory environment, with positive results obtained for all eight HPV-positive samples as well as seven of eight HPV-negative samples. Further evaluation showed reduction in performance was likely due in part to increased concentration of exfoliated cells in the self-collected clinical samples from Mozambique compared with provider-collected samples from El Salvador. Finally, a formal usability assessment was conducted with users in El Salvador and Mozambique; the assay was rated as acceptable to perform after minimal training. With additional optimization for higher cell concentrations and inclusion of an internal cellular control, the paper HPV DNA assay offers promise as a low-cost, point-of-care cervical cancer screening test in low-resource settings.

Comparison of primary cytology, primary HPV testing and co-testing as cervical cancer screening for Chinese women: a population-based screening cohort

OBJECTIVES

We compared clinical performance of three strategies of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, primary cytology and co-testing for cervical cancer screening.

DESIGN

A population-based prospective cohort study of clinical performance of screening strategy.

SETTING

Patients recruited from community in Changzhi County, Shanxi Province, China.

PATIENT

3209 women aged 30-64 years without gynaecological issues.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The performance of different screening strategies for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+).

RESULTS

A total of 53 CIN2+ and 31 CIN3+ cases are detected. For CIN2+, sensitivity of primary HPV (95.9%) and co-testing (98.0%) are not statistically different, but significantly higher than primary cytology (48.0%). Specificity (86.8%), colposcopy referral rate (7.8%) and number of colposcopies required to detect one case (9.8) for primary HPV are better than co-testing (79.8%, 11.9%, 14.3%, respectively). For CIN3+, primary HPV, co-testing have 100% of sensitivity and specificity, which is significantly higher than primary cytology (56.7% and 90.2%). Number of colposcopies required to detect one case for primary HPV (15.9) is better than co-testing (23.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with co-testing, HPV primary screening had comparable sensitivity and higher specificity for CIN2+ detection, and both of them showed better performance than cytology primary screening in cervical cancer screening.

Risk of cervical precancer among HPV-negative women in the Netherlands and its association with previous HPV and cytology results: A follow-up analysis of a randomized screening study

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening programs still use one-size-fits-all protocols but efficiency and efficacy of programs may be improved by stratifying women based on previous screening results.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We studied the association between cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) and previous screening results in the Population-Based Screening Study Amsterdam (POBASCAM) trial, performed in the Netherlands in the setting of regular screening, where women aged from 29 to 61 years old were invited to cytology and HPV co-testing at enrolment in year 1999/2002 and at the next round in 2003/2007. We selected 18,448 women (9,293 from the intervention group and 9,155 from the control group) who tested HPV-negative in 2003/2007 and did not have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or hysterectomy after enrolment. Follow-up was collected until 14 years after the 2003/2007 screen, covering 4 rounds of screening. Risk of CIN3+ and CIN2+ among women with an HPV-negative test, irrespective of previous round results and stratified according to previous round HPV and cytology results, were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. During 14 years of follow-up, 62 CIN3+ cases (24 in the intervention group and 38 in the control group) were detected. HPV-negative women had a 14-year CIN3+ risk of 0.48% (95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.62) and CIN2+ risk of 1.17% (0.99 to 1.38). The CIN3+ risk among HPV-negative women was increased in women with a previous positive HPV test (2.36%, 1.20 to 4.63; p < 0.001) or co-test (1.68%, 0.87 to 3.20; p < 0.001) and, equivalently, decreased in women with a previous negative HPV test (0.43%, 0.33 to 0.57) or a negative co-test (0.43%, 0.33 to 0.57). The CIN3+ risk was not influenced by the previous cytology result. The CIN3+ risk among HPV-negative women was increased after both a previous HPV16-positive test (3.90%, 1.47 to 10.12; p < 0.001) and a previous HPV16-negative/HPVother-positive test (1.91%, 0.76 to 4.74; p = 0.002). For endpoint CIN2+ (147 cases), findings were similar except that the CIN2+ risk was increased after previous abnormal cytology (4.06%, 2.30 to 7.12; p < 0.001). The presented risk estimates were calculated by tracking histological results through the Dutch nationwide pathology archive (PALGA) and were not adjusted for non-compliance with the colposcopy referral advice.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV-negative women had an increased long-term risk of CIN3+ when the HPV test in the previous screening round was positive. This supports the implementation of risk-based intervals that depend on HPV results in the current and previous screening round.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

POBASCAM trial, trial registration number ISRCTN20781131.

Age-specific outcomes from the first round of HPV screening in unvaccinated women: Observational study from the English cervical screening pilot

OBJECTIVE

To report detailed age-specific outcomes from the first round of an English pilot studying the implementation of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in primary cervical screening.

DESIGN

Observational study with screening in 2013-2016, followed by two early recalls and/or colposcopy until the end of 2019.

SETTING

Six NHS laboratory sites.

POPULATION

A total of 1 341 584 women undergoing screening with HR-HPV testing or liquid-based cytology (LBC).

METHODS

Early recall tests and colposcopies were recommended, depending on the nature of the screening-detected abnormality.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We reported standard screening process indicators, e.g. proportions with an abnormality, including high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) or cancer, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of colposcopy for CIN2+, by screening test and age group.

