John Schussler

Viral load of human papillomavirus and risk of CIN3 or cervical cancer

Carcinogenic human papillomaviruses (HPV) are thought to be necessary for development of cervical cancer. We assessed whether higher viral loads of such viruses predicted future risk of CIN3 or cancer (CIN3+) in a cohort of 20810 women followed up for 10 years with cytological screening. We measured the viral load for 13 types of carcinogenic HPV (relative light units normalised to 1 pg/mL HPV 16 positive controls [RLU/PC]) using Hybrid Capture 2 testing of cervicovaginal lavages obtained at enrolment. Results were stratified into four groups (RLU/PC 1 to <10, 10 to <100, 100 to <1000, > or = 1000). Although presence of HPV strongly increased risk of CIN3+, high viral load did not further predict risk of CIN3+.

Rationale and design of a community-based double-blind randomized clinical trial of an HPV 16 and 18 vaccine in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.

We report the rationale, design, methods and details of participation of a community-based, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of an HPV 16 and 18 vaccine conducted in two provinces of Costa Rica to investigate the efficacy and population impact of the vaccine in the prevention of cervical cancer precursors. More than 24,000 women between 18 and 25 years of age were invited to participate and pre-screened for eligibility, with recruitment of 7466 women (30% of those pre-screened, 59% of those eligible) who were randomized to receive 3 doses of the HPV vaccine or hepatitis A vaccine as control. A complex protocol of data and specimen collection was applied, including an interview, pelvic exam for sexually active women, blood for serology and cell-mediated immunity, cervical secretions for local immunity and cells for HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis and gonorrhea testing. Eighty percent of the women received three doses, 12.4% two doses and 7.4% one dose. At visits, compliance with data and specimen collection was close to 100%. Baseline characteristics and age-specific prevalence of HPV and cervical neoplasia are reported. Overall prevalence of HPV was high (50%), with 8.3% of women having HPV 16 and 3.2% HPV 18. LSIL was detected in 12.7% of women at baseline and HSIL in 1.9%. Prevalence of Chlamydia was 14.2%. There was very good agreement in HPV detection between clinician-collected and self- collected specimens (89.4% agreement for all types, kappa 0.59). Follow up will continue with yearly or more frequent examinations for at least 4 years for each participant.

Prevention of Persistent Human Papillomavirus Infection by an HPV16/18 Vaccine: A Community-Based Randomized Clinical Trial in Guanacaste, Costa Rica

Target groups for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination are controversial. We evaluated vaccine efficacy (VE) against 1-year persistent infection, stratified by age and sexual behavior, among young women in Costa Rica. We randomized 7,466 healthy women 18 to 25 years of age to HPV16/18 or hepatitis A vaccine (follow-up, 50.4 months). According-to-protocol (ATP) cohorts included compliant HPV-negative women; intention-to-treat (ITT) included all randomized women. ATP VE was 90.9% (95% CI, 82.0-95.9) against HPV16/18 infections, 44.5% against HPV31/33/45 (95% CI, 17.5-63.1), and 12.4% (95% CI, -3.2 to 25.6) against any oncogenic infection. Overall ITT VE against HPV16/18 infections was 49.0%, but ATP and ITT VE almost reached 100% in year 4 of follow-up. ATP efficacy against HPV16/18 was similar by age, but ITT VE was greatest among youngest women (68.9% among those 18-19 years of age; 21.8% among those 24-25 years of age) and 79.8% among virgins. Among previously unexposed women, vaccination is highly efficacious against HPV16/18 and partially against HPV31/33/45. Vaccination is most effective in women and girls before they initiate sexual activity, with programmatic and individual decision implications.

Results of Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing with the Hybrid Capture 2 Assay Are Reproducible

ABSTRACT Reproducibility of the Hybrid Capture 2 Test (HC 2) for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection was evaluated by assaying frozen cervical specimens in 1997 and again in 2001 from 1,775 women with normal cervical cytology. Using a cutoff point of 1.0 pg of HPV DNA/ml between a negative and a positive test result, the result of the kappa test for agreement was 0.72 (a kappa value of >0.60 is considered good agreement). Using cutoff points of 1.0 and 10.0 pg/ml between negative and low positive and between low positive and high positive, respectively, the kappa was 0.68 and the linear-weighted kappa was 0.76. The results of this study indicate that HC 2 testing is reproducible even among cytologically normal women with low test values.

