Screening for persistent high-risk HPV infections may be a valuable screening method for young women; A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION:Screening of young women is often discouraged because of the high risk of unnecessary diagnostics or overtreatment. Multiple countries therefore use cytology instead of high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-testing as screening method for young women because of the limited specificity of hrHPV-testing. The objective of this study was to investigate how hrHPV screening before the age of 30, can be used to reduce the future prevalence of high-grade cervical lesions in young women. METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed follow-up data from a cohort study on HPV prevalence in unscreened Dutch women aged 18-29 years. Women performed multiple self-collected cervico-vaginal samples for HPV detection and genotyping. At least one valid cervical pathology result was obtained from 1,018 women. Women were categorized as hrHPV negative, cleared- or persistent hrHPV infection. Anonymized follow-up data for each group was obtained. Composite outcome measures were defined as; normal, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). The association between prior hrHPV status and cytology and histology outcome was analyzed. RESULTS:After exclusion, a pathology result was registered for 962 women. The prevalence of HSIL was 19.3% in women with a persistent HPV infection at a younger age. This is significantly higher (p<0,001) compared with the HSIL prevalence of 1.5% in HPV-negative women, and 3.1% (n = 8) in women who cleared the hrHPV infection in the past. CONCLUSION:Women with a persistent hrHPV infection in their 20s, show an increased prevalence of HSIL lesions in their early 30s. Screening for persistent hrHPV infections, instead of cytology screening before the age of 30, can be used to reduce the future prevalence of cervical cancer in young women

Performance of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse: a randomised, paired screen-positive, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples is a potential alternative to HPV testing on clinician-collected samples, but non-inferiority of its clinical accuracy remains to be assessed in the regular screening population. The IMPROVE study was done to evaluate the clinical accuracy of primary HPV testing on self-collected samples within an organised screening setting. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 29-61 years were invited to participate in the study as part of their regular screening invitation in the Netherlands. Women who provided informed consent were randomly allocated (1:1, with a block size of ten stratified by age) to one of two groups: a self-sampling group, in which women were requested to collect their own cervicovaginal sample using an Evalyn Brush (Rovers Medical Devices BV, Oss, Netherlands); or a clinician-based sampling group, in which samples were collected by a general practitioner with a Cervex-Brush (Rovers Medical Devices BV). All samples were tested for HPV using the clinically validated GP5+/6+ PCR enzyme immunoassay (Labo Biomedical Products BV, Rijswijk, Netherlands). HPV-positive women in both groups were retested with the other collection method and triaged by cytology and repeat cytology in accordance with current Dutch screening guidelines. Primary endpoints were detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). Non-inferiority of HPV testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples was evaluated against a margin of 90% for the relative sensitivity and 98% for the relative specificity. This study is registered at the Dutch Trial register (NTR5078) and has been completed. FINDINGS: Of the 187 473 women invited to participate, 8212 were randomly allocated to the self-sampling group and 8198 to the clinician-based sampling group. After exclusion of women who met the exclusion criteria or who did not return their sample, 7643 women were included in the self-sampling group and 6282 in the clinician-based sampling group. 569 (7·4%) self-collected samples and 451 (7·2%) clinician-collected samples tested positive for HPV (relative risk 1·04 [95% CI 0·92-1·17]). Median follow-up duration for HPV-positive women was 20 months (IQR 17-22). The CIN2+ sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing did not differ between self-sampling and clinician-based sampling (relative sensitivity 0·96 [0·90-1·03]; relative specificity 1·00 [0·99-1·01]). For the CIN3+ endpoint, relative sensitivity was 0·99 (0·91-1·08) and relative specificity was 1·00 (0·99-1·01). INTERPRETATION: HPV testing done with a clinically validated PCR-based assay had similar accuracy on self-collected and clinician-collected samples in terms of the detection of CIN2+ or CIN3+ lesions. These findings suggest that HPV self-sampling could be used as a primary screening method in routine screening. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport (Netherlands), and the European Commission

Defining hrHPV genotypes in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by laser capture microdissection supports reflex triage of self-samples using HPV16/18 and FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation

