Search

Background: The growing use of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening requires determining appropriate screening intervals to avoid overtreatment of transient disease. This study examined the long-term risk of cervical precancer after HPV screening to inform screening interval recommendations., Methods: This longitudinal cohort study (British Columbia, Canada, 2008 to 2022) recruited women and individuals with a cervix who received 1 to 2 negative HPV screens (HPV1 cohort, N = 5,546; HPV2 cohort, N = 6,624) during a randomized trial and women and individuals with a cervix with 1 to 2 normal cytology results (BCS1 cohort, N = 782,297; BCS2 cohort, N = 673,778) extracted from the provincial screening registry. All participants were followed through the registry for 14 years. Long-term risk of cervical precancer or worse [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+)] was compared between HPV and cytology cohorts., Results: Cumulative risks of CIN2+ were 3.2/1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-4.7] in HPV1 and 2.7/1,000 (95% CI, 1.2-4.2) in HPV2 after 8 years. This was comparable with the risk in the cytology cohorts after 3 years [BCS1: 3.3/1,000 (95% CI, 3.1-3.4); BCS2: 2.5/1,000 (95% CI, 2.4-2.6)]. The cumulative risk of CIN2+ after 10 years was low in the HPV cohorts [HPV1: 4.7/1,000 (95% CI, 2.6-6.7); HPV2: 3.9 (95% CI, 1.1-6.6)]., Conclusions: Risk of CIN2+ 8 years after a negative screen in the HPV cohorts was comparable with risk after 3 years in the cytology cohorts (the benchmark for acceptable risk)., Impact: These findings suggest that primary HPV screening intervals could be extended beyond the current 5-year recommendation, potentially reducing barriers to screening., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Long-term safety of a single negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test for cervical cancer screening is unclear. The HPV FOr cerviCAL Cancer Trial (FOCAL) was a randomized trial comparing HPV testing with cytology. The FOCAL-DECADE cohort tracked women who received one HPV test during FOCAL, and were HPV negative, for up to 10 years to identify cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detected through a provincial screening program., Methods: FOCAL participants who received one HPV test, were negative, and had at least one post-FOCAL cervix screen were included ( N = 5,537). We constructed cumulative incidence curves of CIN2+/CIN3+ detection, analyzed cumulative risk of detection at intervals post-HPV test, calculated average incidence rates for detection, and compared hazard across ages., Results: Ten years after one negative HPV test, the probability of CIN2+ detection was lower than 1%, with most lesions detected 7 years or later. Average incidence rates of CIN2+/CIN3+ lesions over follow-up were 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.78] and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.07-0.36) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Hazards were higher for younger ages (nonsignificant trend)., Conclusions: Among women with a single negative HPV test, long-term risk of CIN2+ detection was low, particularly through 7 years of follow-up; thus, one negative HPV test appears to confer long-term protection from precancerous lesions. Even 10-year risk is sufficiently low to support extended testing intervals in average-risk populations., Impact: Our findings support the safety of screening policies using HPV testing alone at 5-year or longer intervals., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: HPV FOCAL is a randomized trial comparing high-risk HPV [Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2)] vs. liquid-based cytology (LBC) for primary cervical screening., Objective: The present study objective was to compare Aptima HPV (AHPV) and HC2 assay performance at the intervention arm baseline and 48 mo. screens in relation to the rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2+)., Study Design: Women enrolled after December 2010 (n = 3475) were screened at baseline with both AHPV and HC2 (AHPV was blinded). Women with CIN2+ exited the trial; HC2 negative (-) women and those HC2 positive (+) with

