Mark H. Einstein

2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

A group of 47 experts representing 23 professional societies, national and international health organizations, and federal agencies met in Bethesda, MD, September 14-15, 2012, to revise the 2006 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Consensus Guidelines. The groups goal was to provide revised evidence-based consensus guidelines for managing women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) following adoption of cervical cancer screening guidelines incorporating longer screening intervals and co-testing. In addition to literature review, data from almost 1.4 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Medical Care Plan provided evidence on risk after abnormal tests. Where data were available, guidelines prescribed similar management for women with similar risks for CIN 3, AIS, and cancer. Most prior guidelines were reaffirmed. Examples of updates include: Human papillomavirus-negative atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance results are followed with co-testing at 3 years before return to routine screening and are not sufficient for exiting women from screening at age 65 years; women aged 21-24 years need less invasive management, especially for minor abnormalities; postcolposcopy management strategies incorporate co-testing; endocervical sampling reported as CIN 1 should be managed as CIN 1; unsatisfactory cytology should be repeated in most circumstances, even when HPV results from co-testing are known, while most cases of negative cytology with absent or insufficient endocervical cells or transformation zone component can be managed without intensive follow-up.

Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of Cervarix™ and Gardasil® human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccines in healthy women aged 18–45 years

This observer-blind study compared the prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Cervarix™ (GlaxoSmithKline) and Gardasil® (Merck), by assessing immunogenicity and safety through one month after completion of the three-dose vaccination course. Women (n=1106) were stratified by age (18–26, 27–35, 36–45 years) and randomized (1:1) to receive Cervarix™ (Months 0, 1, 6) or Gardasil® (Months 0, 2, 6). At Month 7 after first vaccination, all women in the according-to-protocol cohort who were seronegative/DNA negative before vaccination for the HPV type analyzed had seroconverted for HPV-16 and HPV-18 serum neutralizing antibodies, as measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA), except for two women aged 27–35 years in the Gardasil® group who did not seroconvert for HPV-18 (98%). Geometric mean titers of serum neutralizing antibodies ranged from 2.3–4.8-fold higher for HPV-16 and 6.8–9.1-fold higher for HPV-18 after vaccination with Cervarix™ compared with Gardasil®, across all age strata. In the total vaccinated cohort (all women who received at least one vaccine dose, regardless of their serological and DNA status prior to vaccination), Cervarix™ induced significantly higher serum neutralizing antibody titers in all age strata (p

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: Interim clinical guidance

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology and cotesting (cytology in combination with hrHPV testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for healthcare providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

A Prospective Evaluation of Insulin and Insulin-like Growth Factor-I as Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer

Obesity is a major risk factor for endometrial cancer, a relationship thought to be largely explained by the prevalence of high estrogen levels in obese women. Obesity is also associated with high levels of insulin, a known mitogen. However, no prospective studies have directly assessed whether insulin and/or insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), a related hormone, are associated with endometrial cancer while accounting for estrogen levels. We therefore conducted a case-cohort study of incident endometrial cancer in the Womens Health Initiative Observational Study, a prospective cohort of 93,676 postmenopausal women. The study involved all 250 incident cases and a random subcohort of 465 subjects for comparison. Insulin, total IGF-I, free IGF-I, IGF-binding protein-3, glucose, and estradiol levels were measured in fasting baseline serum specimens. Cox models were used to estimate associations with endometrial cancer, particularly endometrioid adenocarcinomas, the main histologic type (n = 205). Our data showed that insulin levels were positively associated with endometrioid adenocarcinoma [hazard ratio contrasting highest versus lowest quartile (HRq4-q1), 2.33; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.13-4.82] among women not using hormone therapy after adjustment for age and estradiol. Free IGF-I was inversely associated with endometrioid adenocarcinoma (HRq4-q1, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.90) after adjustment for age, hormone therapy use, and estradiol. Both of these associations were stronger among overweight/obese women, especially the association between insulin and endometrioid adenocarcinoma (HRq4-q1, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.62-11.43). These data indicate that hyperinsulinemia may represent a risk factor for endometrioid adenocarcinoma that is independent of estradiol. Free IGF-I levels were inversely associated with endometrioid adenocarcinoma, consistent with prior cross-sectional data. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):921–9)

