Folkert J. van Kemenade

Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions than is cytology, but detection of HPV by DNA screening in two screening rounds 5 years apart has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to assess whether HPV DNA testing in the first screen decreases detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse, CIN grade 2 or worse, and cervical cancer in the second screening. METHODS In this randomised trial, women aged 29-56 years participating in the cervical screening programme in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to receive HPV DNA (GP5+/6+-PCR method) and cytology co-testing or cytology testing alone, from January, 1999, to September, 2002. Randomisation (in a 1:1 ratio) was done with computer-generated random numbers after the cervical specimen had been taken. At the second screening 5 years later, HPV DNA and cytology co-testing was done in both groups; researchers were masked to the patients assignment. The primary endpoint was the number of CIN grade 3 or worse detected. Analysis was done by intention to screen. The trial is now finished and is registered, number ISRCTN20781131. FINDINGS 22,420 women were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 22 518 to the control group; 19 999 in the intervention group and 20,106 in the control group were eligible for analysis at the first screen. At the second screen, 19 579 women in the intervention group and 19,731 in the control group were eligible, of whom 16,750 and 16,743, respectively, attended the second screen. In the second round, CIN grade 3 or worse was less common in the intervention group than in the control group (88 of 19 579 in the intervention group vs 122 of 19,731 in the control group; relative risk 0·73, 95% CI 0·55-0·96; p=0·023). Cervical cancer was also less common in the intervention group than in the control group (four of 19 579 in the intervention group vs 14 of 19,731; 0·29, 0·10-0·87; p=0·031). In the baseline round, detection of CIN grade 3 or worse did not differ significantly between groups (171 of 19 999 vs 150 of 20,106; 1·15, 0·92-1·43; p=0·239) but was significantly more common in women with normal cytology (34 of 19,286 vs 12 of 19,373; 2·85, 1·47-5·49; p=0·001). Furthermore, significantly more cases of CIN grade 2 or worse were detected in the intervention group than in the control group (267 of 19 999 vs 215 of 20,106; 1·25, 1·05-1·50; p=0·015). In the second screen, fewer HPV16-positive CIN grade 3 or worse were detected in the intervention group than in the control group (17 of 9481 vs 35 of 9354; 0·48, 0·27-0·85; p=0·012); detection of non-HPV16-positive CIN grade 3 or worse did not differ between groups (25 of 9481 vs 25 of 9354; 0·99, 0·57-1·72; p=1·00). The cumulative detection of CIN grade 3 or worse and CIN grade 2 or worse did not differ significantly between study arms, neither for the whole study group (CIN grade 3 or worse: 259 of 19 999 vs 272 of 20,106; 0·96, 0·81-1·14, p=0·631; CIN grade 2 or worse: 427 of 19 999 vs 399 of 20,106; 1·08, 0·94-1·24; p=0·292), nor for subgroups of women invited for the first time (CIN grade 3 or worse in women aged 29-33 years: 102 of 3139 vs 105 of 3128; 0·97, 0·74-1·27; CIN grade 2 or worse in women aged 29-33 years: 153 of 3139 vs 151 of 3128; 1·01, 0·81-1·26; CIN grade 3 or worse in women aged 34-56 years: 157 of 16,860 vs 167 of 16 978; 0·95, 0·76-1·18; CIN grade 2 or worse in women aged 34-56 years: 274 of 16,860 vs 248 of 16 978; 1·11, 0·94-1·32). INTERPRETATION Implementation of HPV DNA testing in cervical screening leads to earlier detection of clinically relevant CIN grade 2 or worse, which when adequately treated, improves protection against CIN grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer. Early detection of high-grade cervical legions caused by HPV16 was a major component of this benefit. Our results lend support to the use of HPV DNA testing for all women aged 29 years and older. FUNDING Zorg Onderzoek Nederland (Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development).

POBASCAM, a population‐based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high‐risk HPV testing in cervical screening: Design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women

