George Terry

Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study

BACKGROUND Certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) are the primary cause of almost all cervical cancers. HPV testing of cervical smears is more sensitive but less specific than cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). HPV testing as a primary screening approach requires efficient management of HPV-positive women with negative or borderline cytology. We aimed to compare the detection rate and positive predictive values of HPV assay with cytology and to determine the best management strategy for HPV-positive women. METHODS We did a multicentre screening study of 11085 women aged 30-60 years. Women with borderline cytology and women positive for high-risk HPV with negative cytology were randomised to immediate colposcopy or to surveillance by repeat HPV testing, cytology, and colposcopy at 12 months. FINDINGS HPV testing was more sensitive than borderline or worse cytology (97.1% vs 76.6%, p=0.002) but less specific (93.3% vs 95.8%, p<0.0001) for detecting CIN2+. Of 825 randomised women, surveillance at 12 months was as effective as immediate colposcopy. In women positive for HPV at baseline, who had surveillance, 73 (45%) of 164 women with negative cytology and eight (35%) of 23 women with borderline cytology were HPV negative at 6-12 months. No CIN2+ was found in these women, nor in women with an initial negative HPV test with borderline (n=211) or mild (32) cytology. INTERPRETATION HPV testing could be used for primary screening in women older than 30 years, with cytology used to triage HPV-positive women. HPV-positive women with normal or borderline cytology (about 6% of screened women) could be managed by repeat testing after 12 months. This approach could potentially improve detection rates of CIN2+ without increasing the colposcopy referral rate.

Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening

Several studies have examined the role of tests for human papillomavirus (HPV) in screening for cervical cancer but as yet the relevance is unclear. We looked at HPV testing for types 16, 18, 31, and 33 on material taken at the time of a cervical smear in 2009 eligible women having routine screening. Women with any degree of dyskaryosis or high levels of one of these HPV types were referred for colposcopy. 44% of the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions of grade 2/3 detected had negative cytology and were found only by HPV testing. A further 22% of the CIN 2/3 lesions were positive for HPV but showed only borderline or mild cytological changes. The positive predictive value of HPV testing was 42%, which was similar to that for moderate dyskaryosis. HPV types 16 and 31 were more sensitive and specific for CIN 2/3 than were types 18 or 33. However, 25% of the CIN 2/3 lesions were not detected by these four HPV tests. We suggest that HPV testing could usefully augment but not replace conventional cytology. These results should stimulate a much larger randomised trial to assess the impact of these improved CIN 2/3 detection rates on the subsequent incidence of invasive cancer.

HPV testing in primary screening of older women.

SummaryCertain types of the human papilloma virus (HPV) are well established as the primary cause of cervical cancer. Several studies have shown that HPV testing can improve the detection rate of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), but these have been carried out primarily in younger women. In this study we evaluated the role of HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology in women aged 35 or over. An additional aim was to evaluate commercially available kits for HPV testing. A total of 2988 eligible women aged 34 or more attending for a routine smear in 40 general practitioner practices received HPV testing in addition to routine cytology, after having given written informed consent. Samples were assayed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and two versions of the Hybrid Capture test for HPV, and women were invited for colposcopy if there was any cytological abnormality (including borderline smears) or the PCR test was positive. Any apparent abnormality was biopsied and loop-excision was performed as necessary. CIN was judged by histology; 42 women had high-grade CIN, of which six were cytology negative (86% sensitivity for borderline or worse) and three had a borderline smear (79% sensitivity for mild dyskaryosis or worse). The positive predictive value of a borderline smear was only 3.1%. Eleven high-grade lesions were negative by the PCR HPV test (sensitivity 74%). The first generation Hybrid Capture II test had a similar sensitivity but an unacceptably high false positive rate (18.3%), while the newer Hybrid Capture II microtitre kit had a 95% sensitivity and a 2.3% positivity rate in normal women when used at a 2 pg ml–1 cut-off (positive predictive value 27%). Cytology performed very well in this older cohort of women. The newer Hybrid Capture II microtitre test may be a useful adjunct, especially if the results reported here are reproducible in other studies. A combined screening test offers the possibility of greater protection and/or longer screening intervals, which could reduce the overall cost of the screening programme.