RESULTS

Among unvaccinated women screened with HR-HPV testing at age 24-29 years, 26.9% had a positive test and 10.4% were directly referred to colposcopy following cytology triage, with a PPV for CIN2+ of 47%. At 50-64 years of age, these proportions were much lower: 5.3%, 1.2% and 27%, respectively. The proportions of women testing positive for HR-HPV without cytological abnormalities, whose early recall HR-HPV tests returned negative results, were similar across the age spans: 54% at 24-29 years and 55% at 50-64 years. Two-thirds of infections at any age were linked to non-16/18 genotypes. Among women with CIN2, CIN3 or cervical cancer, however, the proportion of non-16/18 infections increased with age. As expected, the detection of abnormalities was lower following screening with LBC.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide a reliable reference for future epidemiological studies, including those concerning the effectiveness of HPV vaccination.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Data from the English pilot study provide a comprehensive overview of abnormalities detected through HPV screening.

Extension of cervical screening intervals with primary human papillomavirus testing: observational study of English screening pilot data

OBJECTIVES

To provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Real world data from the English HPV screening pilot's first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019).

PARTICIPANTS

1 341 584 women.

INTERVENTIONS

Cervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Detection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test.

RESULTS

For women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50).

CONCLUSIONS

These data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.

Women with a positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) test remain at increased risk of HPV infection and cervical precancer ≥15 years later

Little is known about the long-term association between high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test results in women participating in a hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening program. To address this question, we collected data of 2217 women who participated in the POBASCAM hrHPV-based screening trial (enrolment 1999/2002) and also attended the Dutch hrHPV-based screening program between January 2017 and March 2018. Among 143 women who tested hrHPV-positive in 1999/2002, 45 (31.5%) had ≥ CIN2 or hysterectomy before 2017 and 17 (11.9%) tested hrHPV-positive at the 2017/2018 screen. In comparison, among 2074 women who tested hrHPV-negative in 1999/2002, 10 (0.5%) had ≥ CIN2 or hysterectomy before 2017 and 119 (5.7%) tested hrHPV-positive at the 2017/2018 screen. It follows that in the group of women who were not treated for ≥ CIN2 or had a hysterectomy in between the two screens 15 years apart (N = 2162), women who were hrHPV-positive in 1999/2002 had a higher risk of being hrHPV-positive in 2017/2018 than those who were hrHPV-negative in 1999/2002 (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.8-6.1). A similar association was found at the genotype level for genotype-concordant results (5.1, 1.0-11.3) and for genotype non-concordant results (3.7, 1.6-6.7). Women who were hrHPV-positive in 2017/2018 had a higher risk of CIN3 after a hrHPV-positive result in 1999/2002 than after a hrHPV-negative result (5.8, 1.0-27.8). In conclusion, a positive hrHPV result in screening gives a long-term increased risk of a hrHPV-positive result, also for different genotypes, and a long-term increased risk of CIN3. This supports the concept of risk-stratification in hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening where previous hrHPV results are included in screening recommendations.

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.

Cervical Cancer Screening with HPV Testing: Updates on the Recommendation

The present update is a reassessment of the 2018 'Guidelines for HPV-DNA Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Brazil' (Zeferino et al.)9, according to the changes observed in new international guidelines and knowledge updates. The most relevant and recent guidelines were assessed. Questions regarding the clinical practice were formulated, and the answers considered the perspective of the public and private sectors of the Brazilian health system. The review addressed risk-based strategies regarding age to start and stop screening, the use of cytology and colposcopy to support management decisions, treatment, follow-up strategies, and screening in specific groups, including vaccinated women. The update aims to improve the prevention of cervical cancer and to reduce overtreatment and the misuse of HPV testing.

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

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening tests changed from a results-based approach in 2012 to a risk-based approach in 2019.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of the 2019 management guidelines and the changes in resource utilization moving from 2012 to 2019 guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

We utilized a previously published model of cervical cancer natural history and screening to estimate and compare the lifetime costs and the number of screens, colposcopies, precancer treatments, cancer cases, and cancer deaths associated with the 2012 vs 2019 management guidelines. We assessed these guidelines under the scenarios of observed screening practice and perfect screening adherence to 3-year cytology starting at age 21, with a switch to either 3-year or 5-year cytology plus human papillomavirus cotesting at age 30. In addition, we estimated the lifetime costs and life years to determine the cost-effectiveness of shifting to the 2019 management guidelines.

RESULTS

Under the assumptions of both observed screening practice and perfect screening adherence with a strategy of 3-year cytology at ages 21 to 29 and switching to 3-year cotesting at age 30, the management of the screening tests according to the 2019 guidelines was less costly and more effective than the 2012 guidelines. For 3-year cytology screening at ages 21 to 29 and switching to 5-year cotesting at age 30, the 2019 guidelines were more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per life year gained. Across all scenarios, the 2019 management guidelines were associated with fewer colposcopies and cancer deaths.

