Mark H. Einstein

American Cancer Society Guideline for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Use to Prevent Cervical Cancer and Its Precursors

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has developed guidelines for the use of the prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer. These recommendations are based on a formal review of the available evidence. They address the use of prophylactic HPV vaccines, including who should be vaccinated and at what age, as well as a summary of policy and implementation issues. Implications for screening are also discussed.

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

ABSTRACT 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 group’s 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 of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 vaccine and the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine for oncogenic non-vaccine types HPV-31 and HPV-45 in healthy women aged 18-45 years.

Protection against oncogenic non-vaccine types (cross-protection) offered by human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines may provide a significant medical benefit. Available clinical efficacy data suggest the two licensed vaccines (HPV-16/18 vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals [GSK], and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine, Merck & Co., Inc.) differ in terms of protection against oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types -31/45. The immune responses induced by the two vaccines against these two non-vaccine HPV types (cross-reactivity) was compared in an observer-blind study up to Month 24 (18 months post-vaccination), in women HPV DNA-negative and seronegative prior to vaccination for the HPV type analyzed (HPV-010 [NCT00423046]). Geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs) measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were similar between vaccines for HPV-31/45. Seropositivity rates for HPV-31 were also similar between vaccines; however, there was a trend for higher seropositivity with the HPV-16/18 vaccine (13.0–16.7%) versus the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (0.0–5.0%) for HPV-45 with PBNA, but not ELISA. HPV-31/45 cross-reactive memory B-cell responses were comparable between vaccines. Circulating antigen-specific CD4+ T-cell frequencies were higher for the HPV-16/18 vaccine than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (HPV-31 [geometric mean ratio [GMR] =2.0; p=0.0002] and HPV-45 [GMR=2.6; p=0.0092]), as were the proportion of T-cell responders (HPV-31, p=0.0009; HPV-45, p=0.0793). In conclusion, immune response to oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types -31/45 was generally similar for both vaccines with the exception of T-cell response which was higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine. Considering the differences in cross-protective efficacy between the two vaccines, the results might provide insights into the underlying mechanism(s) of protection.

Ovarian cancer clinical trial endpoints: Society of Gynecologic Oncology white paper

OBJECTIVEnTo explore the value of multiple clinical endpoints in the unique setting of ovarian cancer.nnnMETHODSnA clinical trial workgroup was established by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology to develop a consensus statement via multiple conference calls, meetings and white paper drafts.nnnRESULTSnClinical trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial design, result interpretation, drug development, and regulatory approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long overall survival (OS) is observed. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression therapies potentially uncouple surrogacy between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of ovarian cancer advocates is presented.nnnCONCLUSIONSnEndpoint selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory approvals and are clinically important. OS remains the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be undertaken.

Clinical Evaluation of the Cartridge-Based GeneXpert Human Papillomavirus Assay in Women Referred for Colposcopy

ABSTRACT High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is now being introduced as a potential primary screening test for improved detection of cervical precancer and cancer. Current U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved tests are batch tests that take several hours to complete. A rapid, non-batch test might permit point-of-care (POC) testing, which can facilitate same-day screen and management strategies. For a non-batch, random-access platform (GeneXpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA), a prototype hrHPV assay (Xpert) has been developed where testing for 14 hrHPV types can be completed in 1 h. In the first clinical evaluation, Xpert was compared to two validated hrHPV tests, the cobas HPV test (cobas, Roche Molecular Systems) and Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2, Qiagen), and to histologic outcomes using specimens from colposcopy referral populations at 7 clinical sites in the United States (n = 697). The sensitivity of Xpert for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (CIN2+) (n = 141) was equal to that of cobas (90.8% versus 90.8%, P = 1) and greater than that of hc2 (90.8% versus 81.6%, P = 0.004). Xpert was more specific than cobas (42.6% versus 39.6%, P = 0.02) and less specific than hc2 (42.6% versus 47.7%, P < 0.001). Similar results were observed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) (n = 91). HPV16 detection by Xpert identified 41.8% of the CIN2+ specimens with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 54.6%. By comparison, HPV16 detection by cobas identified 42.6% of the CIN2+ specimens with a PPV of 55.0%. hrHPV detection by the Xpert demonstrated excellent clinical performance for identifying women with CIN2+ and CIN3+ that was comparable to that of currently available clinically validated tests.

Screening for Anal Cancer in Women.

