High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective. Currently, women treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3) are followed-up by cytology to monitor them for residual and recurrent (post-treatment) disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis determine the test performance of testing for high-risk types of the human papillomavirus (hrHPV), cytology and co-testing (combined hrHPV testing and cytology) in predicting high-grade post-treatment disease (CIN2+). Methods. Studies that compared at least two of three post-treatment surveillance methods, and were published between January 2003 and May 2011, were identified through a bibliographic database search (PubMed, Embase.com and Wiley/Cochrane Library). Identification of relevant studies was conducted independently by two reviewers with a multi-step process.. The reference standard used to diagnose post-treatment disease was histologically confirmed CIN2+. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ra Results. Out of 2410 potentially relevant citations, 8 publications, incorporating 1513 treated women, were included. Pooled sensitivities were 0.79 (95%CI 0.72-0.85) for cytology, 0.92 (0.87-0.96) for hrHPV testing, and 0.95 (0.91-0.98) for co-testing. HrHPV testing was more sensitive than cytology to predict post-treatment CIN2+ (relative sensitivity 1.15: 95%CI 1.06-1.25). Pooled specificities were 0.81 (95%CI 0.74-0.86) for cytology, 0.76 (0.67-0.84) for hrHPV testing and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) fo Conclusions. This review indicates that the hrHPV test should be included in post-treatment testing 6 months after treatment, because hrHPV testing has a higher sensitivity than cytology in detecting high-grade post-treatment disease and has a similar specificity. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Five-Year Cervical (Pre)Cancer Risk of Women Screened by HPV and Cytology Testing

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening will be introduced in the Netherlands in 2016. We assessed the 5-year cervical (pre) cancer risk of women with different combinations of HPV and cytology test results. Special attention was paid to risks for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and 2 or more (CIN3+/2+) of HPV-positive women with a negative triage test, because this determines the safety of a 5-year screening interval for HPV-positive, triage test-negative women. In addition, age-related effects were studied. A total of 25,553 women were screened by HPV testing and cytology in a screening setting. Women were managed on the presence of HPV and/or abnormal cytology. Five-year cumulative incidences for CIN3+/2+ were calculated. Five-year CIN3+(2+) risk was 10.0% (17.7%) among HPV-positive women. When stratified by cytology, the CIN3+ (CIN2+) risk was 7.9% (12.9%) for women with normal cytology and 22.2% (45.3%) for women with equivocal or mildly abnormal (i.e., BMD) cytology. For HPV-negative women, the 5-year CIN3+(2+) risk was 0.09% (0.21%). Additional triage of HPV-positive women with normal cytology by repeat cytology at 12 months showed a 5-year CIN3+(2+) risk of 4.1% (7.0%). HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal cytology at baseline had comparable risks of 3.5% (7.9%). HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal baseline cytology and normal repeat cytology had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 0.42%. No age-related effects were detected. In conclusion, HPV-positive women with normal cytology and a negative triage test, either repeat cytology after 12 months or baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping, develop a non-negligible CIN3+ risk over 5 years. Therefore, extension of the screening interval over 5 years only seems possible for HPV screen-negative women. (C) 2015 AACR

Triaging borderline/mild dyskaryotic Pap cytology with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology testing: cross-sectional and longitudinal outcome study

BACKGROUND: Women with borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) cytology smears are currently followed up with repeat testing at 6 and 18 months. The objective of this study is to analyse the cross-sectional and longitudinal performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) and CIN2+ in women with BMD, and to compare the results with baseline human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. METHODS: Conventional Pap cytology specimens of 256 women with BMD were dual stained for p16/Ki-67 retrospectively, and compared with baseline HPV results and long-term follow-up results. RESULTS: p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 64.4% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100.% for CIN3+. Human papillomavirus testing demonstrated similar sensitivity (96.3%), and NPV (99.1%), but a significantly lower specificity (57.6% P=0.024) for CIN3+. Sensitivity, specificity and NPV for CIN2+ of dual-stained cytology were 89.7%, 73.1% and 95.1%, respectively, which was similar when compared with HPV testing. Dual-stained cytology showed a significant lower referral rate than HPV testing (43.6% vs 49.1% P=0.043). During long-term follow-up, no CIN3+ lesions developed in HPV-positive, dual-stained negative women. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable sensitivity and NPV of dual-stained cytology for CIN3+, combined with a significantly higher specificity, makes p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology a viable alternative to HPV testing for triaging BMD