Three-year risk of high-grade CIN for women aged 30 years or older who undergo baseline Pap cytology and HPV co-screening

Efficacy of Cobas HPV testing for predicting grade 2+ cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a cancer prevention center and a gynecologic oncology clinic: A single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of Cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or higher (CIN2+), Cobas HPV testing results were correlated with follow-up biopsy in patients from Cancer Prevention Center (CPC) and Gynecologic Oncology Clinic (GOC) of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

METHODS

Institutional data for patients who underwent Cobas HPV and Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology cotesting from 2019 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical follow-up results were compared with Cobas HPV testing results in two populations.

RESULTS

A total of 2226 patients, including 921 women (mean age, 55.2 years) seen at the CPC and 1305 women (mean age, 49.3 years) seen at the GOC, were included. Specimens from GOC patients had a significantly higher HPV positivity rate than did those from CPC patients (22.9% vs. 10.1%; p < .001). Cobas HPV testing was positive in all seven CPC patients with surgical follow-up results showing CIN2+. Among 36 GOC patients with CIN2+ lesions, five patients had HPV-/Pap+ testing results. Although only seven CPC patients had CIN2+, Cobas HPV testing showed 100% sensitivity for predicting CIN2+ in this group. Sensitivity for CIN2+ was 86.5% in the GOC group, whereas 13.9% of GOC patients with CIN2+ had negative HPV testing results.

CONCLUSIONS

Cobas HPV testing was highly efficacious for predicting CIN2+ lesions in the low-risk CPC population, which supports HPV primary screening for cervical cancer in low-risk populations. For high-risk patients, especially those with a history of CIN2+/cervical cancer, HPV/Pap cotesting may still be necessary to maintain a high clinical sensitivity for CIN2+.

Prevalence and determinants of cervical cancer screening with a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus testing

PURPOSE

In the United States, recommended options for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or older include cytology alone or a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (co-testing). Although there is a body of evidence suggesting that co-testing may be the preferred screening option in this group of women, little is known about the characteristics of women who screen for cervical cancer with co-testing.

METHODS

A multistage area probability design-based survey was administered to a representative sample of Texas residents. Of the 1348 female respondents, 572 women aged 30 years or older were included in this analysis. Population-weighted survey logistic regression was used to identify determinants of cervical screening with co-testing versus screening with cytology alone.

RESULTS

Women vaccinated against HPV (aOR: 4.48, 95% CI: 1.25-15.97) or hepatitis B virus [aOR: 2.48 (1.52-4.02)], those with a personal cancer history [aOR: 2.96 (1.29-6.77)], and hormonal contraception users [aOR: 2.03 (1.03-3.97)] were more likely to be screened with co-testing than with cytology alone. Moreover, the likelihood of being screened with co-testing decreased with increasing age and decreasing annual household income.

CONCLUSIONS

Benefits and indications of co-testing should be better explained to women and health care providers.

How confident can we be in the current guidelines for exiting cervical screening?

Current US guidelines recommend against cervical screening beyond age 65 in women who have had adequate negative screening. In anticipation of the next round of evidence review and guideline updates, we provide a critical review of the evidence supporting the exiting recommendation in the US, highlighting both practice changes and new insights into the epidemiology and natural history of HPV and cervical cancer. Current recommendations are based, by necessity, on cytology alone, and will be limited in generalizability to evolving screening strategies with co-testing and primary HPV testing. The lack of empirical data to define what constitutes 'adequate recent screening with negative results' is compounded by difficulties in predicting future risk without consideration of concepts of HPV latency and cohort effects of changing sexual behaviour in US women over time. We urge caution in extrapolating past risk experience in post-menopausal women to today's population, and suggest study designs to strengthen the evidence base in well-screened older women. We further recommend building the qualitative evidence base to better define the harms and benefits of screening among older women. Extending the lifetime of screening is a matter of finding the appropriate balance of benefits of cancer reduction and limitation of harms and costs of 'overscreening'. This will require moving beyond current emphasis on number of colposcopies as the metric of harm. Our commentary is meant to stimulate intellectual debate regarding the certainty of our existing knowledge base and set clear research priorities for the future.

Dual staining for p16/Ki67 is a more specific test than cytology for triage of HPV-positive women

Globally, cervical cancer (CC) screening is moving from cytology-based to HPV screening or a combination of both (co-testing). Most HPV-positive women clear the virus and do not develop relevant disease. Additional triage approaches are needed to reduce unnecessary colposcopy referrals. The p16/Ki67 dual stain cytology test (DSCT) is one of the most promising, but it has not (yet) been included as a recommendation in European guidelines. Previous studies in Spain on this issue are lacking. We studied the performance of p16/Ki67 DSCT for the triage of HPV-positive women in Navarra to detect precursor lesions (PLs) and CC compared to cytology only. We selected 1865 HPV-positive women with p16/Ki67 DSCT results and 304 women with an available biopsy result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the p16/Ki67 DSCT to detect underlying PLs and CC compared to cytology were calculated, using the biopsy as the gold standard. Cytology and p16/Ki67 DSCT showed similar sensitivity (99.0% vs. 98.0%), but cytology had significantly lower specificity (6.9 vs. 39.1%). Of the CIN2+/HPV+ women, triage using cytology only would have resulted in 40.2% true PLs and CC, while using p16/Ki67 DSCT this was 98.0% qualifying the women for colposcopy referral. Our results show that p16/Ki67 DSCT detects more than twice as many true PLs and CC than cytology only in this population. Thus, this test can be considered as an important additional tool in HPV testing-based screening strategies, to avoid unnecessary colposcopy referrals and to reduce health care costs.