Objective The incidence of anal cancer is higher in women than men in the general population and has been increasing for several decades. Similar to cervical cancer, most anal cancers are associated with human papillomavirus (HPV), and it is believed that anal cancers are preceded by anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). Our goals were to summarize the literature on anal cancer, HSIL, and HPV infection in women and to provide screening recommendations in women. Methods A group of experts convened by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology and the International Anal Neoplasia Society reviewed the literature on anal HPV infection, anal SIL, and anal cancer in women. Results Anal HPV infection is common in women but is relatively transient in most. The risk of anal HSIL and cancer varies considerably by risk group, with human immunodeficiency virus–infected women and those with a history of lower genital tract neoplasia at highest risk compared with the general population. Conclusions While there are no data yet to demonstrate that identification and treatment of anal HSIL leads to reduced risk of anal cancer, women in groups at the highest risk should be queried for anal cancer symptoms and required to have digital anorectal examinations to detect anal cancers. Human immunodeficiency virus–infected women and women with lower genital tract neoplasia may be considered for screening with anal cytology with triage to treatment if HSIL is diagnosed. Healthy women with no known risk factors or anal cancer symptoms do not need to be routinely screened for anal cancer or anal HSIL.

Safety and efficacy of topical Cidofovir to treat high-grade perianal and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-positive men and women

Objective:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical cidofovir for treatment of high-grade squamous perianal intraepithelial neoplasia (PAIN) and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) lesions in HIV-positive individuals. Design:Phase IIa prospective multicenter trial conducted at eight clinical sites through the AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Methods:HIV-positive patients with biopsy-proven high-grade PAIN that was at least 3u200acm2 were enrolled. PAIN biopsy specimens were assessed for human papillomavirus (HPV) using PCR and type-specific HPV probing. Participants applied 1% topical cidofovir to PAIN and VIN (if present) for six 2-week cycles. Results were designated as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) (>50% reduction in size), stable disease, or progressive disease (PD). Results:Twenty-four men and nine women (eight with high-grade VIN as well) were enrolled. Mean age was 44 years and mean CD4+ cell count was 412u200acells/&mgr;l. HPV DNA (most commonly HPV16) was detected in all pretreatment study specimens. Twenty six (79%) participants completed treatment per protocol: CR, five (15%); PR, 12 (36%), stable disease, seven (21%); PD, two (6%) (one with a superficially invasive cancer and one with new area of high-grade PAIN). Treatment was well tolerated with most common adverse events being mild to moderate affecting lesional skin: pain/burning/irritation (25 patients) and ulceration (13 patients). Conclusion:Topical cidofovir had 51% efficacy in the short-term treatment of high-grade PAIN and VIN with acceptable toxicity in HIV-positive individuals. Randomized control studies with more prolonged treatment courses and longer follow-up to assess the durability of the response are needed.

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

Abstract 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 or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk HPV (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 health care 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.

Reliability of the Xpert HPV assay to detect high-risk human papillomavirus DNA in a colposcopy referral population

OBJECTIVESnThe Xpert HPV Assay (Xpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) was developed for the multianalytic GeneXpert platform.nnnMETHODSnIn a colposcopy referral population of 708 women living in the United States, two cervical specimens, A and B, were collected, and both were tested by the Xpert assay for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA, permitting an evaluation of its test reliability. Specimen B was also tested by Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2; Qiagen, Germantown, MD) and the cobas HPV Test (cobas; Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA).nnnRESULTSnThe κ and percent agreement for any hrHPV for the two Xpert results were 0.88 and 94.5%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in testing positive on both specimens by Xpert (P = .62). The sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) was 89.0% using specimen A and 90.4% using specimen B for Xpert, 90.4% for cobas, and 81.6% for hc2.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe Xpert assay was sensitive and reliable for the detection of hrHPV and the identification of women with CIN2+.

Current therapeutic vaccination and immunotherapy strategies for HPV-related diseases

ABSTRACT Carcinomas of the anogenital tract, in particular cervical cancer, remains one of the most common cancers in women, and represent the most frequent gynecological malignancies and the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced lesions are immunologically distinct in that they express viral antigens, which are necessary to maintain the cancerous phenotype. The causal relationship between HPV infection and anogenital cancer has prompted substantial interest in the development of therapeutic vaccines against high-risk HPV types targeting the viral oncoproteins E6 and E7. This review will focus on the most recent clinical trials for immunotherapies for mucosal HPV-induced lesions as well as emerging therapeutic strategies that have been tested in pre-clinical models for HPV-induced diseases. Progress in peptide- and protein-based vaccines, DNA-based vaccines, viral/bacterial vector-based vaccines, immune checkpoint inhibition, immune response modifiers, and adoptive cell therapy for HPV will be discussed.