A population-based study of vaginal human papillomavirus infection in hysterectomized women

We compared point prevalences and determinants of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection by testing enrollment vaginal specimens from hysterectomized women (n=569) and enrollment cervical specimens from nonhysterectomized women (n=6098) >or=30 years old, using MY09/MY11 L1 consensus-primer polymerase chain reaction. The subjects were participating in a population-based cohort study (n=10,049) in Guanacaste, Costa Rica, that was initiated in 1993. Non-cancer-associated HPV types, especially types 61, 71, and 72, were detected more frequently in the vaginal specimens from hysterectomized women (23.7% [95% confidence interval [CI], 20.3%-27.4%]) than in the cervical specimens from nonhysterectomized women (16.7% [95% CI, 15.7%-17.6%]) (P=.0001). There was no difference between the prevalences of cancer-associated HPV types in hysterectomized women and those in nonhysterectomized women; in both groups, the prevalence of HPV DNA was greater in women with multiple lifetime sex partners. We infer from our data that the cervical transformation zone may not be needed for cancer-associated HPV infection but may be uniquely susceptible to HPV-induced carcinogenesis; we also infer that specific phylogenetic groups of HPV (i.e., A3/A4/A15) may have a predilection for vaginal epithelium.

Comparison between Prototype Hybrid Capture 3 and Hybrid Capture 2 Human Papillomavirus DNA Assays for Detection of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Cancer

ABSTRACT We compared the performance of a prototype version of the Hybrid Capture 3 (HC3) human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assay to the current generation Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay, both of which target 13 oncogenic HPV types, for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer (CIN3+) with cervicovaginal lavage specimens collected at enrollment into a 10-year cohort study at Kaiser Permanente (Portland, Oreg.). HC3 results for a risk-stratified sample (n = 4,364) were compared to HC2 results for the entire cohort (n = 20,810) with receiver operating characteristics curves, and the optimal cut points for both tests (relative light units [RLU]/positive control [PC]) for the detection of CIN3+ were determined. Specimens were also tested for HPV16 and HPV18 with separate HC3 type-specific probes. The optimal cut point for detecting CIN3+ was 1.0 RLU/PC for HC2, as previously shown, and was 0.6 RLU/PC for HC3. At the optimal cut points, HC3 and HC2 had similar screening performance characteristics for CIN3+ diagnosed at the enrollment visit. In analyses that included cases CIN3+ at enrollment and those diagnosed during early follow-up, HC3 had nonsignificantly higher sensitivity and equal specificity for the detection of CIN3+ compared to HC2; this increase in sensitivity was primarily the result of increased detection of CIN3+ in women who were 30 years of age or older and were cytologically negative (P = 0.006). We also compared the performance of the hybrid capture tests to MY09/11 L1 consensus primer PCR results (n = 1,247). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for specimens that tested positive by PCR for any untargeted types (P < 0.001). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for untargeted PCR-detected single infections with HPV53 (P = 0.001) and HPV66 (P = 0.01). There was good agreement between test positivity by PCR and by single type-specific HC3 probes for HPV16 (kappa = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 0.82) and for HPV18 (kappa = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.79). In conclusion, we suggest that HC3 (≥0.6 RLU/PC) may be slightly more sensitive than and equally specific test as HC2 (≥1.0 RLU/PC) for the detection of CIN3+ over the duration of typical screening intervals.

Semiquantitative human papillomavirus type 16 viral load and the prospective risk of cervical precancer and cancer

We examined whether higher human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) viral load predicted risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (CIN3) or cancer (together termed ≥CIN3) within a cohort of 20,810 women followed for 10 years with cytologic screening. Semiquantitative viral load for HPV16 was measured on baseline cervicovaginal specimens using a type-specific hybridization probe test with signal amplification. An increased risk of ≥CIN3 associated with higher HPV16 viral load was found only among cytologically negative women in early follow-up, suggesting that these cases were related to the detection of prevalent lesions missed at baseline. Women with higher HPV16 viral load were more likely to undergo ablative treatment during follow-up than those with lower viral load (Ptrend = 0.008), possibly diminishing any additional risk for ≥CIN3 attributable to higher HPV16 viral loads.

Impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 vaccination on prevalent infections and rates of cervical lesions after excisional treatment

