Evaluation of commercial HPV assays in the context of post-treatment follow-up: Scottish Test of Cure Study (STOCS-H)

Performance of Different Follow-Up Strategies and Genotype-Based Recurrence Risk After Treatment of Cervical High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the performance of different follow-up strategies after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3, including human papillomavirus (HPV) detection, cytology, or colposcopy, as well as their combinations. Additionally, we compared the influence of the persistence of HPV 16/18 versus that of other high-risk HPV genotypes (HR-HPV) in the recurrence risk.

METHODS

Retrospective register-based study, including women who had an excision of the transformation zone for CIN2 or CIN3 at our institution, between January 2011 and December 2022. The outcome assessed was histopathological recurrence/persistence of CIN2 or worse.

RESULTS

Of the 721 women included, 6.8% (49/721) had recurrence/persistence. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the HPV test were 97.4%, 80%, 22.3%, and 99.8%, respectively, whereas for cotesting (HR-HPV and cytology), 86.8%, 90.1%, 34.4%, and 99.1%, respectively. The referral rates for colposcopy were 24.3% and 14.2%, respectively. The sensitivity of colposcopy was low (40.0%).Women who were initially positive for non-16/18 genotypes at baseline who became HPV16/18 positive during follow-up, had a statistically significant increased risk of CIN2 or worse, compared with those who tested positive only for other HR-HPV genotypes during both stages (hazard ratio = 4.98; 95% CI = 1.66-14.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Human papillomavirus testing is the best strategy for follow-up after treatment of cervical HSIL. The addition of cytology triage decreases by more than 40% the referrals for colposcopy, without significantly missing cases of recurrence/persistence. Human papillomavirus 16/18 in the follow-up, regardless of being previously positive, is associated with higher risk of recurrence/persistence of HSIL.

Evidence to support change of clinical pathway following colposcopy treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Canada

OBJECTIVES

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be incorporated into the post-treatment pathway of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) to confirm disease-free status. To inform a post-treatment strategy based on risk of recurrence, we modelled disease and economic outcomes.

METHODS

The current Alberta, Canada, post-treatment care pathway-cytology testing with colposcopy assessment-was compared with 6 other scenarios incorporating cytology, HPV testing, or both tests at different time points in a modelling study based on a microsimulation program. Input parameter values for the screening participation, screening age groups, and follow-up options and test compliance for HPV, cytology, and colposcopy were varied, based on Alberta cervical cancer screening program data. Health outcomes over the short- and long-term were projected, which incorporated the increasing population-level coverage of HPV vaccination. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to evaluate economic outcomes and descriptive statistics compared with numbers of tests, visits, and procedures as well as changes in incidence and mortality rates between the scenarios.

RESULTS

At 5 years after implementation of the "HPV testing alone at 6 and 18 months" post-treatment pathway, the number of colposcopies dropped by 36% and the number of pre-cancer treatments, by 6%. Lifetime ICERs were CAD $6170 versus $248,495 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with the status quo pathway. Cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates decreased significantly and similarly in all scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Strategies that involve HPV testing in CIN post-treatment follow-up care are expected to be more cost effective with improved clinical outcomes than traditional cytology and colposcopy-based follow-up.

Validation of cobas 4800 HPV assay in SurePath Papanicolaou specimens for cervical cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

The cobas (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) HPV assay was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in SurePath (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) Papanicolaou specimens for cervical cancer prevention. To validate the cobas HPV assay in SurePath specimens in our institution, we compared its accuracy and clinical efficacy to that of the Cervista (Hologic, Marlborough, MA) HPV HR assay.

METHODS

This study used 138 Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology specimens collected in SurePath preservative fluid at our institution in 2018. After Pap cytology testing, the residual specimens were split for testing with the cobas and Cervista assays. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV testing (GP5+/GP6+) was performed on specimens with discrepant results. Clinical follow-up data were reviewed.

