High-risk HPV type-specific clearance rates in cervical screening

We assessed clearance rates of 14 high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types in hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology and borderline/mild dyskaryosis (BMD) in a population-based cervical screening cohort of 44 102 women. The 6-month hrHPV type-specific clearance rates, that is, clearance of the same type as detected at baseline, in women with normal and BMD smears were 43% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39–47) and 29% (95% CI 24–34), respectively. Corresponding 18-month clearance rates were markedly higher, namely 65% (95% CI 60–69) and 41% (95% CI 36–47), respectively. The lowest clearance rates in women with normal cytology were observed for HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, and HPV33. Significantly reduced 18-month clearance rates at a significance level of 1% were observed for HPV16 (49%, 95% CI 41–59) and HPV31 (50%, 95% CI 39–63) in women with normal cytology, and for HPV16 (19%, 95% CI 12–29) in women with BMD. Among women who did not clear hrHPV, women with HPV16 persistence displayed an increased detection rate of ⩾CIN3 (normal P<0.0001; BMD, P=0.005). The type-specific differences in clearance rates indicate the potential value of hrHPV genotyping in screening programs. Our data support close surveillance (i.e. referral directly, or within 6 months) of women with HPV16 and are inconclusive for surveillance of women with HPV18, HPV31, and HPV33. For the other hrHPV-positive women, it seems advisable to adopt a conservative management with a long waiting period, as hrHPV clearance is markedly higher after 18 months than after 6 months and the risk for ⩾CIN3 is low

Preferential risk of HPV16 for squamous cell carcinoma and of HPV18 for adenocarcinoma of the cervix compared to women with normal cytology in The Netherlands

We present the type-distribution of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types in women with normal cytology (n=1467), adenocarcinoma in situ (ACIS) (n=61), adenocarcinoma (n=70), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (n=83). Cervical adenocarcinoma and ACIS were significantly more frequently associated with HPV18 (ORMH 15.0; 95% CI 8.6–26.1 and 21.8; 95% CI 11.9–39.8, respectively) than normal cytology. Human papillomavirus16 was only associated with adenocarcinoma and ACIS after exclusion of HPV18-positive cases (ORMH 6.6; 95% CI 2.8–16.0 and 9.4; 95% CI 2.8–31.2, respectively). For SCC, HPV16 prevalence was elevated (ORMH 7.0; 95% CI 3.9–12.4) compared to cases with normal cytology, and HPV18 prevalence was only increased after exclusion of HPV16-positive cases (ORMH 4.3; 95% CI 1.6–11.6). These results suggest that HPV18 is mainly a risk factor for the development of adenocarcinoma whereas HPV16 is associated with both SCC and adenocarcinoma

Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening

We prospectively evaluated the 5-year predictive values of adding high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to cytology for the detection of ⩾cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)3 lesions in a population-based cohort of 2810 women. At baseline, nine (0.3%) women had prevalent lesions ⩾CIN3, all being hrHPV positive. After 5 years of follow-up, four (6.5%) of the 62 hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology developed lesions ⩾CIN3, vs only one (0.05%) of the 2175 hrHPV-negative women with normal cytology. High-risk human papillomavirus testing or combined screening revealed a much higher sensitivity, at the cost of a small decrease in specificity, and a higher negative predictive value for the detection of lesions ⩾CIN3 till the next screening round (5 years) than cytology alone

Age-dependent prevalence of 14 high-risk HPV types in the Netherlands: implications for prophylactic vaccination and screening

We determined the prevalence of type-specific hrHPV infections in the Netherlands on cervical scrapes of 45 362 women aged 18–65 years. The overall hrHPV prevalence peaked at the age of 22 with peak prevalence of 24%. Each of the 14 hrHPV types decreased significantly with age (P-values between 0.0009 and 0.03). The proportion of HPV16 in hrHPV-positive infections also decreased with age (OR=0.76 (10-year scale), 95% CI=0.67–0.85), and a similar trend was observed for HPV16 when selecting hrHPV-positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.56–1.01). In women eligible for routine screening (age 29–61 years) with confirmed CIN2+, 65% was infected with HPV16 and/or HPV18. When HPV16/18-positive infections in women eligible for routine screening were discarded, the positive predictive value of cytology for the detection of CIN2+ decreased from 27 to 15%, the positive predictive value of hrHPV testing decreased from 26 to 15%, and the predictive value of a double-positive test (positive HPV test and a positive cytology) decreased from 54 to 41%. In women vaccinated against HPV16/18, screening remains important to detect cervical lesions caused by non-HPV16/18 types. To maintain a high-positive predictive value, screening algorithms must be carefully re-evaluated with regard to the screening modalities and length of the screening interval