Cytological cervical screening is rather inefficient because of relatively high proportions of false negative and false positive smears. To evaluate the efficiency of high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, by GP5+/6+ PCR‐enzyme immunoassay (EIA), in conjunction with cytology (Intervention Group) to that of the classical cytology (Control Group), we initiated the Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam (POBASCAM). POBASCAM is a population‐based randomized controlled trial for implementation of hrHPV testing in cervical screening. The outcome measure is the proportion of histologically confirmed ≥CIN3 lesions in each study arm up to and including the next screening round after 5 years. We present the design, methods and baseline data of POBASCAM. When, in the next 5 years, the follow‐up will be completed, the data obtained will be used in model studies, including a cost‐effectiveness study, to advise the Dutch Ministry of Public Health in deciding whether cervical screening should be based on combined hrHPV and cytology testing instead of cytology alone. Between January 1999 and September 2002, 44,102 women (mean age = 42.8 years; range = 29–61) that participated in the regular Dutch screening program were included in our study. In the Intervention Group the distribution of cytology and hrHPV by cytology class was as follows: normal cytology 96.6% (3.6% hrHPV positive); borderline and mild dyskaryosis (BMD) 2.5% (34.6% hrHPV positive); and moderate dyskaryosis or worse (>BMD) 0.8% (88.3% hrHPV positive), i.e., 0.4% moderate dyskaryosis (82.9% hrHPV positive), 0.3% severe dyskaryosis (92.5% hrHPV positive), 0.1% carcinoma in situ (95.2% hrHPV positive), <0.1% suspected for invasive cancer (hrHPV positive 100.0%). In the Control Group 96.5% of the women had normal cytology, 2.4% BMD and 0.8% >BMD, i.e., 0.4% moderate dyskaryosis, 0.3% severe dyskaryosis, 0.1% carcinoma in situ, <0.1% suspected for invasive cancer. The presence of hrHPV was age‐dependent, decreasing from 12.0% at 29–33 years to 2.4% at 59–61 years. Among women with a positive hrHPV test, the prevalence of BMD was age‐dependent ranging from 20.2% at 29–33 years to 7.8% at 54–58 years. In contrast, the risk of >BMD of 13.7% among women with a positive hrHPV test was not age‐dependent. Our study indicates that large‐scale hrHPV testing by GP5+/6+ PCR‐EIA in the setting of population‐based cervical screening is practically feasible, is accepted by both participating women and general practitioners and yields highly reproducible results.

HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study.

Objective To determine whether offering self sampling of cervicovaginal material for high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is an effective screening method for women who do not attend regular cervical screening programmes. Design Cohort study (the PROHTECT trial). Settings Noord-Holland and Flevoland regions of the Netherlands, December 2006 to December 2007, including 13 laboratories, gynaecologists, and more than 800 general practitioners. Participants 28 073 women who had not responded to two invitations to the regular cervical screening programme: 27 792 women were assigned to the self sampling group and invited to submit a self collected cervicovaginal sample for HPV testing; 281 were assigned to the recall control group and received a second re-invitation for conventional cytology. Intervention Women with a positive result on the high risk HPV test on their self sample material were referred to their general practitioner. Women with abnormal results on cytology were referred for colposcopy. Women with normal results on cytology were re-evaluated after one year by cytology and high risk HPV testing and referred for colposcopy if either result was positive. Main outcome measures Attendance rate in both groups and yield of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II/III or worse (≥CIN II/≥CIN III) in self sampling responders. Results The compliance rate in the self sampling group was significantly higher than in the control group (crude 26.6% v 16.4%, P<0.001; adjusted 27.5% v 16.6%, P<0.001). The number of detected ≥CIN II and ≥CIN III lesions in self sampling responders was 99 (1.3%) and 76 (1.0%), respectively. Self sampling responders who had not participated in the previous round of screening (43%) had increased relative risks of ≥CIN II (2.04, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 3.28) and ≥CIN III (2.28, 1.31 to 3.96) compared with self sampling women who had been screened in the previous round (57%). Conclusions Offering self sampling by sending a device for collecting cervicovaginal specimens for high risk HPV testing to women who did not attend regular screening is a feasible and effective method of increasing coverage in a screening programme. The response rate and the yield of high grade lesions support implementation of this method for such women. Trial registration ISRCTN45527158.

Coexpression of BMI-1 and EZH2 Polycomb Group Genes in Reed-Sternberg Cells of Hodgkin’s Disease

The human BMI-1 and EZH2 polycomb group (PcG) proteins are constituents of two distinct complexes of PcG proteins with gene regulatory activity. PcG proteins ensure correct embryonic development by suppressing homeobox genes, and they also contribute to regulation of lymphopoiesis. The two PcG complexes are thought to regulate different target genes and probably have different tissue distributions. Altered expression of PcG genes is linked to transformation in cell lines and induction of tumors in mutant mice, but the role of PcG genes in human cancers is relatively unexplored. Using antisera specific for human PcG proteins, we used immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence to detect BMI-1 and EZH2 PcG proteins in Reed-Sternberg cells of Hodgkins disease (HRS). The expression patterns were compared to those in follicular lymphocytes of the lymph node, the normal counterparts of HRS cells. In the germinal center, expression of BMI-1 is restricted to resting Mib-1/Ki-67(-) centrocytes, whereas EZH2 expression is associated with dividing Mib-1/Ki-67(+) centroblasts. By contrast, HRS cells coexpress BMI-1, EZH2, and Mib-1/Ki-67. Because HRS cells are thought to originate from germinal center lymphocytes, these observations suggests that Hodgkins disease is associated with coexpression of BMI-1 and EZH2 in HRS cells.