CONCLUSION

Our model-based analysis suggests that the 2019 guidelines are more effective overall and also more cost-effective than the 2012 guidelines, supporting the principle of "equal management of equal risks."

Effect of Number of Retrieved Lymph Nodes on Prognosis in FIGO Stage IA1-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Patients Treated With Primary Radical Surgery

Background:

The influence of the number of removed lymph nodes (RLNs) on patients with early-stage cervical cancer (ESCC) is still questionable. The objective of this study was to explore the prognostic value of RLNs on ESCC patients.

Methods:

A retrospective study was performed including all ESCC patients who underwent radical surgery from January 2016 to December 2018. Cox regression analysis was performed to verify the correlation between the number of RLNs and the prognosis (recurrence-free survival [RFS], disease-specific survival [DSS]) of ESCC. According to the guidelines, all the patients were divided into high-risk and non-high-risk groups. The optimal cut-off values of RLNs were determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and Youden index and further the prognostic value of them was explored.

Results:

A total 1101 patients were enrolled. The number of RLNs was an independent prognostic influence factor of the prognosis of ESCC ( P < .001 for RFS, P < .001 for DSS). The optimal cut-off values of RLNs (40 in the high-risk group and 23 in the non-high-risk group) were significantly associated with the prognosis of ESCC, in the high-risk group ( P < .001 for RFS, P = .002 for DSS) and non-high-risk group ( P < .001 for RFS, P < .001 for DSS), respectively.

Conclusions:

More extensive lymph node dissection (RLNs ⩾ 40) could benefit the high-risk ESCC patients. However, in the non-high-risk group, moderate lymph node dissection (RLNs ≈23) could also benefit them and may reduce the incidence of related complications. Those findings may help to determine the scope of lymph node dissection in ESCC patients before operation.

The Improving Risk Informed HPV Screening (IRIS) Study: Design and Baseline Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer screening with high-risk HPV (HrHPV) testing is being introduced. Most HrHPV infections are transient, requiring triage tests to identify individuals at highest risk for progression to cervical cancer. Head-to-head comparisons of available strategies for screening and triage are needed. Endometrial and ovarian cancers could be amenable to similar testing.

METHODS

Between 2016-2021 discard cervical cancer screening specimens from women ages 25-65 undergoing screening at Kaiser Permanente Northern California were collected. Specimens were aliquoted, stabilized, and stored frozen. HPV, cytology and histopathology results as well as demographic and co-factor information were obtained from electronic medical records. Follow-up collection of specimens was conducted for 2 years and EMR-based data collection was planned five years.

RESULTS

Collection of enrollment and follow-up specimens are complet and EMR-based follow-up data collection is ongoing. At baseline, specimens were collected from 54,971 HPV-positive, 10,219 HPV-negative/Pap-positive and 12,751 HPV-negative/Pap-negative women. Clinical history prior to baseline was available for 72.6% of individuals, of which 53.9% were undergoing routine screening, 8.6% recently had an abnormal screen, 30.3% had previous colposcopy, and 7.2% had previous treatment. As of November 2020, 55.6% had one or more colposcopies, yielding 5,515 CIN2, 2,735 CIN3 and 147 cancer histopathology diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

This robust population-based cohort study represents all stages of cervical cancer screening, management, and post-treatment follow-up.

IMPACT

The IRIS study is a unique and highly relevant resource allowing for natural history studies and rigorous evaluation of candidate HrHPV screening and triage markers, while permitting studies of biomarkers associated with other gynecological cancers.

Impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer screening: Challenges and opportunities to improving resilience and reduce disparities

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on a wide range of health outcomes. Disruptions of elective health services related to cervical screening, management of abnormal screening test results, and treatment of precancers, may lead to increases in cervical cancer incidence and exacerbate existing health disparities. Modeling studies suggest that a short delay of cervical screening in subjects with previously negative HPV results has minor effects on cancer outcomes, while delay of management and treatment can lead to larger increases in cervical cancer. Several approaches can mitigate the effects of disruption of cervical screening and management. HPV-based screening has higher accuracy compared to cytology, and a negative HPV result provides longer reassurance against cervical cancer; further, HPV testing can be conducted from self-collected specimens. Self-collection expands the reach of screening to underserved populations who currently do not participate in screening. Self-collection and can also provide alternative screening approaches during the pandemic because testing can be supported by telehealth and specimens collected in the home, substantially reducing patient-provider contact and risk of COVID-19 exposure, and also expanding the reach of catch-up services to address backlogs of screening tests that accumulated during the pandemic. Risk-based management allows prioritizing management of patients at highest risk of cervical cancer while extending screening intervals for those at lowest risk. The pandemic provides important lessons for how to make cervical screening more resilient to disruptions and how to reduce cervical cancer disparities that may be exacerbated due to disruptions of health services.

Trend of HPV 16/18 Genotypes in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3: Data for 2007-2018

Aim

In the post-vaccination era, the starting age and time intervals of cervical screening could change (older age and longer screening intervals). This scenario may be achieved by significantly reducing human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 prevalence (genotypes included in the current vaccines). In this regard, assessing the trend over time of these HPV infections in high-grade cervical lesions can provide information on the objective. The present study aimed to evaluate the trend of HPV 16/18 over the years 2007–2018 in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3.