Safety and Immunogenicity of the Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in HIV-1-Infected Men

BACKGROUND Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected men are at increased risk for anal cancer. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination may prevent anal cancer caused by vaccine types. METHODS AIDS Malignancy Consortium Protocol 052 is a single-arm, open-label, multicenter clinical trial to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the quadrivalent HPV (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine in HIV-1-infected men. Men with high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia or anal cancer by history or by screening cytology or histology were excluded. Men received 0.5 mL intramuscularly at entry, week 8, and week 24. The primary end points were seroconversion to vaccine types at week 28, in men who were seronegative and without anal infection with the relevant HPV type at entry, and grade 3 or higher adverse events related to vaccination. RESULTS There were no grade 3 or greater adverse events attributable to vaccination among the 109 men who received at least 1 vaccine dose. Seroconversion was observed for all 4 types: type 6 (59 [98%] of 60), type 11 (67 [99%] of 68), type 16 (62 [100%] of 62), and type 18 (74 [95%] of 78). No adverse effects on CD4 counts and plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were observed. CONCLUSIONS The quadrivalent HPV vaccine appears safe and highly immunogenic in HIV-1-infected men. Efficacy studies in HIV-1-infected men are warranted. Clinical trials registration. NCT 00513526.

Clinician's guide to human papillomavirus immunology: knowns and unknowns

Oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common genital infection that has the potential to develop into cervical cancer in some women. This Review summarises current knowledge on the mechanisms of host immunity that help prevent and control HPV infection and the viral factors that exist to avoid immune surveillance. Although most women clear the infection within a few months, the virus induces a shift towards immune tolerance that can facilitate persistence and permit tumorigenesis. Mechanisms used by HPV to avoid immune surveillance and control include infecting only the basal layer of the cervical epithelium, limiting expression of viral proteins until later stages of epithelial differentiation, undergoing non-lytic replication, and downregulating the expression of important receptors on cells of the innate immune system. Furthermore, HPV suppresses the expression of several proinflammatory proteins that are crucial in clearing infection and activating the cytotoxic T lymphocytes involved in killing virus-infected cells. Interestingly, neutralising antibodies, although of uncertain effectiveness in preventing infection or reinfection after natural exposure (prior infection), are highly protective after immunisation with HPV virus-like-particle-based vaccines. Understanding what is known and unknown about the interaction between the immune system and HPV is important in the assessment of the potential contribution of prophylactic vaccination in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. However, despite our growing understanding, many aspects of the interactions between HPV and the host immune system remain unknown, and this Review draws attention to several of these unresolved issues and their implications.

Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus infection. Most human papillomavirus infection is harmless and clears spontaneously but persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (especially type 16) can cause cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, penis, and oropharynx. The virus exclusively infects epithelium and produces new viral particles only in fully mature epithelial cells. Human papillomavirus disrupts normal cell-cycle control, promoting uncontrolled cell division and the accumulation of genetic damage. Two effective prophylactic vaccines composed of human papillomavirus type 16 and 18, and human papillomavirus type 16, 18, 6, and 11 virus-like particles have been introduced in many developed countries as a primary prevention strategy. Human papillomavirus testing is clinically valuable for secondary prevention in triaging low-grade cytology and as a test of cure after treatment. More sensitive than cytology, primary screening by human papillomavirus testing could enable screening intervals to be extended. If these prevention strategies can be implemented in developing countries, many thousands of lives could be saved.

Comparative immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 vaccine and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine: Follow-up from months 12–24 in a Phase III randomized study of healthy women aged 18–45 years