RESULTS

The cobas HPV and Cervista HPV HR assays showed good concordance (89.1%), with a kappa value of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.675-0.885). Fifteen specimens showed discrepant results between the 2 assays. Of 7 cases with cobas+/Cervista- results, 5 (71%) were confirmed positive by PCR. Of 8 cases with cobas-/Cervista+ results, 4 (50%) were confirmed positive by PCR. cobas HPV and Cervista HPV HR showed the same HPV-positive rate in cases of pathologically diagnosed ASC-H, LSIL, or HSIL. The sensitivities and specificities for detecting high-risk HPV of cobas HPV (93.7%, 97.3%) and Cervista HPV HR (92.1%, 94.7%) were comparable. The cobas HPV assay had false-negative results in 4 cases (5.2%) including 1 false-negative case that failed to predict CIN3.

CONCLUSIONS

The cobas HPV assay is valid in SurePath Pap cytology specimens for cervical cancer screening but has limitations of false-negative results with clinical implications.

Anyplex II HPV test in detection and follow-up after surgical treatment of CIN2+ lesions

Human papillomavirus (HPV) tests differ for technology, targets, and information on the genotype and viral load. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the Seegene Anyplex II HPV HR (Anyplex) assay in the detection of cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN) and as a test-of-cure in the follow-up after surgical treatment. One hundred and sixty-seven women referred to the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, for surgical treatment of CIN2+ were enrolled. A cervical sample was taken before treatment and at the first follow-up visit: on these samples, Qiagen Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), Roche Linear Array HPV Test (Linear Array), cytology and histology were performed at baseline, HC2, and cytology at follow-up. Anyplex genotyping HPV test was performed on a post aliquot from liquid-based cytology specimens when available. The concordance between Anyplex and HC2 was 93.6% at baseline and 76.7% at follow-up (3-9 months after treatment), respectively. The concordance between Anyplex and Linear Array was evaluable only at baseline (92.9%). No recurrence occurred in women without the persistence of the same genotype at follow-up. Seven women relapsed: six had persistence of the same genotypes (five HPV16, one HPV33, and one HPV39), while one tested negative not only with Anyplex but also with HC2 for the persistence of low-risk genotype infection (HPV73 only detected by Linear Array). Anyplex test represents a valid option for HPV detection and genotyping in order to stratify women at risk of high-grade lesions at baseline and to monitor patients treated for CIN2+ lesions during follow-up.

Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Objective

We adapted the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for studies of cervical cancer screening and management and used the adapted tool to evaluate the quality of studies included in a systematic review supporting the 2019 Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines.

Methods

We evaluated the quality of all studies included in our systematic review for postcolposcopy (n = 5) and posttreatment (n = 23) surveillance using QUADAS-2 criteria. Subsequently, we adapted signaling questions to indications of cervical cancer screening and management. An iterative process was carried out to evaluate interrater agreement between 2 study authors (M.A.C. and N.W.). Discrepant ratings were discussed, and criteria were adapted accordingly. We also evaluated the influence of study quality on risk estimates and between study variation using stratified subgroup meta-analyses.

Results

Twelve signaling questions for bias assessment that were adapted to or newly developed for cervical cancer screening and management are described here. Interrater agreement on bias assessment increased from 70% to 83% during the adaptation process. Detailed assessment of bias and applicability showed that all studies on postcolposcopy management and 90% of studies on posttreatment management had high risk of bias in at least 1 domain. Most commonly, high risk of bias was observed for the patient selection domain, indicating the heterogeneity of study designs and clinical practice in reported studies.

Conclusions

The adapted QUADAS-2 will have broad application for researchers, evidence evaluators, and journals who are interested in designing, conducting, evaluating, and publishing studies for cervical cancer screening and management.