Evaluation of 14 triage strategies for HPV DNA-positive women in population-based cervical screening.

High‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for detection of high‐grade intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). To avoid over‐referral to colposcopy and overtreatment, hrHPV‐positive women require triage testing and/or followup. A total of 25,658 women (30–60 years) enrolled in a population‐based cohort study had an adequate baseline Pap smear and hrHPV test. The end‐point was cumulative two‐year risk of CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). In a post‐hoc analysis, fourteen triage/followup strategies for hrHPV‐positive women (n = 1,303) were evaluated for colposcopy referral rate, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Five strategies involved triage testing without a repeat test and nine strategies involved triage testing followed by one repeat testing. The tests were cytology, hrHPV, HPV16/18 genotyping and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping. Results were adjusted for women in the cohort study who did not attend repeat testing. Of the strategies without repeat testing, combined cytology and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping gave the highest NPV of 98.9% (95%CI 97.6–99.5%). The corresponding colposcopy referral rate was 58.1% (95%CI 55.4–60.8%). Eight of the nine strategies with retesting had an estimated NPV of at least 98%. Of those, cytology triage followed by cytology at 12 months had a markedly lower colposcopy referral rate of 33.4% (95%CI 30.2–36.7%) than the other strategies. The NPV of the latter strategy was 99.3% (95%CI 98.1–99.8%). Triage hrHPV‐positive women with cytology, followed by repeat cytology testing yielded a high NPV and modest colposcopy referral rate and appear to be the most feasible management strategy.

High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening.

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self‐sampling, i.e., offering self‐sampling of (cervico‐)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self‐sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician‐taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self‐sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self‐samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician‐obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self‐ and clinician‐sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non‐attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self‐sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re‐attracting original non‐attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self‐testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self‐sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology‐based call‐recall programs.

Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: An effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs

Women not attending cervical screening programs are at increased risk of cervical cancer. We investigated in these nonresponders to what extent offering self‐sampling devices for cervicovaginal brushes for high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing would induce participation and, if so, what the yield of precursor (i.e. CIN2 or worse) lesions following self‐sampling would be. In addition, we assessed screening history of participants and costs per detected high‐grade CIN2 or worse (“CIN2+”) lesion in comparison to the regular program in the Netherlands. Nonresponders received a device for hrHPV testing (self‐sampling group, n = 2,546) or an extra recall for conventional cytology (control group, n = 284). The percentage of self‐sampling responders were compared with responders in the recall group. hrHPV positive self‐sampling responders were invited for cytology and colposcopy. CIN2+ yield and costs per detected CIN2+ were evaluated. Active response was higher in the self‐sampling than in the control group (34.2 vs. 17.6%; p < 0.001). hrHPV positive self‐sampling responders were less likely to have a prior screening history than screening participants (p < 0.001), indicating that they are regular nonresponders. hrHPV prevalence was similar (8.0 vs. 6.8%; p = 0.11), but CIN2+ yield was higher in self‐sampling responders compared to screening participants (1.67 vs. 0.97%; OR = 2.93, 95% CI 1.48–5.80; p = 0.0013). Costs per CIN2+ lesion detected via self‐sampling were in the same range as those calculated for conventional cytological screening (€8,836 vs. €7,599). Offering self‐sampling for hrHPV testing in nonresponders is an attractive adjunct to effectively increase population coverage of screening without the adverse effect of markedly increased costs per detected CIN2+ lesion.