Methods

This is a retrospective multi-institutional study including HPV genotyped and unvaccinated women under 30 with CIN3. The sample was divided into the following periods: 2007–2010, 2011–2014, 2015–2018. HPV genotypes were grouped in genotypes 16/18, genotypes 31/33/35/52/58/67 (genetically related to HPV16), genotypes 39/45/59/68/70 (genetically related to HPV18), genotypes 31/33/45/52/58 (high-risk types included in the nonavalent vaccine), possibly carcinogenic HPV (genotypes 26/30/53/67/70/73/82/85), low-risk HPV (genotypes 6/11/40/42/43/44/54/55/61). The trend between periods and HPV genotypes was measured using the Cochran–Armitage test for trend.

Results

The final analysis included 474 participants. HPV 16/18 prevalence decreased significantly over the years (77.8% vs 68.9% vs 66.0%, respectively, Ptrend=0.027). Possibly carcinogenic HPV (genotypes 26/30/53/67/70/73/82/85) showed a significant negative prevalence trend over time (4.9% vs 1.1% vs 1.3%, respectively, Ptrend=0.046). Finally, there was a significant positive trend over the years for high-risk HPV genotypes 31/33/45/52/58 in women under 25 (9.9% vs 17.0% vs 24.0%, respectively, Ptrend=0.048).

Conclusion

The prevalence of CIN3 lesions related to HPV 16/18 genotypes decreased over time from 2007 to 2018. These data highlight a herd effect of the HPV vaccine. However, fifteen years after HPV vaccine introduction, we are still a long way from herd immunity. The increase in high-risk types 31/33/45/52/58 will need to be reassessed when the nonavalent vaccine impact will be more reliable.

2020 list of human papillomavirus assays suitable for primary cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Only clinically validated HPV assays can be accepted in cervical cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES

To update the list of high-risk HPV assays that fulfil the 2009 international validation criteria (Meijer-2009).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, references from selected studies; published in January 2014 to August 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

HPV test validation studies and primary screening studies, involving testing with an index HPV test and a comparator HPV test with reporting of disease outcome (occurrence of histologically confirmed cervical precancer; CIN2+).

PARTICIPANTS

Women participating in cervical cancer screening.

INTERVENTIONS

Testing with an index and a comparator HPV test of clinician-collected cervical specimens and assessment of disease outcome (

METHODS

Assessment of relative clinical accuracy (including non-inferiority statistics index vs comparator assay) and test reproducibility in individual studies; random effects meta-analyses of the relative clinical sensitivity and specificity of index vs comparator tests.

RESULTS

Seven hrHPV DNA tests consistently fulfilled all validation criteria in multiple studies using predefined test positivity cut-offs (Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV, Anyplex II HPV HR Detection, BD Onclarity HPV Assay, Cobas 4800 HPV Test, HPV-Risk Assay, PapilloCheck HPV-Screening Test and Xpert HPV). Another assay (Alinity m HR HPV Assay) was fully validated in one validation study. The newer Cobas 6800 HPV Test, was validated in two studies against Cobas 4800. Other tests partially fulfilled the international validation criteria (Cervista HPV HR Test, EUROArray HPV, Hybribio's 14 High-Risk HPV, LMNX Genotyping Kit GP HPV, MALDI-TOF, RIATOL qPCR and a number of other in-house developed assays) since the non-inferior accuracy was reached after a posteriori cut-off optimization, inconsistent accuracy findings in different studies, and/or insufficient reproducibility assessment. The APTIMA HPV Assay targeting E6/E7 mRNA of hrHPV was fully validated in one formal validation study and showed slightly lower pooled sensitivity but higher specificity than the standard comparator tests in seven screening studies. However, the current international validation criteria relate to DNA assays. The additional requirement for longitudinal performance data required for non-DNA based HPV assays was not assessed in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven hrHPV DNA assays fulfil all requirements for use in cervical cancer screening using clinician-collected specimens.

Collapse

Key Words

• Cervical cancer
• Cervical cancer screening
• Diagnostic test accuracy: validation of tests
• Human papillomavirus
• Meta-analysis
• Systematic review

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Alphapapillomavirus
• Early Detection of Cancer
• Female
• Genotyping Techniques
• Humans
• Papillomaviridae/isolation & purification
• Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis
• Reproducibility of Results
• Sensitivity and Specificity
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology

Collapse

Grants

• 001 World Health Organization

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Marc Arbyn Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Marie Simon Haute Autorité de Santé, Saint Denis, France
Eliana Peeters Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium
Lan Xu Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium; School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
Chris J L M Meijer Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, location VUMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Johannes Berkhof Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Kate Cuschieri Scottish HPV Reference Laboratory, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Jesper Bonde Molecular Pathology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
Anja Ostrbenk Vanlencak Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Fang-Hui Zhao Department of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
Remila Rezhake Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China; The 3rd Affiliated Teaching Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University (Affiliated Cancer Hospital), Urumqi, China
Murat Gultekin Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynaecological Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
Joakim Dillner Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Silvia de Sanjosé National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA
Karen Canfell Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Peter Hillemanns Departments of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Germany
Maribel Almonte International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
Nicolas Wentzensen Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer, Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
Mario Poljak Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Collapse