A Systematic Review of Tests for Postcolposcopy and Posttreatment Surveillance

OBJECTIVE

For the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of diagnostic assays for postcolposcopy and posttreatment management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify articles reporting on tests/assays for cervical cancer screening, triage, postcolposcopy surveillance, and posttreatment surveillance published between 2012 and 2019 in PubMed and Embase. Titles and abstracts were evaluated by co-authors for inclusion. Included articles underwent full-text review, data abstraction, and quality assessment. Pooled absolute pretest and posttest risk estimates were calculated for studies evaluating management of patients after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 2,862 articles were identified through the search. Of 50 articles on postcolposcopy, 5 were included for data abstraction. Of 66 articles on posttreatment, 23 were included for data abstraction and were summarized in the meta-analysis. The pooled posttreatment risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ in all studies was 4.8% (95% CI = 3.4%-6.8%), ranging from 0.4%-19.5% (τ = 0.57) in individual studies. Among individuals testing negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) posttreatment, the risk of CIN 2+ was 0.69% (95% CI = 0.3%-1.5%); among individuals testing positive for HPV posttreatment, the risk of CIN 2+ was 18.3% (95% CI = 12.1%-26.6%) in all studies. All risk estimates were substantially higher for liquid-based cytology. The HPV-cytology co-testing provided slightly better reassurance compared with HPV alone at the cost of much higher positivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a large number of published studies on postcolposcopy and posttreatment surveillance, only few met criteria for abstraction and were included in the meta-analysis. More high-quality studies are needed to evaluate assays and approaches that can improve management of patients with abnormal screening.

High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Identification in Precancerous Cervical Intraepithelial Lesions

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to summarize the currently available human papillomavirus (HPV) testing methods for precancerous cervical intraepithelial lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search of PubMed using key words "high-risk HPV, precancerous cervical intraepithelial lesions, FDA-approved HPV tests, p16 IHC, Ki 67 IHC, fluorescent in situ hybridization for HPV, Pap smear, HPV vaccines, HPV tests using self-collected samples, and next-generation sequencing" was performed between January 1 and June 14, 2019. The package inserts of the Food and Drug Administration-approved HPV tests were obtained from the companies' Web sites.

RESULTS

Multiple morphology-based, immunohistochemical staining and nucleic acid HPV tests were reviewed, including the material required, methodologies, result interpretations, as well as their advantages, limitations, and futures. The structure of HPV and its natural history of infection and transmission were touched on as well for a better understanding of these testing methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Human papillomavirus tests are a critical component for cervical cancer screening, and understanding of these tests helps test results interpretation and patients' triage.

TOPical Imiquimod treatment of residual or recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (TOPIC-2 trial): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cervical dysplasia (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) is caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and is most common in women of reproductive age. Current treatment of moderate to severe CIN is surgical. This procedure has potential complications, such as haemorrhage, infection and preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies. Moreover, 15% of women treated for high grade CIN develop residual/recurrent CIN or cervical cancer after surgical excision. Finally, 75–100% of patients with a residual and recurrent CIN 2–3 lesion are still HPV positive. They could possibly benefit from an alternative medical treatment, which aims to eliminate HPV.

The primary study objective is to evaluate the effectivity of imiquimod 5% cream compared to treatment with Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) for recurrent/residual CIN.

Methods/design

This study is a multicentre, non-inferiority randomized single blinded study. The study population consists of female patients with histological proven residual/recurrent CIN after previous surgical treatment. Four hundred thirty-three patients will be included in the Netherlands. The first 35 patients will be included in a pilot study to prove non-futility.

Included patients will be randomized to receive either 5% imiquimod cream or LLETZ treatment. Imiquimod will be inserted three times a week intravaginally for a period of 16 weeks using a vaginal applicator. Ten weeks after the end of imiquimod treatment a biopsy will be taken for treatment response. In case of progressive or stable disease a LLETZ will be performed. At 12 and 24 months after the start of treatment cytology will be taken for follow up. The LLETZ group will be treated according to the current guidelines. Throughout the study, HPV typing and quality of life will be tested.

Discussion

Repeated LLETZ in women with residual/recurrent CIN lesions has complications. We would like to possibly offer alternative treatment in a selected group to avoid these risks. Moreover, we monitor treatment efficacy, side effects and long-term recurrence rates.

Trial registration

Medical Ethical Committee approval number: NL 53792.078.15. Affiliation: Erasmus Medical Center.

Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02669459, date of registration: 27th January 2016.