BACKGROUND Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines prevent HPV infection and cervical precancers. The impact of vaccinating women with a current infection or after treatment for an HPV-associated lesion is not fully understood. OBJECTIVES To determine whether HPV-16/18 vaccination influences the outcome of infections present at vaccination and the rate of infection and disease after treatment of lesions. STUDY DESIGN We included 1711 women (18–25 years) with carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection and 311 women of similar age who underwent treatment for cervical precancer and who participated in a community-based trial of the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 virus-like particle vaccine. Participants were randomized (human papillomavirus or hepatitis A vaccine) and offered 3 vaccinations over 6 months. Follow-up included annual visits (more frequently if clinically indicated), referral to colposcopy of high-grade and persistent low-grade lesions, treatment by loop electrosurgical excisional procedure when clinically indicated, and cytologic and virologic follow-up after treatment. Among women with human papillomavirus infection at the time of vaccination, we considered type-specific viral clearance, and development of cytologic (squamous intraepithelial lesions) and histologic (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) lesions. Among treated women, we considered single-time and persistent human papillomavirus infection, squamous intraepithelial lesions, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+. Outcomes associated with infections absent before treatment also were evaluated. Infection-level analyses were performed and vaccine efficacy estimated. RESULTS Median follow-up was 56.7 months (women with human papillomavirus infection) and 27.3 months (treated women). There was no evidence of vaccine efficacy to increase clearance of human papillomavirus infections or decrease incidence of cytologic/histologic abnormalities associated with human papillomavirus types present at enrollment. Vaccine efficacy for human papillomavirus 16/18 clearance and against human papillomavirus 16/18 progression from infection to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ were −5.4% (95% confidence interval −19,10) and 0.3% (95% confidence interval −69,41), respectively. Among treated women, 34.1% had oncogenic infection and 1.6% had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ detected after treatment, respectively, and of these 69.8% and 20.0% were the result of new infections. We observed no significant effect of vaccination on rates of infection/lesions after treatment. Vaccine efficacy estimates for human papillomavirus 16/18 associated persistent infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ after treatment were 34.7% (95% confidence interval −131, 82) and −211% (95% confidence interval −2901, 68), respectively. We observed evidence for a partial and nonsignificant protective effect of vaccination against new infections absent before treatment. For incident human papillomavirus 16/18, human papillomavirus 31/33/45, and oncogenic human papillomavirus infections post-treatment, vaccine efficacy estimates were 57.9% (95% confidence interval −44, 88), 72.9% (95% confidence interval 29, 90), and 36.7% (95% confidence interval 1.5, 59), respectively. CONCLUSION We find no evidence for a vaccine effect on the fate of detectable human papillomavirus infections. We show that vaccination does not protect against infections/lesions after treatment. Evaluation of vaccine protection against new infections and resultant lesions warrants further consideration in future studies.

Evaluation of Type Replacement Following HPV16/18 Vaccination: Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Trials.

Background: Current HPV vaccines do not protect against all oncogenic HPV types. Following vaccination, type replacement may occur, especially if different HPV types competitively interact during natural infection. Because of their common route of transmission, it is difficult to assess type interactions in observational studies. Our aim was to evaluate type replacement in the setting of HPV vaccine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Data were pooled from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT; NCT00128661) and PATRICIA trial (NCT001226810)—two large-scale, double-blind RCTs of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine—to compare cumulative incidence of nonprotected HPV infections across trial arms after four years. Negative rate difference estimates (rate in control minus vaccine arm) were interpreted as evidence of replacement if the associated 95% confidence interval excluded zero. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: After applying relevant exclusion criteria, 21 596 women were included in our analysis (HPV arm = 10 750; control arm = 10 846). Incidence rates (per 1000 infection-years) were lower in the HPV arm than in the control arm for grouped nonprotected oncogenic types (rate difference = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.9 to 2.3) and oncogenic/nononcogenic types (rate difference = 0.2, 95% CI = −0.3 to 0.7). Focusing on individual HPV types separately, no deleterious effect was observed. In contrast, a statistically significant protective effect (positive rate difference and 95% CI excluded zero) was observed against oncogenic HPV types 35, 52, 58, and 68/73, as well as nononcogenic types 6 and 70. Conclusion: HPV type replacement does not occur among vaccinated individuals within four years and is unlikely to occur in vaccinated populations.

Relative Performance of HPV and Cytology Components of Cotesting in Cervical Screening

Background The main goal of cervical screening programs is to detect and treat precancer before cancer develops. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for detecting precancer. However, reports of rare HPV-negative, cytology-positive cancers are motivating continued use of both tests (cotesting) despite increased testing costs. Methods We quantified the detection of cervical precancer and cancer by cotesting compared with HPV testing alone at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), where 1 208 710 women age 30 years and older have undergone triennial cervical cotesting since 2003. Screening histories preceding cervical cancers (n = 623) and precancers (n = 5369) were examined to assess the relative contribution of the cytology and HPV test components in identifying cases. The performances of HPV testing and cytology were compared using contingency table methods, general estimating equation models, and nonparametric statistics; all statistical tests were two-sided. Results HPV testing identified more women subsequently diagnosed with cancer (P < .001) and precancer (P < .001) than cytology. HPV testing was statistically significantly more likely to be positive for cancer at any time point (P < .001), except within 12 months (P = .10). HPV-negative/cytology-positive results preceded only small fractions of cases of precancer (3.5%) and cancer (5.9%); these cancers were more likely to be regional or distant stage with squamous histopathology than other cases. Given the rarity of cancers among screened women, the contribution of cytology to screening translated to earlier detection of at most five cases per million women per year. Two-thirds (67.9%) of women found to have cancer during 10 years of follow-up at KPNC were detected by the first cotest performed. Conclusions The added sensitivity of cotesting vs HPV alone for detection of treatable cancer affected extremely few women.