Prevalence of positive screening test results and agreement between cytology and human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical cancer screening in North-Western Romania

Using data from a pilot study conducted in North-Western Romania, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of abnormal cytology and positive high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) test results in an ethnically diverse screening population and to assess the agreement between cytology and hr-HPV testing to evaluate the feasibility of integrating the latter as a primary test in the national cervical cancer screening program. The cross-sectional pilot study included Roma women, other ethnic minorities, and women in rural remote areas. Samples were taken for liquid-based cytology and hr-HPV testing (Hybrid Capture 2 DNA test) by a mobile health unit. The prevalence of positive screening results and the agreement between cytology and hr-HPV testing were estimated by κ coefficient. A total of 1019 women were included in the study. The population prevalence of positive screening results was similar for both tests (12%). The prevalence of abnormal cytology increased with increasing age, whereas the prevalence of positive hr-HPV test showed a bimodal age pattern. Substantial differences in the prevalence of abnormal cytology were found by ethnicity, with highest prevalence in Romanian women (14%), followed by Roma women (6%) and women of other ethnicities (5%) (P = 0.002). Similar ethnic differences in the prevalence of positive hr-HPV test were not observed. The overall agreement of positive screening results between the two methods was fair (κ = 0.25; 95% confidence interval = 0.18-0.30, P < 0.001) and ranged from poor to substantial depending on the age group. The prevalence of abnormal cytology result was high and similar to the prevalence of positive hr-HPV test result, which could allow for the implementation of hr-HPV testing as a primary test in the cervical cancer screening program in Romania.

Eligibility for cervical cancer screening exit: Comparison of a national and safety net cohort

OBJECTIVE

To determine eligibility for discontinuation of cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

Women aged 64 with employer-sponsored insurance enrolled in a national database between 2016 and 2018, and those aged 64-66 receiving primary care at a safety net health center in 2019 were included. Patients were evaluated for screening exit eligibility by current guidelines: no evidence of cervical cancer or HIV-positive status and no evidence of cervical precancer in the past 25 years, and had evidence of either hysterectomy with removal of the cervix or evidence of fulfilling screening exit criteria, defined as two HPV screening tests or HPV plus Pap co-tests or three Pap tests within the past 10 years without evidence of an abnormal result.

RESULTS

Of the 590,901 women in the national claims database, 131,059 (22.2%) were eligible to exit due to hysterectomy (1.6%) or negative screening (20.6%). Of the 1544 women from the safety net health center, 528 (34.2%) were eligible to exit due to hysterectomy (9.3%) or negative screening (24.9%). Most women did not have sufficient data available to fulfill exit criteria: 382,509 (64.7%) in the national database and 875 (56.7%) in the safety net hospital system. Even among women with 10 years of insurance claims data, only 41.5% qualified to discontinue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Examining insurance claims in a national database and electronic medical records at a safety net institution led to remarkably similar findings: two thirds of women fail to qualify for screening exit. Additional steps to ensure eligibility prior to screening exit may be necessary to decrease preventable cervical cancers among women aged >65.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

Summary of Current Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Test Results: 2016-2020

Cervical cancer can be prevented through routine screening and follow-up of abnormal results. Several guidelines have been published in the last 4 years from various medical societies and organizations. These guidelines aim to personalize screening and management, reducing unnecessary testing in low-risk patients and managing high-risk patients with more intensive follow-up. However, the resulting complexity can lead to confusion among providers. The CDC, NCI, and obstetrician-gynecologists involved in guideline development summarized current screening and management guidelines. For screening, guidelines for average-risk and high-risk populations are summarized and presented. For management, differences between the 2012 and 2019 consensus guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors are summarized. Current screening guidelines for average-risk individuals have minor differences, but are evolving toward an HPV-based strategy. For management, HPV testing is preferred to cytology because it is a more sensitive test for cancer precursor detection and also allows for precise risk stratification. Current risk-based screening and management strategies can improve care by reducing unnecessary tests and procedures in low-risk patients and focusing resources on high-risk patients. Knowledge of screening and management guidelines is important to improve adherence and avoid both over- and under-use of screening and colposcopy.

Age-related distribution of uncommon HPV genotypes in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3

AIM

Cervical cancer prevention guidelines include Human Papillomavirus (HPV) test, cytology, and HPV-16/18 typing for triage to determine the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 as the best proxy of cervical cancer risk. In doing that, they do not consider how age can modify the type-specific risk of CIN3. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-related distribution of HPV genotypes affecting the risk-assessment in cervical cancer screening programs: non-screening-type-HPV and non-HPV-16/18 in unvaccinated women with CIN3.

METHODS

Retrospective multi-institutional study, including HPV genotyped women with CIN3 on cone histology treated between 2014 and 2019. The sample was divided into three categories of age: <30, 30-44, ≥45. HPV genotypes were grouped in non-screening-type-HPV (not-including genotypes 16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) and non-HPV-16/18. Associations and trends between different age-groups and HPV genotypes were measured.