Separate analysis of human papillomavirus E6 and E7 messenger RNAs to predict cervical neoplasia progression

A few studies previously suggested that human papillomavirus (HPV) E6 messenger RNA (mRNA) may exist uniformly in all grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), whereas the detection rate of E7 mRNA may increase with disease progression from low-grade CIN to invasive carcinoma. The aim of this study was to clarify the different roles of E6 and E7 mRNAs in cervical carcinogenesis. The presence of each E6 and E7 mRNA was analyzed in 171 patients with pathologically-diagnosed CIN or cervical carcinoma. We utilized a RT-PCR assay based on consensus primers which could detect E6 mRNA (full-length E6/E7 transcript) and E7 mRNAs (spliced E6*/E7 transcripts) separately for various HPV types. E7 mRNAs were detected in 6% of CIN1, 12% of CIN2, 24% of CIN3, and 54% of cervical carcinoma. The presence of E7 mRNAs was significantly associated with progression from low-grade CIN to invasive carcinoma in contrast with E6 mRNA or high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) DNA (p = 0.00011, 0.80 and 0.54). The presence of both E6 and E7 mRNAs was significantly associated with HPV16/18 DNA but not with HR-HPV DNA (p = 0.0079 and 0.21), while the presence of E6 mRNA was significantly associated with HR-HPV DNA but not with HPV16/18 DNA (p = 0.036 and 0.089). The presence of both E6 and E7 mRNAs showed high specificity and low sensitivity (100% and 19%) for detecting CIN2+ by contrast with the positivity for HR-HPV DNA showing low specificity and high sensitivity (19% and 89%). The positive predictive value for detecting CIN2+ was even higher by the presence of both E6 and E7 mRNAs than by the positivity for HR-HPV DNA (100% vs. 91%). In 31 patients followed up for CIN1-2, the presence of both E6 and E7 mRNAs showed significant association with the occurrence of upgraded abnormal cytology in contrast with E6 mRNA, HR-HPV DNA, or HPV16/18 DNA (p = 0.034, 0.73, 0.53, and 0.72). Our findings support previous studies according to which E7 mRNA is more closely involved in cervical carcinogenesis than E6 mRNA. Moreover, the separate analysis of E6 and E7 mRNAs may be more useful than HR-HPV DNA test for detecting CIN2+ precisely and predicting disease progression. Further accumulation of evidence is warranted to validate our findings.

Role of HPV DNA testing in modern gynaecological practice

The identification of some types of human papillomavirus (HPV) as necessary, but not sufficient, cause of cervical cancer has suggested the use of HPV testing in cervical cancer prevention. A large number of studies has provided evidence supporting its application (1) as primary screening test, (2) for triaging borderline cytology, (3) for follow-up after positive primary test but no abnormal histology and (4) as a test of cure. They also allowed a reasonably good definition of the appropriate policies and protocols, leading to the delivery of evidence-based guidelines resulting from a systematic review of the literature. In this chapter, we present a critical analysis of the recommendations of the main European and North American guidelines relative to industrialised countries.

Follow up with HPV test and cytology as test of cure, 6 months after conization, is reliable

INTRODUCTION

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is an objective marker with a high sensitivity for finding cervical dysplasia. The objective of the current study is to investigate whether HPV testing, combined with liquid-based cytology, is reliable as a test of cure after the loop electrical excision procedure (LEEP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The LEEP was performed in 330 women for excision of cervical dysplasia. Follow up consisted of HPV testing and liquid-based cytology at six, 12, and 36 months after treatment. Patients with negative co-testing after 6 months were re-examined after 3 years. Patients who tested positive for high-risk HPV and/or dysplasia were followed up 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 6 months, the co-testing was double negative in 169 of 260 tested cases (65%). A positive high-risk HPV test (n = 40) was associated with cytological abnormalities (p < 0.001). After 3 years, 227 of 275 examined cases (83%) co-tested negative, including 154 patients who had already tested negative at 6 months and 37 cases with viral clearance at 12 months. Of 26 patients with high-risk HPV at the 3-year follow up, six had LSIL findings on liquid-based cytology, but neither HSIL lesions nor glandular atypia or cervical cancer was found. A negative high-risk HPV test showed a negative predictive value for HSIL of 100% (95% CI 99.8-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Negative co-testing 6 months after LEEP can be considered a reliable test of cure as 3-year follow-up results are consistent with neither HSIL or cancer.