In this observer-blind study (NCT00423046), women (N=1,106), stratified by age (18–26, 27–35, 36–45 years), were randomized (1:1) to receive the HPV-16/18 vaccine (Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Months 0,1,6) or the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (Gardasil® Merck & Co., Inc., Months 0,2,6). Month 7 results were previously reported; we now report Month 24 results. In the according-to-protocol cohort for immunogenicity (seronegative and DNA-negative at baseline for HPV type analyzed), seropositivity rates of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) [pseudovirion-based neutralization assay] were, across all age strata, 100% (HPV-16/18 vaccine) and 97.5–100% (HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine) for HPV-16, and 99.0–100% (HPV-16/18 vaccine) and 72.3–84.4% (HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine) for HPV-18. Corresponding geometric mean titers (GMTs) were 2.4–5.8-fold higher for HPV-16 and 7.7–9.4-fold higher for HPV-18 with the HPV-16/18 vaccine versus the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine; HPV-16 and HPV-18 GMTs were significantly higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (p<0.0001) in the total vaccinated cohort (received ≥1 vaccine dose, irrespective of baseline sero/DNA-status). Similar results were obtained using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Positivity rates and GMTs of antigen-specific IgG antibodies in cervicovaginal secretions (ELISA) were not significantly different between vaccines. At Month 24, CD4+ T-cell responses for HPV-16 and HPV-18 were higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine; memory B-cell response was higher for HPV-18 with the HPV-16/18 vaccine and similar between vaccines for HPV-16. Both vaccines were generally well tolerated. Although an immunological correlate of protection has not been defined, differences in the magnitude of immune response between vaccines may represent determinants of duration of protection.

Clinical validation of the Cervista® HPV HR and 16/18 genotyping tests for use in women with ASC-US cytology

OBJECTIVE High-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is important in cervical cancer screening for triage to colposcopy. This study evaluated the clinical performance of the Cervista HPV HR and 16/18 genotyping tests for detection of HPV in cervical cytology specimens. METHODS The tests were prospectively evaluated in a multicenter clinical study. DNA was extracted from approximately 4000 residual liquid-based cytology specimens collected during routine liquid-based Papanicolaou tests at standard of care visits and was assessed for the presence of HR HPV and/or HPV types 16 and 18. All women with cytology results of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or greater underwent colposcopic examination and biopsies were collected. Test results were compared with local colposcopy and histology results from a central pathology review panel. RESULTS There were 1347 subjects with complete data sets of cytology, HR HPV, colposcopy, and histology included in the analysis of the HPV HR test. Sensitivity of the HPV HR test for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ among women with ASC-US cytology was 92.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84.1-96.9) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.1% (95% CI: 98.1-99.6). Sensitivity for detection of > or =CIN 3 in women with ASC-US was 100% (95% CI: 85.1-100) and the NPV was 100% (95% CI: 99.4-100). The specificity of the test for detection of > or =CIN 2 and > or =CIN 3 was 44.2% (95% CI: 41.5-46.9) and 43% (95% CI: 40.3-45.7), respectively. The HPV 16/18 genotyping test also performed as expected in women with ASC-US cytology who were positive for HR HPV. CONCLUSION The Cervista HPV HR test can be clinically used for detecting HR HPV types in conjunction with cervical cytology for use in triage of women with ASC-US cytology during routine cervical cancer screening.

Metformin use and endometrial cancer survival

OBJECTIVE Impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes are risk factors for the development of uterine cancer. Although greater progression free survival among diabetic patients with ovarian and breast cancers using metformin has been reported, no studies have assessed the association of metformin use with survival in women with endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS We conducted a single-institution retrospective cohort study of all patients treated for uterine cancer from January 1999 through December 2009. Demographic, medical, social, and survival data were abstracted from medical records and the national death registry. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox models were utilized for multivariate analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Of 985 patients, 114 (12%) had diabetes and were treated with metformin, 136 (14%) were diabetic but did not use metformin, and 735 (74%) had not been diagnosed with diabetes. Greater OS was observed in diabetics with non-endometrioid EC who used metformin than in diabetic cases not using metformin and non-endometrioid EC cases without diabetes (log rank test (p=0.02)). This association remained significant (hazard ratio=0.54, 95% CI: 0.30-0.97, p<0.04) after adjusting for age, clinical stage, grade, chemotherapy treatment, radiation treatment and the presence of hyperlipidemia in multivariate analysis. No association between metformin use and OS in diabetics with endometrioid histology was observed. CONCLUSION Diabetic EC patients with non-endometrioid tumors who used metformin had lower risk of death than women with EC who did not use metformin. These data suggest that metformin might be useful as adjuvant therapy for non-endometrioid EC.