RESULTS

1332 women were analyzed. Non-screening-type-HPV CIN3 were 73 (5.5%). Non-HPV-16/18 were found in 417 participants (31.3%). Women over 45 associated with non-screening-type HPV [odds ratio (OR) = 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-3.25; p = 0.027]. Non-screening-type-HPV prevalence increased significantly with age (3.9% vs 5.1% vs 9.0%, p = 0.016). Women under 30 showed a lower rate of non-HPV-16/18 (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.89; p = 0.007). There was a positive trend with age of non-HPV-16/18 CIN3 (23.6% vs 32.1% vs 38.0%, p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of CIN3 lesions unrelated to genotypes detected by primary screening tests increased with age. This implies that age probably modifies the risk of CIN3 and possibly of cancer associated with HPV types. The risk-based recommendation should take into consideration age to define the management of HPV positive women.

Assessing 10-Year Safety of a Single Negative HPV Test for Cervical Cancer Screening: Evidence from FOCAL-DECADE Cohort

BACKGROUND

Long-term safety of a single negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test for cervical cancer screening is unclear. The HPV FOr cerviCAL Cancer Trial (FOCAL) was a randomized trial comparing HPV testing with cytology. The FOCAL-DECADE cohort tracked women who received one HPV test during FOCAL, and were HPV negative, for up to 10 years to identify cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detected through a provincial screening program.

METHODS

FOCAL participants who received one HPV test, were negative, and had at least one post-FOCAL cervix screen were included (N = 5,537). We constructed cumulative incidence curves of CIN2+/CIN3+ detection, analyzed cumulative risk of detection at intervals post-HPV test, calculated average incidence rates for detection, and compared hazard across ages.

RESULTS

Ten years after one negative HPV test, the probability of CIN2+ detection was lower than 1%, with most lesions detected 7 years or later. Average incidence rates of CIN2+/CIN3+ lesions over follow-up were 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.78] and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.07-0.36) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Hazards were higher for younger ages (nonsignificant trend).

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with a single negative HPV test, long-term risk of CIN2+ detection was low, particularly through 7 years of follow-up; thus, one negative HPV test appears to confer long-term protection from precancerous lesions. Even 10-year risk is sufficiently low to support extended testing intervals in average-risk populations.

IMPACT

Our findings support the safety of screening policies using HPV testing alone at 5-year or longer intervals.

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Methods for Risk Estimation, Recommended Management, and Validation

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Objective

To manage cervical screening abnormalities, the 2019 ASCCP management consensus guidelines will recommend clinical action on the basis of risk of cervical precancer and cancer. This article details the methods used to estimate risk, to determine the risk-based management, and to validate that the risk-based recommendations are of general use in different settings.

Methods

Based on 1.5 million patients undergoing triennial cervical screening by cotesting at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2003 to 2017, we estimated risk profiles for different clinical scenarios and combinations of past and current human papillomavirus and cytology test results. We validated the recommended management by comparing with the estimated risks in several external data sources.

Results

Risk and management tables are presented separately by Egemen et al.¹ and Demarco et al.² Risk-based management derived from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California largely agreed with the management implied from the estimated risks of the other data sources.

Conclusions

The new risk-based guidelines present management of abnormal cervical screening results. By describing the steps used to develop these guidelines, the methods presented in this article can provide a basis for future extensions of the risk-based guidelines.

Screening for Cervical Cancer

The most effective strategy for cervical cancer prevention involves vaccination to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) infections during adolescence followed by screening to detect HPV infections during adulthood. HPV vaccination before sexual debut can prevent HPV infections, precancers, and cancers. HPV vaccination of sexually active populations does not prevent cancer. Screening with HPV testing is the most effective method of detecting precancers and cancers between ages 25 and 65. Ensuring adequate screening around the age of menopause may be the key to preventing cervical cancer among elderly women. Most cervical cancers at all ages occur among unscreened or underscreened women.

Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Triptolide prevents bone loss via suppressing osteoclastogenesis through inhibiting PI3K-AKT-NFATc1 pathway

Bone loss (osteopenia) is a common complication in human solid tumour. In addition, after surgical treatment of gynaecological tumour, osteoporosis often occurs due to the withdrawal of oestrogen. The major characteristic of osteoporosis is the low bone mass with micro-architectural deteriorated bone tissue. And the main cause is the overactivation of osteoclastogenesis, which is one of the most important therapeutic targets. Inflammation could induce the interaction of RANKL/RANK, which is the promoter of osteoclastogenesis. Triptolide is derived from the traditional Chinese herb lei gong teng, presented multiple biological effects, including anti-cancer, anti-inflammation and immunosuppression. We hypothesized that triptolide could inhibits osteoclastogenesis by suppressing inflammation activation. In this study, we confirmed that triptolide could suppress RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis in bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMCs) and RAW264.7 cells and inhibited the osteoclast bone resorption functions. PI3K-AKT-NFATc1 pathway is one of the most important downstream pathways of RANKL-induced osteogenesis. The experiments in vitro indicated that triptolide suppresses the activation of PI3K-AKT-NFATc1 pathway and the target point located at the upstream of AKT because both NFATc1 overexpression and AKT phosphorylation could ameliorate the triptolide suppression effects. The expression of MDM2 was elevated, which demonstrated the MDM-p53-induced cell death might contribute to the osteoclastogenesis suppression. Ovariectomy-induced bone loss and inflammation activation were also found to be ameliorated in the experiments in vivo. In summary, the new effect of anti-cancer drug triptolide was demonstrated to be anti-osteoclastogenesis, and we demonstrated triptolide might be a promising therapy for bone loss caused by tumour.