Human Papillomavirus Laboratory Testing: the Changing Paradigm

High-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause essentially all cervical cancers, most anal and oropharyngeal cancers, and some vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. Improved understanding of the pathogenesis of infection and the availability of newer tests are changing the approach to screening and diagnosis. Molecular tests to detect DNA from the most common high-risk HPVs are FDA approved for use in conjunction with cytology in cervical cancer screening programs. More-specific tests that detect RNA from high-risk HPV types are now also available. The use of molecular tests as the primary screening tests is being adopted in some areas. Genotyping to identify HPV16 and -18 has a recommended role in triaging patients for colposcopy who are high-risk HPV positive but have normal cytology. There are currently no recommended screening methods for anal, vulvar, vaginal, penile, or oropharyngeal HPV infections. HPV testing has limited utility in patients at high risk for anal cancer, but p16 immunohistochemistry is recommended to clarify lesions in tissue biopsy specimens that show moderate dysplasia or precancer mimics. HPV testing is recommended for oropharyngeal squamous cell tumors as a prognostic indicator. Ongoing research will help to improve the content of future guidelines for screening and diagnostic testing.

HPV-Testing in Follow-up of Patients Treated for CIN2+ Lesions

Persistent positivity of HPV-DNA testing is considered a prognostic index of recurrent disease in patients treated for CIN2+. HPV detection, and particularly genotyping, has an adequate high rate of sensitivity and specificity (along with an optimal reproducibility), for accurately predicting treatment failure, allowing for an intensified monitoring activity. Conversely, women with a negative HPV-test 6 months after therapy have a very low risk for residual/recurrent disease, which leads to a more individualized follow-up schedule, allowing for a gradual return to the normal screening scheme. HPV testing should be routinely included (with or without cytology) in post-treatment follow-up of CIN2+ patients for early detection of recurrence and cancer progression. HPV genotyping methods, as a biological indicator of persistent disease, could be more suitable for a predictive role and risk stratification (particularly in the case of HPV 16/18 persistence) than pooled HPV-based testing. However, it is necessary to be aware of the performance of the system, adhering to strict standardization of the process and quality assurance criteria.

A review of the clinical performance of the Aptima HPV assay

This comprehensive review compiles published data from 62 original articles comparing different HPV tests and one meta-analysis on the clinical performance of the Aptima HR HPV (AHPV) assay in either screening or referral populations as well as for the purpose of test of cure. A number of publications with technical issues were also considered. Besides a brief introduction in the development of E6/E7 mRNA testing, the review summarizes data on analytical sensitivies and specificities, as well as on clinical sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV with histological endpoints CIN2+ and CIN3+, where available. Although most studies were of cross-sectional design, five studies with a longitudinal prospective design or component were identified. In addition to the study design, sample size, age and CIN2/3+ prevalence of the respective cohort are listed. This allows direct comparison of the published data in the respective groups. One major outcome of this review is the remarkably stable similar sensitivities of AHPV and HC2 independent from study design for detection of CIN2/3+ combined with a higher specificity of the AHPV. The second outcome was the longitudinal predictive value derived from registry linkage and other prospective studies that would support the applicability of the AHPV test in primary screening with at least a three year screening interval.

HPV testing in the context of post-treatment follow up (test of cure)

BACKGROUND

Women treated for cervical lesions are at higher risk of subsequent disease compared to the general population. Consequently, post treatment surveillance strategies are required to ensure the success of treatment, so called "test of cure". The high sensitivity and negative predictive value of HPV assays can enhance post-treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the current data on test of cure strategies with a particular focus on HPV testing and to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research.

RESULTS

HPV testing is sensitive for the detection of residual or recurrent disease post treatment for CIN2+ and is more sensitive than cytology alone. Co-testing increases sensitivity, marginally and there is a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency and safety to release negative women. Most test of cure studies have applied HPV DNA tests and post treatment positivity rates vary widely depending on assay and potentially, treatment type.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, an increasing number of test of cure algorithms now incorporate HPV testing although there is heterogeneity of practice with respect to assay, number of post treatment tests, testing intervals, follow up time. While type specific persistence identified through genotyping may identify those at greater risk of disease there is no consensus as to how this may be applied, clinically. Data on HPV testing in women treated for glandular lesions would be welcome as would the performance of different HPV assays and associated biomarkers in this context.

