Eurogin Roadmap 2017: triage strategies for the management of HPV-positive women in cervical screening programmes

Cervical cancer screening will rely, increasingly, on HPV testing as a primary screen. The requirement for triage tests which can delineate clinically significant infection is thus prescient. In this EUROGIN 2017 roadmap, justification behind the most evidenced triages is outlined, as are challenges for implementation. Cytology is the triage with the most follow-up data; the existence of an HR-HPV-positive, cytology-negative group presents a challenge and retesting intervals for this group (and choice of retest) require careful consideration. Furthermore, cytology relies on subjective skills and while adjunctive dual-staining with p16/Ki67 can mitigate inter-operator/-site disparities, clinician-taken samples are required. Comparatively, genotyping and methylation markers are objective and are applicable to self-taken samples, offering logistical advantages including in low and middle income settings. However, genotyping may have diminishing returns in immunised populations and type(s) included must balance absolute risk for disease to avoid low specificity. While viral and cellular methylation markers show promise, more prospective data are needed in addition to refinements in automation. Looking forward, systems that detect multiple targets concurrently such as next generation sequencing platforms will inform the development of triage tools. Additionally, multistep triage strategies may be beneficial provided they do not create complex, unmanageable pathways. Inevitably, the balance of risk to cost(s) will be key in decision making, although defining an acceptable risk will likely differ between settings. Finally, given the significant changes to cervical screening and the variety of triage strategies, appropriate education of both health care providers and the public is essential

Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions

Background: A typical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions (LSIL) are minor lesions of the cervical epithelium, detectable by cytological examination of cells collected from the surface of the cervix of a woman. Usually, women with ASCUS and LSIL do not have cervical (pre-) cancer, however a substantial proportion of them do have underlying high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN, grade 2 or 3) and so are at increased risk for developing cervical cancer. Therefore, accurate triage of women with ASCUS or LSIL is required to identify those who need further management. This review evaluates two ways to triage women with ASCUS or LSIL: repeating the cytological test, and DNA testing for high-risk types of the human papillomavirus (hrHPV) - the main causal factor of cervical cancer. Objectives Main objective: To compare the accuracy of hrHPV testing with the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay against that of repeat cytology for detection of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in women with ASCUS or LSIL. For the HC2 assay, a positive result was defined as proposed by the manufacturer. For repeat cytology, different cut-offs were used to define positivity: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (ASCUS+), low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions or worse (LSIL+) or high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+). Secondary objective: To assess the accuracy of the HC2 assay to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ in women with ASCUS or LSIL in a larger group of reports of studies that applied hrHPV testing and the reference standard (coloscopy and biopsy), irrespective whether or not repeat cytology was done. Search methods: We made a comprehensive literature search that included the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (through PubMed), and EMBASE (last search 6 January 2011). Selected journals likely to contain relevant papers were handsearched from 1992 to 2010 (December). We also searched CERVIX, the bibliographic database of the Unit of Cancer Epidemiology at the Scientific Institute of Public Health (Brussels, Belgium) which contains more than 20,000 references on cervical cancer. More recent searches, up to December 2012, targeted reports on the accuracy of triage of ASCUS or LSIL with other HPV DNA assays, or HPV RNA assays and other molecular markers. These searches will be used for new Cochrane reviews as well as for updates of the current review. Selection criteria: Studies eligible for inclusion in the review had to include: women presenting with a cervical cytology result of ASCUS or LSIL, who had undergone both HC2 testing and repeat cytology, or HC2 testing alone, and were subsequently subjected to reference standard verification with colposcopy and colposcopy-directed biopsies for histologic verification. Data collection and analysis: The review authors independently extracted data from the selected studies, and obtained additional data from report authors. Two groups of meta-analyses were performed: group I concerned triage of women with ASCUS, group II concerned women with LSIL. The bivariate model (METADAS-macro in SAS) was used to assess the absolute accuracy of the triage tests in both groups as well as the differences in accuracy between the triage tests. Main results: The pooled sensitivity of HC2 was significantly higher than that of repeat cytology at cut-off ASCUS+ to detect CIN2+ in both triage of ASCUS and LSIL (relative sensitivity of 1.27 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.39; P value < 0.0001) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.4; P value 0.007), respectively. In ASCUS triage, the pooled specificity of the triage methods did not differ significantly from each other (relative specificity: 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; P value 0.98)). However, the specificity of HC2 was substantially, and significantly, lower than that of repeat cytology in the triage of LSIL (relative specificity: 0.66 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) P value < 0.0001). Authors' conclusions: HPV-triage with HC2 can be recommended to triage women with ASCUS because it has higher accuracy (significantly higher sensitivity, and similar specificity) than repeat cytology. When triaging women with LSIL, an HC2 test yields a significantly higher sensitivity, but a significantly lower specificity, compared to a repeat cytology. Therefore, practice recommendations for management of women with LSIL should be balanced, taking local circumstances into account

Multicentre Evaluation of Hepika Test Clinical Accuracy in Diagnosing HPV-Induced Cancer and Precancerous Lesions of the Uterine Cervix