A study of the risks of CIN3+ detection after multiple rounds of HPV testing: Results of the 15-year cervical cancer screening experience at Kaiser Permanente Northern California

Many countries are transitioning to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening, despite a lack of long-term experience. To anticipate multi-round screening performance, we analyzed 15-year HPV testing results at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). We evaluated HPV test result patterns among women aged 30-64 undergoing triennial HPV/cytology cotesting at KPNC during 2003-2018. We calculated incidence rates and proportion of CIN3+ diagnoses associated with the most frequent HPV testing patterns overall and stratified by age. From 2003 to 2018, a total of 1,361,581 women had a valid HPV test result, and 7,087 were diagnosed with CIN3+. Incidence rates of CIN3+ after HPV positivity were lowest when HPV detection was new and highest in women with prevalent infections (770 vs. 13,910/100,000 person-years). Repeat test negativity reduced subsequent incidence rates of CIN3+ to extremely low levels (18/100,000 person-years following four consecutive negative results). For mixed patterns of positivity/negativity, the recency and frequency of positive tests were associated with increased rates of CIN3+ diagnosis. Most CIN3+ cases (76%) were diagnosed in women who were positive at baseline (the first known positive HPV result); 16% were attributed to apparent newly detected infections and 3% to possible reappearing infections. These results corroborate previous findings that current HPV positivity, particularly when prevalent rather than new, is associated with the highest rates of CIN3+. In a screening program implementing HPV testing, most CIN3+ is detected at the first HPV positive test.

HPV screening performance indicators in women who previously tested HPV-negative: The second round of Vallecamonica screening programme, Northern Italy

OBJECTIVE

To present performance indicators from the second round of the Vallecamonica-Sebino HPV screening programme in women who had tested negative about four years earlier (mean 45 months).

METHODS

From 2010 to 2012, the target female population (aged 25-64) was invited to the first HPV screening round. In 2013-2017, women were rescreened for the second round. HPV-negative women at the first round were initially rescreened after three years. The interval was gradually increased to five years. HPV-positive women underwent cytology triage: positives were referred to colposcopy and negatives to repeat testing after one year. If HPV was persistently positive, women were referred to colposcopy, if negative, to normal interval rescreening.

RESULTS

In the second round, of 13,824 previously HPV-negative women, 598 were HPV-positive (4.3%), of whom 297 were positive at cytology triage. Of those referred to one-year HPV test, 291 complied (98.0%), 133 (50.2%) of whom were persistently positive. Total referral was 3.1% compared with 6.6% in the first round (age-adjusted relative referral 0.59, 95% CI: 0.53-0.65). There were 24 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (three cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3+). Detection was 0.17%, compared with 0.9% in the first round. Age-adjusted relative detections were 0.25 (95% CI: 0.16-0.39) and 0.18 (95% CI: 0.05-0.61) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3+, respectively. Positive predictive value was 5.7%, compared with 14.6% in the first round.

CONCLUSIONS

At second round, referral was half that at first round, while cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ detection decreased nine-fold. Consequently, positive predictive value decreased dramatically. Rescreening four years after an HPV-negative test makes the process inefficient due to the low prevalence of lesions.

Role of Screening History in Clinical Meaning and Optimal Management of Positive Cervical Screening Results

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is caused by persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. US consensus management guidelines for a positive cervical screening result typically focus on the current screening result only. A negative testing history may alter risk of the following positive screening results, caused by a new HPV infection, and therefore its optimal management.

METHODS

Women ages 30 years and older were screened with triennial HPV and cytology co-testing at Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2003 to 2014. We estimated the subsequent 5-year risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe diagnoses (CIN3+) in a cohort of 1 156 387 women following abnormal (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US] or worse) cytology and/or positive HPV testing, when the test result followed 0 (n = 990 013), 1 (n = 543 986), 2 (n = 245 974), or 3 (n = 79 946) consecutive negative co-test(s). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Following 0-3 successive negative co-tests, 5-year CIN3+ risks following a positive HPV test decreased progressively from 7.2% (95% CI = 7.0% to 7.4%) to 1.5% (95% CI = 0.7% to 3.4%) (Ptrend < .001). Similarly, risks following an abnormal (ASC-US or worse) cytology result decreased from 6.6% (95% CI = 6.4% to 6.9%) to 1.1% (95% CI = 0.5% to 2.3%) (Ptrend < .001). Risks following low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, the risk threshold for referral to colposcopy in the United States, decreased from 5.2% (95% CI = 4.7% to 5.7%) to 0.9% (95% CI = 0.2% to 4.3%). Risks following high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or more severe, a specific marker for the presence of precancerous lesions, decreased from 50.0% (95% CI = 47.5% to 52.5%) to 10.0% (95% CI = 2.6% to 34.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Following one or more sequential antecedent, documented negative co-tests or HPV tests, women with HPV-positive ASC-US or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion might have sufficiently low CIN3+ risk that they do not need colposcopy referral and might instead undergo 6-12-month surveillance for evidence of higher risk before being referred to colposcopy.