Long-term costs of introducing HPV-DNA post-treatment surveillance to national cervical cancer screening in Ireland

INTRODUCTION

Co-testing (cytology plus human papillomavirus DNA testing) as part of cervical cancer surveillance in Ireland increases one-time testing costs. Of interest to policy makers was the long-term impact of these costs accompanied by decreases in intensity of recalls for women with no detected abnormalities.

METHODS

A cost analysis of cytology-only and co-testing strategy was implemented using decision analytic modeling, aggregating testing utilization and costs for each of the two strategies over 12 years.

RESULTS

Aggregated incremental costs of the co-testing strategy were positive for the first 3 years but became negative thereafter, generating a cost savings of roughly €20 million in favor of the cytology-only strategy over a 12-year period. Results were robust over a range of sensitivity analyses with respect to discount and attrition rates.

DISCUSSION

This analysis provided valuable information to policy makers contributing to the introduction of co-testing for post-treatment surveillance (PTS) in Ireland.

Cobas 4800 HPV detection in the cervical, vaginal and urine samples of women with high-grade CIN before and after treatment

AIMS

To assess the performance of a clinically validated human papillomavirus (HPV) test (the Cobas 4800 HPV test) in urine and self-taken vaginal specimens within a colposcopy population and to assess HPV prevalence before and after treatment across the different biospecimens.

METHODS

A total of 100 women attending a colposcopy clinic provided three biospecimens (a clinician-taken liquid-based cytology sample (LBC), a self-taken vaginal sample and a urine sample) for HPV testing. HPV prevalence and concordance was compared across the biospecimens and clinical performance relative to the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ and CIN3+ was assessed. A total of 39 women retuned at 6 months for a post-treatment follow-up appointment, and HPV concordance in all biospecimens was measured relative to their original HPV status.

RESULTS

65 cases of CIN2+ were detected in the baseline population; sensitivity for CIN2+ was 92% (82 to 97) for the vaginal and the LBC sample and 80.0 (68% to 88%) for the urine sample. In the follow-up (post treatment) population, women were twice as likely to be HPV positive in their urine or vaginal sample compared with the equivalent LBC sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal and LBC samples showed very similar performance for the detection of CIN2+ in this population using the Cobas HPV test; further validation of these findings in screening contexts will be of value. Self-taken samples may have less utility in a 'test of cure' setting-given the higher prevalence of HPV relative to LBC.

Comparative evaluation of three commercial systems for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus in cervical and vaginal ThinPrep PreservCyt samples and correlation with biopsy results

Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is the etiologic agent of more than 99% of all cervical cancers worldwide, with 14 genotypes being considered oncogenic or "high risk" because of their association with severe dysplasia and cervical carcinoma. Among these 14 high-risk types, HPV-16 and -18 account for approximately 70% of cervical cancers. The aim of this study was to evaluate three FDA-approved HPV nucleic acid-based tests for the ability to predict high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN2 or worse) in corresponding tissue biopsy specimens. Residual specimens (total n = 793, cervical n = 743, vaginal n = 50) collected in ThinPrep PreservCyt medium with a cytologic result of ≥ atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance were tested by the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay (Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD), the cobas HPV test (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN), and the APTIMA HPV assay (Hologic, San Diego, CA). Genotyping for HPV-16 and HPV-18 was simultaneously performed by the cobas HPV test. Results were compared to cervical or vaginal biopsy findings, when they were available (n = 350). Among the 350 patients with corresponding biopsy results, 81 (23.1%) showed ≥ CIN2 by histopathology. The ≥ CIN2 detection sensitivity was 91.4% by the cobas and APTIMA assays and 97.5% by HC2 assay. The specificities of the cobas, APTIMA, and HC2 assays were 31.2, 42.0, and 27.1%, respectively. When considering only positive HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 genotype results, the cobas test showed a sensitivity and a specificity of 51.9 and 86.6%, respectively. While the HC2, cobas, and APTIMA assays showed similar sensitivities for the detection of ≥ CIN2 lesions, the specificities of the three tests varied, with the greatest specificity (86.6%) observed when the HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 genotypes were detected.