OBJECTIVE: HPV16/18 genotyping and detection of hypermethylation of human cell genes involved in cervical oncogenesis have shown promising results in triage of high-risk HPV (hrHPV)-screen positive women on cervical smears. These tests can be performed on self-samples, which contain cervical and vaginal cells. We studied whether a self-sample represents the hrHPV type causing the worst cervical lesion and whether any differences in hypermethylation of FAM19A4/miR124-2 exist between CIN lesions caused by different hrHPV types. These results have important implications for reflex triage of self-samples. METHODS: Correlation between genotype found on self-sample using GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA-LMNX and causative hrHPV genotype in the worst lesion on histology was studied using laser capture microdissection (LCM)-SPF10-PCR (N = 152). Hypermethylation of FAM19A4/miR124-2 in the self-sample was tested in a quantitative methylation specific PCR and compared between lesions caused by HPV16/18 and other hrHPV genotypes. RESULTS: Causative hrHPV genotype of the worst lesion (CIN1, CIN2, CIN3, invasive cervical cancer) was detected on self-sample in 93.4%. HPV16 was the most frequently found genotype on self-sampling (39.2%, 73/186) and causative genotype in CIN3+ (51.4%, 38/74, all detected on self-sample). There were no differences in the percentages of positive FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation assays between lesions caused by HPV16/18 (73.8% in CIN3+) or other hrHPV genotypes (66.7% in CIN3+) (p = 0.538). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that hrHPV genotypes found on self-sample were a good representation of hrHPV in the worst CIN lesion and that methylation testing on self-sample for detection of CIN3+ was not significantly different between lesions caused by HPV16/18 and other hrHPV genotypes

Adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry for optimizing management of CIN lesions in a high-risk human papillomavirus-positive population

INTRODUCTION: Immunostaining with p16INK4a (p16), a tumor-suppressor surrogate protein biomarker for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) oncogenic activity, may complement standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) histology review, and provide more objective criteria to support the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) diagnosis. With this study we assessed the impact of p16 immunohistochemistry on CIN grading in an hrHPV-based screening setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis, 326 histology follow-up samples from a group of hrHPV-positive women were stained with p16 immunohistochemistry. All H&E samples were centrally revised. The pathologists reported their level of confidence in classifying the CIN lesion. RESULTS: Combining H&E and p16 staining resulted in a change of diagnosis in 27.3% (n = 89) of cases compared with the revised H&E samples, with a decrease of 34.5% (n = 18) in CIN1 and 22.7% (n = 15) in CIN2 classifications, and an increase of 18.3% (n = 19) in no CIN and 20.7% (n = 19) in CIN3 diagnoses. The level of confidence in CIN grading by the pathologist increased with adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry to standard H&E. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry to H&E morphology reduces the number of CIN1 and CIN2 classifications with a proportional increase in no CIN and CIN3 diagnoses, compared with standard H&E-based CIN diagnosis alone. The pathologists felt more confident in classifying the material with H&E and p16 immunohistochemistry than by using H&E alone, particularly during assessment of small biopsies. Adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry to standard H&E assessment of CIN would be valuable for the diagnostic accuracy, thereby optimizing CIN management and possibly decreasing overtreatment

Adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry for optimizing management of CIN lesions in a high-risk human papillomavirus-positive population

INTRODUCTION: Immunostaining with p16INK4a (p16), a tumor-suppressor surrogate protein biomarker for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) oncogenic activity, may complement standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) histology review, and provide more objective criteria to support the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) diagnosis. With this study we assessed the impact of p16 immunohistochemistry on CIN grading in an hrHPV-based screening setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis, 326 histology follow-up samples from a group of hrHPV-positive women were stained with p16 immunohistochemistry. All H&E samples were centrally revised. The pathologists reported their level of confidence in classifying the CIN lesion. RESULTS: Combining H&E and p16 staining resulted in a change of diagnosis in 27.3% (n = 89) of cases compared with the revised H&E samples, with a decrease of 34.5% (n = 18) in CIN1 and 22.7% (n = 15) in CIN2 classifications, and an increase of 18.3% (n = 19) in no CIN and 20.7% (n = 19) in CIN3 diagnoses. The level of confidence in CIN grading by the pathologist increased with adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry to standard H&E. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry to H&E morphology reduces the number of CIN1 and CIN2 classifications with a proportional increase in no CIN and CIN3 diagnoses, compared with standard H&E-based CIN diagnosis alone. The pathologists felt more confident in classifying the material with H&E and p16 immunohistochemistry than by using H&E alone, particularly during assessment of small biopsies. Adjunctive use of p16 immunohistochemistry to standard H&E assessment of CIN would be valuable for the diagnostic accuracy, thereby optimizing CIN management and possibly decreasing overtreatment