Human papillomavirus mRNA and DNA testing in women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: A prospective cohort study

13-Type HPV DNA Test versus 5-Type HPV mRNA Test in Triage of Women Aged 25-33 Years with Minor Cytological Abnormalities-6 Years of Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

A specific, cost-effective triage test for minor cytological abnormalities is essential for cervical cancer screening among younger women to reduce overmanagement and unnecessary healthcare utilization. We compared the triage performance of one 13-type human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test and one 5-type HPV mRNA test.

METHODS

We included 4115 women aged 25-33 years with a screening result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) recorded in the Norwegian Cancer Registry during 2005-2010. According to Norwegian guidelines, these women went to triage (HPV testing and repeat cytology: 2556 were tested with the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test, which detects the HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68; and 1559 were tested with the PreTect HPV-Proofer HPV mRNA test, which detects HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45). Women were followed through December 2013.

RESULTS

HPV positivity rates at triage were 52.8% and 23.3% among DNA- and mRNA-tested women (p < 0.001), respectively. Referral rates for colposcopy and biopsy and repeat testing (HPV + cytology) after triage were significantly higher among DNA-tested (24.9% and 27.9%) compared to mRNA-tested women (18.3% and 5.1%), as were cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detection rates (13.1% vs. 8.3%; p < 0.001). Ten cancer cases were diagnosed during follow-up; eight were in DNA-tested women.

CONCLUSION

We observed significantly higher referral rates and CIN3+ detection rates in young women with ASC-US/LSIL when the HPV DNA test was used at triage. The mRNA test was as functional in cancer prevention, with considerably less healthcare utilization.

Triage of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions using human papillomavirus messenger ribonucleic acid tests-A prospective population-based register study

INTRODUCTION

The optimal clinical management of women diagnosed with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) during cervical cancer screening remains unclear. In this prospective cohort study, we compared the clinical performance of two human papillomavirus (HPV) mRNA tests for triage of women with LSIL in Denmark.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a nationwide pathology register, we identified women aged 23-65 years with LSIL during 2008-2012. We included women tested for HPV mRNA with the PreTect HPV Proofer test for five high-risk HPV types (n = 2176) or the Aptima assay for 14 high-risk HPV types (n = 426). Subsequent histological diagnoses of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2, 3 or cancer (CIN2+) were identified in the register. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ at 18 and 36 months of follow up, and the cumulative incidence of CIN2+ among women testing positive and negative, overall and by age (23-29, 30-39, 40-65 years).

RESULTS

The proportion of women with a positive mRNA test at baseline was higher in women tested with Aptima (66.7%) than in women tested with Proofer (42.8%). After 18 months, Aptima had higher sensitivity for CIN2+ than Proofer (98% [95% CI 94% to 100%] vs 85% [95% CI 82% to 88%]), whereas Proofer showed higher specificity than Aptima (67% [95% CI 64% to 70%]) vs (40% [95% CI 33% to 46%]). Aptima had particularly low specificity in women aged <40 years (23-29: 19% [95% CI 5% to 36%]; 30-39: 10% [95% CI 0% to 33%]). The 36-month cumulative incidence of CIN2+ was higher in Proofer positive (54.3% [95% CI 50.9% to 57.8%]) than in Aptima positive women (37.6% [95% CI 31.2% to 44.8%]). In women with a negative mRNA test, the 36-month cumulative incidences of CIN2+ were 13.1% (95% CI 10.8% to 15.8%) and 5.9% (95% CI 1.7% to 19.0%) for Proofer and Aptima, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with LSIL, Aptima had high sensitivity for CIN2+, but low specificity, especially in women aged <40 years. The Proofer test may be useful to limit immediate colposcopy referrals in younger women with LSIL, but given its low sensitivity and negative predictive value, Proofer negative women must be followed with repeat cytology.