Objective: To evaluate the clinical accuracy of Hepika test to identify cancer/precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix. Materials and Methods: A multicentre retrospective study was carried out in 2018 and included 330 liquid-based cytology samples from three Italian centres of women aged 25–64 who had been tested for the human papillomavirus (HPV) and whose histology or follow-up outcome was known. Hepika is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) targeting the protein complexes E6#p53 and E7#pRb. After excluding samples without sufficient residual material, the clinical accuracy of Hepika test was evaluated in 274 samples: adenocarcinoma (ADC) (4), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (7), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) (1), cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 (60), CIN2 (51), CIN1 (34), and negative histology (117). Association, sensitivity, and specificity for carcinoma, CIN3+ and CIN2+ are reported. Results: Positive Hepika test was associated with a high probability of carcinoma (odds ratio (DOR) = 33.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.0–163.1); sensitivity was 81.8%, specificity, 88.2%. A positive Hepika test showed a weaker association with CIN3+ lesions (DOR = 3.5; 95% CI 1.75–6.99) and lower sensitivity (27.8%). Conclusion: The Hepika test was found to be an accurate biomarker for HPV-induced cervical carcinoma. Population-based prospective studies are needed to confirm the clinical usefulness of the Hepika test in the differential diagnosis of HPV-induced invasive lesions

Interlaboratory concordance of p16/Ki-67 dual-staining interpretation in HPV-positive women in a screening population

Background: p16/Ki-67 dual staining is a candidate biomarker for triaging human papillomavirus (HPV)\u2013positive women. Reproducibility is needed for adopting a test for screening. This study assessed interlaboratory reproducibility in HPV-positive women. Methods: All women positive for HPV from the Italian New Technologies for Cervical Cancer 2 study,&nbsp;were included in this study. ThinPrep slides were immunostained for p16/Ki-67 in 4 laboratories and were interpreted in 7 laboratories. Each slide had 3 reports from different laboratories. Slides were classified as valuable or inadequate, and valuable slides were classified as positive (at least 1 double-stained cell) or negative. Interlaboratory reproducibility was evaluated with \u3ba values. Results: Overall, we obtained 9300 reports for 3100 cases; 905 reports (9.7%) were inadequate. The overall adequacy concordance was poor (\u3ba&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.224; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.183-0.263). The overall positivity concordance was moderate (\u3ba&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.583; 95% CI, 0.556-0.610). Of the 176 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN-2+) lesions found in HPV DNA\u2013positive women, 158 had a valid result: 107 were positive in all 3 reports (sensitivity for CIN-2+, 67.7%; 95% CI, 59.8%-74.9%), 23 were positive in 2 reports (sensitivity of the majority report, 82.3%; 95% CI, 75.4%-87.9%), and 15 were positive in 1 report (sensitivity of at least 1 positive result, 91.8%; 95% CI, 86.3%-95.5%). Thirteen CIN-2+ cases were negative in all 3 reports. The overall positivity concordance in CIN-2+ samples was \u3ba&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.487 (95% CI, 0.429-0.534), whereas in the non\u2013CIN-2+ samples, it was \u3ba&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.558 (95% CI, 0.528-0.588). Conclusions: The p16/Ki-67 assay showed poor reproducibility for adequacy and good reproducibility for positivity comparable to that of cervical cytology. Nevertheless, the low reproducibility does not affect the sensitivity for CIN-2+

p16/ki67 and E6/E7 mRNA accuracy and prognostic value in triaging HPV DNA-positive women

Background: The study presents cross-sectional accuracy of E6/E7 mRNA detection and p16/ki67 dual staining, alone or in combination with cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping, as triage test in HPV DNA-positive women and their impact on CIN2+ overdiagnosis. Methods: Women aged 25-64 were recruited. HPV DNA-positives were triaged with cytology and tested for E6/E7 mRNA and p16/ki67. Cytology positives were referred to colposcopy, while negatives were randomised to immediate colposcopy or to one-year HPV retesting. Lesions found within 24 months since recruitment were included. All p-values were two-sided. Results: 40,509 women were recruited and 3147 (7.8%) tested HPV DNA-positive; 174 CIN2+ were found: sensitivity was 61.0% (95% CI = 53.6 to 68.0), 94.4% (95% CI = 89.1 to 97.3), and 75.2% (95% CI = 68.1 to 81.6) for cytology, E6/E7 mRNA, and p16/ki67, respectively. Immediate referral was 25.6%, 66.8%, and 28.3%, respectively. Overall referral was 65.3%, 78.3%, and 63.3%. Cytology or p16/ki67 when combined with HPV16/18 typing reached higher sensitivity with a small impact on referral. Among the 2306 HPV DNA-positive/cytology-negative women, relative CIN2+ detection in those randomized at 1-year retesting vs. immediate colposcopy suggests a -28% CIN2+ regression (95% CI = -57% to + 20%); regression was higher in E6/E7 mRNA-negatives (pinteraction =.29). HPV clearance at 1 year in E6/E7 mRNA and in p16/ki67 negatives was about 2 times higher than in positive women (Pinteraction &lt; .001 for both). Conclusions: p16/ki67 showed good performance as triage test. E6/E7 mRNA showed the highest sensitivity, at the price of too high a positivity rate to be efficient for triage. However, when negative, it showed a good prognostic value for clearance and CIN2+ regression