Human papillomavirus genotype as a predictor of persistence and development of high-grade lesions in women with minor cervical abnormalities

Women referred for colposcopy with mild and moderate dyskaryosis and found to have only minor cervical abnormalities were screened for oncogenic human papilloma virus (HPV) types. The natural development of these abnormalities in 42 HPV‐positive women was assessed by cytology and colposcopy at 6‐month intervals for up to 2 years. As is the case with cancers and high‐grade cervical intra‐epithelial neoplasia (CIN), minor cervical abnormalities were frequently found to be associated with HPV16, ‐18, ‐31 and ‐33. Viral persistence and the development of high‐grade lesions were found to be closely associated with HPV16; 56% of HPV16 isolates were persistent compared to 7% of other HPV types, and all 4 subsequent CIN 3 lesions were in women with persistent infection. A striking association of persistence with a variant of HPV16 having a base change at nucleotide 350 was observed. Ten of 12 women with this variant had persistent infection compared to only 1 of 16 women infected with the HPV16 prototype.

Comparison of Predictors for High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Women with Abnormal Smears

Background: The detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of several adjunctive tests for the detection of high-grade CIN in a population referred to colposcopy because of abnormal cytology. Methods: 953 women participated in the study. Up to seven tests were carried out on a liquid PreservCyt sample: Hybrid Capture II (Digene), Amplicor (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), APTIMA HPV assay (Gen-Probe), Linear Array (Roche), Clinical-Arrays (Genomica), and CINtec p16INK4a Cytology (mtm Laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology seen on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. Results: 273 (28.6%) women had high-grade disease (CIN2+) on worst histology, with 193 (20.2%) having CIN3+. For the detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture II had a sensitivity of 99.6%, specificity of 28.4%, and PPV of 36.1%. Amplicor had a sensitivity of 98.9%, specificity of 21.7%, and PPV of 33.5%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 73.6%, specificity of 73.1%, and PPV of 52.0%. APTIMA had a sensitivity of 95.2%, specificity of 42.2%, and PPV of 39.9%. CINtec p16INK4a Cytology had a sensitivity of 83.0%, specificity of 68.7%, and PPV of 52.3%. Linear Array had a sensitivity of 98.2%, specificity of 32.8%, and PPV of 37.7%. Clinical-Arrays had a sensitivity of 80.9%, specificity of 37.1%, and PPV of 33.0%. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(11):3033–42)

Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA in abnormal smears as a predictor of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Human papillomavirus (HPV) typing and quantitation by polymerase chain reaction was performed on exfoliated cells from 133 women referred for colposcopy because of an abnormal smear. High levels of HPV 16 correctly predicted cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade II-III in 93% of its occurrences, but only 59% of cases of CIN III were associated with high levels of this type. Eighty-four per cent of CIN III lesions contained high levels of at least one of HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 35, but the other types were less specific for CIN III than HPV 16. Overall HPV testing compared favourably with cytology for predicting high-grade CIN lesions, but it would appear that some combination of the two modalities will produce better performance than either alone. In particular, HPV testing appears to be helpful in determining which women with mildly abnormal smears have high-grade underlying lesions in need of immediate referral for colposcopy.

Human papillomavirus type 16 DNA in cervical smears as predictor of high-grade cervical cancer

Abstract The management of women with mild to moderately dyskaryotic cervical smears would benefit from a non-invasive test that predicts which women have high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Detection of human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) DNA in cervical smears may be such a test. With the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), we estimated the amount of HPV16 DNA in cervical smears from 85 women referred for colposcopy because of abnormal cytology. An intermediate or high amount of HPV16 DNA predicted the presence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a subsequent biopsy in almost 90% of patients irrespective of the cytological grade of the referral smear. This technique may allow early identification of those women with low-grade cytological abnormalities who have high-grade underlying cervical disease