High Concordance of Results of Testing for Human Papillomavirus in Cervicovaginal Samples Collected by Two Methods, with Comparison of a Novel Self-Sampling Device to a Conventional Endocervical Brush

ABSTRACT A user-friendly self-sampling method for collecting representative cervical cell material would lower the threshold for women to respond to the invitation for cervical screening. In the present article, we introduce such a device; we have evaluated its sensitivity and specificity to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), via high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection and liquid-based cytology (LBC), compared to endocervical brush samples obtained by gynecologists. Women who had a cervical smear reading of moderate dyskaryosis or worse or a repeat equivocal Pap smear result in the cervical screening program (n = 64) and healthy volunteers (n = 32) took a self-obtained sample at home prior to their visit to the gynecological outpatient department. At the outpatient department, an endocervical brush smear was taken, followed by colposcopy and biopsy whenever applicable. Both self-obtained samples and endocervical brush samples were immediately collected in Surepath preservation solution and used for LBC and hrHPV testing (by general primer-mediated GP5+/6+ PCR). hrHPV test results showed a good concordance between the two sample types (87%; κ = 0.71), with sensitivities for prevalent high-grade CIN that did not differ significantly (92% and 95%; P = 1.0). The hrHPV test on self-obtained samples proved to be at least as sensitive for high-grade CIN as cytology on endocervical brush samples (34/37 versus 31/37; P = 0.5). LBC showed a poor concordance between self-obtained and endocervical brush samples (60%; κ = 0.27). In conclusion, self-obtained samples taken by this novel device are highly representative of the hrHPV status of the cervix. In combination with hrHPV testing, the use of this device may have implications for increasing the attendance rate for cervical screening programs.

Combined CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation analysis to detect (pre‐)malignant cervical lesions in high‐risk HPV‐positive women

Given the lower specificity for high‐grade cervical lesions of high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing compared to cytology, additional triage testing for hrHPV test‐positive women is needed to detect high‐grade cervical lesions. Here, we tested whether combined methylation analysis for cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1) and T‐lymphocyte maturation associated protein (MAL), both functionally involved in cervical carcinogenesis, could serve as such a triage marker. Four quantitative methylation‐specific PCRs (qMSP), two for CADM1 (regions M12 and M18) and MAL (regions M1 and M2) each, were applied to 261 cervical tissue specimens ranging from no neoplasia to carcinoma. When qMSPs were combined and positivity for at least one of the qMSPs in the combination was taken into account, the highest positivity rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) lesions (97%) and squamous cell‐ and adeno‐carcinomas (99%) were obtained by combining a single CADM1 marker with a single MAL marker. Subsequent qMSP analysis of 70 GP5+/6+‐PCR hrHPV‐positive scrapings revealed that a two‐marker panel consisting of CADM1‐M18 and MAL‐M1 was most discriminative, detecting 90% of women with CIN3 (n = 30), whereas it showed a positive result in only 13.5% of women without cervical disease (n = 40). Finally, we applied hrHPV GP5+/6+‐PCR testing followed by CADM1‐M18/MAL‐M1 methylation analysis to a cohort of 79 women visiting the outpatient colposcopy clinic. hrHPV testing revealed a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 33% for CIN3+. Additional CADM1‐M18/MAL‐M1 methylation analysis on the hrHPV‐positive women increased the specificity to 78% with a sensitivity of 70%. In conclusion, the methylation marker panel CADM1‐M18 and MAL‐M1 may serve as an alternative molecular triage tool for hrHPV‐positive women.

Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program

We evaluated the effect of offering brush‐based vaginal self‐sampling for high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to non‐attendees of the cervical screening program on response rate, compliance to follow‐up and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2+/CIN3+) yield. In addition, concordance of hrHPV test results between physician‐taken cervical scrapes and vaginal self‐samples was determined. A total of 26,409 nonattending women were randomly assigned to receive a vaginal brush device for hrHPV testing by Hybrid Capture‐2® method (i.e., self‐sampling group, n = 26,145) or a reinvitation for regular cytology‐based screening (i.e., recall control group, n = 264). hrHPV‐positive self‐sampling responders were invited for a physician‐taken scrape for cytology and blinded hrHPV testing. If cytology was abnormal, women were referred for colposcopy. Response rate in the self‐sampling group was significantly increased compared to the recall control group (30.8% versus 6.5%; p < 0.001). The concordance rate between hrHPV detection in self‐samples and corresponding physician‐taken cervical scrape samples was 68.8%. Amongst women with CIN3+ and CIN2+, the concordance rates in hrHPV positivity between both samples were 95.5% and 93.8%, respectively. Adherence at baseline to cytology triage of hrHPV‐positive self‐sampling women (89.1%) and colposcopy referral of those with abnormal cytology (95.8%) was high. The CIN2+/CIN3+/carcinoma yields were 1.5%, 1.0% and 0.1%, respectively, in self‐sampling responders. In conclusion, offering hrHPV testing on self‐sampled vaginal material with a brush device to non‐attendees significantly increases the attendance to the regular screening program, yields hrHPV test results that are in very good concordance with those of physician‐taken scrapes in women with CIN2+/CIN3+, and is effective in detecting CIN2+/CIN3+.