Baseline findings and safety of infrequent vs. frequent screening of human papillomavirus vaccinated women

Less frequent cervical cancer screening in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinated birth cohorts could produce considerable savings without increasing cervical cancer incidence and loss of life-years. We report here the baseline findings and interim results of safety and accuracy of infrequent screening among HPV16/18 vaccinated females. The entire 1992-1994 birth-cohorts (30,139 females) were invited to a community-randomized HPV16/18-vaccination trial. A total of 9,482 female trial participants received HPV16/18-vaccination in 2007-2009 at age of 13-15. At age 22, 4,273 (45%) of these females consented to attend a randomized trial on frequent (ages 22/25/28; Arm 1: 2,073 females) vs. infrequent screening (age 28; Arm 2: 2,200 females) in 2014-2017. Females (1,329), who had got HPV16/18 vaccination at age 18 comprised the safety Arm 3. Baseline prevalence and incidence of HPV16/18 and other high-risk HPV types were: 0.5% (53/1,000 follow-up years, 10(4)) and 25% (2,530/10(4)) in the frequently screened Arm 1; 0.2% (23/10(4)) and 24% (2,413/10(4)) in the infrequently screened Arm 2; and 3.1% (304/10(4)) and 23% (2,284/10(4)) in the safety Arm 3. Corresponding prevalence of HSIL/ASC-H and of any abnormal cytological findings were: 0.3 and 4.2% (Arm 1), 0.4 and 5.3% (Arm 2) and 0.3 and 4.7% (Arm 3). Equally rare HSIL/CIN3 findings in the infrequently screened safety Arm A3 (0.4%) and in the frequently screened Arm 1 (0.4%) indicate no safety concerns on infrequent screening despite the up to 10 times higher HPV16/18 baseline prevalence and incidence in the former.Peer reviewe

Population-Level Effects of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Programs on Infections with Nonvaccine Genotypes

We analyzed human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalences during prevaccination and postvaccination periods to consider possible changes in nonvaccine HPV genotypes after introduction of vaccines that confer protection against 2 high-risk types, HPV16 and HPV18. Our meta-analysis included 9 studies with data for 13,886 girls and women ≤19 years of age and 23,340 women 20–24 years of age. We found evidence of cross-protection for HPV31 among the younger age group after vaccine introduction but little evidence for reductions of HPV33 and HPV45. For the group this same age group, we also found slight increases in 2 nonvaccine high-risk HPV types (HPV39 and HPV52) and in 2 possible high-risk types (HPV53 and HPV73). However, results between age groups and vaccines used were inconsistent, and the increases had possible alternative explanations; consequently, these data provided no clear evidence for type replacement. Continued monitoring of these HPV genotypes is important

Human papillomavirus vaccine efficacy against invasive, HPV-positive cancers : population-based follow-up of a cluster-randomised trial

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination protects against HPV, a necessary risk factor for cervical cancer. We now report results from population-based follow-up of randomised cohorts that vaccination provides HPV-type-specific protection against invasive cancer. Methods Individually and/or cluster randomised cohorts of HPV-vaccinated and non-vaccinated women were enrolled in 2002-2005. HPV vaccine cohorts comprised originally 16-17 year-old HPV 16/18-vaccinated PATRICIA (NCT00122681) and 012 trial (NCT00169494) participants (2465) and HPV6/11/16/18-vaccinated FUTURE II (NCT00092534) participants (866). Altogether, 3341 vaccines were followed by the Finnish Cancer Registry in the same way as 16 526 non-HPV-vaccinated controls. The control cohort stemmed from 15 665 originally 18-19 years-old women enrolled in 2003 (6499) or 2005 (9166) and 861 placebo recipients of the FUTURE II trial. The follow-up started 6 months after the clinical trials in 2007 and 2009 and ended in 2019. It was age aligned for the cohorts. Findings During a follow-up time of up to 11 years, we identified 17 HPV-positive invasive cancer cases (14 cervical cancers, 1 vaginal cancer, 1 vulvar cancer and 1 tongue cancer) in the non-HPV-vaccinated cohorts and no cases in the HPV-vaccinated cohorts. HPV typing of diagnostic tumour blocks found HPV16 in nine cervical cancer cases, HPV18, HPV33 and HPV52 each in two cases and HPV45 in one cervical cancer case. The vaginal, vulvar and tongue cancer cases were, respectively, positive for HPV16, HPV52/66 and HPV213. Intention-to-treat vaccine efficacy against all HPV-positive cancers was 100% (95% CI 2 to 100, p Interpretation Vaccination is effective against invasive HPV-positive cancer.Peer reviewe

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