Comparison of Seven Tests for High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Women with Abnormal Smears: the Predictors 2 Study

ABSTRACT High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA/RNA testing provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Several new HPV tests are now available for this purpose, and a direct comparison of their properties is needed. Seven tests were evaluated with samples in liquid PreservCyt transport medium from 1,099 women referred for colposcopy: the Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen), Cobas (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), Aptima HPV (Gen-Probe), and Abbott RealTime assays, the BD HPV test, and CINtec p16INK4a cytology (mtm laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology found on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. Three hundred fifty-nine women (32.7%) had CIN grade 2+ (CIN2+), with 224 (20.4%) having CIN3+. For detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture 2 had 96.3% sensitivity, 19.5% specificity, and 37.4% PPV. Cobas had 95.2% sensitivity, 24.0% specificity, and 37.6% PPV. The BD HPV test had 95.0% sensitivity, 24.2% specificity, and 37.8% PPV. Abbott RealTime had 93.3% sensitivity, 27.3% specificity, and 38.2% PPV. Aptima had 95.3% sensitivity, 28.8% specificity, and 39.3% PPV. PreTect HPV-Proofer had 74.1% sensitivity, 70.8% specificity, and 55.4% PPV. CINtec p16INK4a cytology had 85.7% sensitivity, 54.7% specificity, and 49.1% PPV. Cytology of a specimen taken at colposcopy (mild dyskaryosis or worse) had 88.9% sensitivity, 58.1% specificity, and 50.7% PPV. Our study confirms that, in a referral setting, HPV testing by a number of different tests provides high sensitivity for high-grade disease. Further work is needed to confirm these findings in a routine screening setting.

Association between high-risk HPV types, HLA DRB1* and DQB1* alleles and cervical cancer in British women

Cervical scrapes from 116 British women referred with cervical cancer were tested for the presence of high oncogenic risk human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes (HPVhr). Ninety-four per cent of the scrapes had one or more of these virus types and 66% were HPV16-positive. HPV18 was more frequent in adenocarcinoma. No evidence was found for an increased cancer risk associated with the HPV16 E6 350G variant. The HLA DRB1* and DQB1* alleles in these women and in 155 women with normal cytology and negative for HPVhrDNA were compared. DQB1*0301 alone (2P = 0.02) and in combination with DRB1*0401 (2P = 0.02) was found to be associated with cervical cancer. This was more marked in cancers positive for HPV types other than HPV16. In contrast, DRB1*1501 alone and in combination with DQB1*0602 was not significantly elevated in cancers overall, but did show some excess in HPV16-positive cancers (2P = 0.05), associated with HPV16-positive cervical cancers. Taking all cancers together, a marginally significant protective effect was found for DQB1*0501 (2P = 0.03) but no protective effect could be seen for DRB1*1301.

Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population

Background:Several new assays have been developed for high-risk HPV testing of cervical samples; we compare six HPV tests in a screening population.Methods:Residual material from liquid-based PreservCyt samples was assayed. Four tests (Hybrid Capture 2, Cobas, Abbott and Becton-Dickinson (BD)) measured HPV DNA while two used RNA (APTIMA and NorChip).Results:Positivity rates ranged from 13.4 to 16.3% for the DNA-based tests with a significantly lower positivity rate for the Abbott assay. The Gen-Probe APTIMA assay was positive in 10.3% of women, which was significantly lower than all the DNA tests; the NorChip PreTect HPV-Proofer test was much lower at 5.2%. 40 CIN2+ cases were identified, of which 19 were CIN3+. All CIN3+ cases were HPV positive by all tests except for one, which was negative by the Abbott assay and five which were negative by the NorChip test.Conclusion:All HPV tests except NorChip showed high sensitivity for high-grade lesions positive by cytology, suggesting co-testing is unnecessary when using HPV tests. Positivity rates in cytology-negative specimens were similar for the DNA-based tests, but lower for the APTIMA test suggesting this maintains the high sensitivity of DNA tests, but with better specificity.