Clinical Evaluation of a GP5+/6+-Based Luminex Assay Having Full High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Genotyping Capability and an Internal Control

The LMNX genotyping kit HPV GP (LMNX) is based on the clinically validated GP5+/6+ PCR, with a genotyping readout as an alternative for the more established enzyme immunoassay (EIA) detection of 14 targeted high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types. LMNX is additionally provided with an internal control probe. Here, we present an analysis of the clinical performance of the LMNX using a sample panel and infrastructure provided by the international VALGENT (Validation of Genotyping Tests) project. This panel consisted of cervical specimens from approximately 1,000 women attending routine screening, “enriched” with 300 women with abnormal cytology. Cases were defined as women classified with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2+ (CIN2+) (n = 102) or CIN3+ (n = 55) within the previous 18 months. Controls were women who had normal cytology results over two subsequent screening rounds at a 3-year interval (n = 746). The GP5+/6+-PCR EIA (EIA) was used as a comparator assay and showed sensitivities of 94.1% and 98.2% for CIN2+ and CIN3+, respectively, with a clinical specificity of 92.4% among women aged ≥30 years. The LMNX demonstrated clinical sensitivities of 96.1% for CIN2+ and of 98.2% for CIN3+ and a clinical specificity of 92.6% for women aged ≥30 years. The LMNX and EIA were in high agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.969) for the detection of 14 hrHPVs in aggregate, and no significant difference was observed (McNemar's P = 0.629). The LMNX internal control detected 0.6% inadequate specimens. Based on our study results, we consider the LMNX, similarly to the EIA, useful for HPV-based cervical cancer screening

Cross-Sectional Comparison of an Automated Hybrid Capture 2 Assay and the Consensus GP5+/6+ PCR Method in a Population-Based Cervical Screening Program

In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8%) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8%) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (≥CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97% (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91% (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as ≥CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of ≥CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 in population-based cervical screening

Implementation of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening without a concomitant decrease in participation rate

Adding high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to screening increases the efficacy of cervical screening programmes. However, hrHPV testing may result in a lower participation rate because of the perceived association with sexually transmitted infections. We describe how testing for hrHPV was added to cervical screening in the POpulation‐BAsed SCreening study AMsterdam (POBASCAM) trial. Participation rates of the screening programme before and after hrHPV implementation were evaluated in the region where the POBASCAM trial was carried out. The participation rate was 58.7% before and 61.4% after the addition of hrHPV testing to screening (p<0.001). An inventory of frequently asked questions is presented. Thus, hrHPV testing can be added to cervical screening by cytology without a decrease in participation rate

Inference of type-specific HPV transmissibility, progression and clearance rates: a mathematical modelling approach.

Quantifying rates governing the clearance of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and its progression to clinical disease, together with viral transmissibility and the duration of naturally-acquired immunity, is essential in estimating the impact of vaccination programmes and screening or testing regimes. However, the complex natural history of HPV makes this difficult. We infer the viral transmissibility, rate of waning natural immunity and rates of progression and clearance of infection of 13 high-risk and 2 non-oncogenic HPV types, making use of a number of rich datasets from Sweden. Estimates of viral transmissibility, clearance of initial infection and waning immunity were derived in a Bayesian framework by fitting a susceptible-infectious-recovered-susceptible (SIRS) transmission model to age- and type-specific HPV prevalence data from both a cross-sectional study and a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of primary HPV screening. The models fitted well, but over-estimated the prevalence of four high-risk types with respect to the data. Three of these types (HPV-33, -35 and -58) are among the most closely related phylogenetically to the most prevalent HPV-16. The fourth (HPV-45) is the most closely related to HPV-18; the second most prevalent type. We suggest that this may be an indicator of cross-immunity. Rates of progression and clearance of clinical lesions were additionally estimated from longitudinal data gathered as part of the same RCT. Our estimates of progression and clearance rates are consistent with the findings of survival analysis studies and we extend the literature by estimating progression and clearance rates for non-16 and non-18 high-risk types. We anticipate that such type-specific estimates will be useful in the parameterisation of further models and in developing our understanding of HPV natural history