Enhanced Detection of Cervical Cancer and Precancer Through Use of Imaged Liquid-Based Cytology in Routine Cytology and HPV Cotesting

OBJECTIVES

Cervical screening strives to prevent cervical cancer (CxCa), minimizing morbidity and mortality. Most large US reports on cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) cotesting of women aged 30 years and older are from one laboratory, which used conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) smears from 2003 to 2009.

METHODS

We quantified detection of CxCa and precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3/adenocarcinoma in situ [CIN3/AIS]) in 300,800 cotests at Magee Womens Hospital since 2005. Screening histories preceding CxCa and CIN3/AIS diagnoses were examined to assess the contribution of cytology and HPV testing. Cotesting utilized Food and Drug Administration-approved imaged liquid-based cytology (LBC) and from-the-vial HPV tests.

RESULTS

LBC identified more women subsequently diagnosed with CxCa and CIN3/AIS than HPV testing. HPV-negative/cytology-positive results preceded 13.1% of CxCa and 7.2% of CIN3/AIS diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC enhanced cotesting detection of CxCa and CIN3/AIS to a greater extent than previously reported with conventional Pap smear and HPV cotesting.

Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

The number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States has decreased substantially since the implementation of widespread cervical cancer screening and has declined from 2.8 to 2.3 deaths per 100 000 women from 2000 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE

To update the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 recommendation on screening for cervical cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for cervical cancer, with a focus on clinical trials and cohort studies that evaluated screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing alone or hrHPV and cytology together (cotesting) compared with cervical cytology alone. The USPSTF also commissioned a decision analysis model to evaluate the age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal interval for screening, the effectiveness of different screening strategies, and related benefits and harms of different screening strategies.

FINDINGS

Screening with cervical cytology alone, primary hrHPV testing alone, or cotesting can detect high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer. Screening women aged 21 to 65 years substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The harms of screening for cervical cancer in women aged 30 to 65 years are moderate. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years substantially outweigh the harms. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with both tests (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years outweigh the harms. Screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and women younger than 21 years does not provide significant benefit. Screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer provides no benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate to high certainty that screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer, screening women younger than 21 years, and screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer does not result in a positive net benefit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cervical cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with hrHPV testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than 21 years. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer. (D recommendation).

Screening for Cervical Cancer With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Cervical cancer can be prevented with detection and treatment of precancerous cell changes caused primarily by high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV), the causative agents in more than 90% of cervical cancers.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening for hrHPV to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials from January 2011 through February 15, 2017; surveillance through May 25, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing primary hrHPV screening alone or hrHPV cotesting (both hrHPV testing and cytology) with cytology (Papanicolaou [Pap] test) screening alone.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and quality rated included studies; data were qualitatively synthesized.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Invasive cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); false-positive, colposcopy, and biopsy rates; psychological harms.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (n = 410 556), 5 cohort studies (n = 402 615), and 1 individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (n = 176 464) were included. Trials were heterogeneous for screening interval, number of rounds, and protocol. For primary hrHPV screening, evidence was consistent across 4 trials demonstrating increased detection of CIN 3 or worse (CIN 3+) in round 1 (relative risk [RR] range, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.09-2.37] to 7.46 [95% CI, 1.02-54.66]). Among 4 hrHPV cotesting trials, first-round CIN 3+ detection was not significantly different between screening groups; RRs for cumulative CIN 3+ detection over 2 screening rounds ranged from 0.91 to 1.13. In first-round screening, false-positive rates for primary hrHPV screening ranged from 6.6% to 7.4%, compared with 2.6% to 6.5% for cytology. For cotesting, false-positives ranged from 5.8% to 19.9% in the first round of screening, compared with 2.6% to 10.9% for cytology. First-round colposcopy rates were also higher, ranging 1.2% to 7.9% for primary hrHPV testing, compared with 1.1% to 3.1% for cytology alone; colposcopy rates for cotesting ranged from 6.8% to 10.9%, compared with 3.3% to 5.2% for cytology alone. The IPD meta-analysis of data from 4 cotesting trials and 1 primary hrHPV screening trial found lower risk of invasive cervical cancer with any hrHPV screening compared with cytology alone (pooled RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40-0.89]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary hrHPV screening detected higher rates of CIN 3+ at first-round screening compared with cytology. Cotesting trials did not show initial increased CIN 3+ detection. Both hrHPV screening strategies had higher false-positive and colposcopy rates than cytology, which could lead to more treatments with potential harms.