Background: Cervical cancer screening programs are switching from Pap screening to high-risk HPV testing., Objectives: To compare the Aptima HPV Assay (AHPV) with the Hybrid Capture ® 2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test ® (HC2) for primary cervical screening., Study Design: HPV FOCAL is a randomized trial comparing HC2 to liquid-based cytology (LBC) for screening women aged 25-65. AHPV and HC2 were compared at the baseline screen (n=3473). Genotyping was by the Aptima HPV 16 18/45 Genotype Assay. We assessed HPV genotyping and reflex LBC for colposcopy triage., Results: AHPV/HC2 agreement was 96.5% (kappa 0.76); positive agreement was 77.4%. The AHPV positive rate was 7.2% vs. 8.4% for HC2 (p=0.06). Based on HC2 screening, round 1 CIN2 and CIN3+ rates were 9.2/1000 and 5.2/1000 respectively. Using HC2 as the comparator test, AHPV CIN2+ and CIN3+ relative sensitivities were 0.96 and 1.00 (p=1.00) respectively. High-grade reflex LBC and HPV 16 infection were significantly associated with CIN3+. AHPV specificity was 0.94 vs. 0.93 (p=0.05) for HC2. Compared with triage of HC2+ with abnormal cytology or HPV persistence for 12 months, colposcopy referral would be significantly reduced (38.3/1000 vs. 60.8/1000; p<0.001) if AHPV+ women with abnormal LBC and HPV 16/18/45 were referred at baseline. CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection rates were not significantly different for the two strategies., Conclusions: AHPV vs. HC2 screening had equivalent CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection. Triage of AHPV+ by abnormal reflex LBC and the presence of HPV 16/18/45 would result in a significantly lower colposcopy referral rate with similar CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection rates as the overall HC2+ referral algorithm., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: HPV FOCAL is a randomized trial (ISRCTN79347302, registered 20 Apr 2007) comparing high-risk (hr) HPV testing vs. liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25-65. We compared the Digene Hybrid Capture® 2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test® (HC2) and the Roche cobas® 4800 HPV Test (COBAS) for primary screening., Methods: Women (n=6,172) were screened at baseline by HC2 and COBAS and by LBC 24 months later. We assessed HPV genotyping and reflex LBC for colposcopy triage of baseline HPV positive women., Results: Overall HC2/COBAS agreement was 96.1% (kappa 0.75) and positive agreement was 77.5%. Baseline CIN2 and CIN3+ rates based on HPV screening were 8.6/1,000 and 6.6/1,000 respectively; 24 month rates were 0.7/1,000 and 0.4/1,000 (LBC screening). HC2 and COBAS were concordant positive for 91% of round 1 CIN2 and 98% of CIN3+. CIN3+ was significantly associated with HPV 16 (Odds Ratio [OR] 5.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.30, 11.37), but not HPV 18 (OR 2.62; 95% CI 0.73, 9.49), vs. non-HPV 16/18 HPV at baseline. There was no significant association between HPV genotype and CIN2. CIN3+ was significantly more likely for high-grade (OR 5.99; 95% CI 2.53, 14.18), but not low-grade (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.20, 1.49), vs. negative LBC. No significant association was observed between LBC grade and CIN2. HPV 16 and 18 were associated with 33% of CIN2 and 68% of CIN3+ identified at baseline., Conclusions: For hrHPV positive women, abnormal reflex LBC is appropriate for colposcopy triage. In addition, immediate referral of women with HPV 16/18 and normal cytology may allow for earlier detection of CIN2+ lesions which would not be detected until after follow-up testing.

The Human Papillomavirus FOr CervicAL cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial is a large randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of primary HPV testing to cytology among women in the population‐based Cervix Screening Program in British Columbia, Canada. We conducted a cost‐effectiveness analysis based on the HPV FOCAL trial to estimate the incremental cost per detected high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse lesions (CIN2+). A total of 19,009 women aged 25 to 65 were randomized to one of two study groups. Women in the intervention group received primary HPV testing with reflex liquid‐based cytology (LBC) upon a positive finding with a screening interval of 48 months. Women in the control group received primary LBC testing, and those negative returned at 24 months for LBC and again at 48 months for exit screening. Both groups received HPV and LBC co‐testing at the 48‐month exit. Incremental costs during the course of the trial were comparable between the intervention and control groups. The intervention group had lower overall costs and detected a larger number of CIN2+ lesions, resulting in a lower mean cost per CIN2+ detected ($7551) than the control group ($8325), a difference of ‐$773 [all costs in 2018 USD]. Cost per detected lesion was sensitive to the costs of sample collection, HPV testing, and LBC testing. The HPV FOCAL Trial results suggest that primary HPV testing every 4 years produces similar outcomes to LBC‐based testing every 2 years for cervical cancer screening at a lower cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HPV FOCAL is a randomized control trial of cervical cancer screening. The intervention arm received baseline screening for high‐risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and the control arm received liquid‐based cytology (LBC) at baseline and 24 months. Both arms received 48‐month exit HPV and LBC cotesting. Exit results are presented for per‐protocol eligible (PPE) screened women. Participants were PPE at exit if they had completed all screening and recommended follow‐up and had not been diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) earlier in the trial. Subgroups were identified based upon results at earlier trial screening. There were 9,457 and 9,552 and women aged 25–65 randomized to control and intervention and 7,448 (77.8%) and 8,281 (86.7%), respectively, were PPE and screened. Exit cotest results were similar (p = 0.11) by arm for PPE and the relative rate (RR) of CIN2+ for intervention vs. control was RR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56–1.23). The RR for CIN2+ comparing intervention women baseline HPV negative to control women with negative cytology at baseline and at 24 months, was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.43–1.06). PPE women who had a negative or CIN1 colposcopy in earlier rounds had elevated rates (per 1,000) of CIN2+ at exit, control 31 (95% CI: 14–65) and intervention 43 (95% CI: 25–73). Among PPE women HPV negative at exit LBC cotesting identified little CIN2+, Rate = 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1–0.7). This per‐protocol analysis found that screening with HPV using a 4‐year interval is as safe as LBC with a 2‐year screening interval. LBC screening in HPV negative women at exit identified few additional lesions. What's new? Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is a sensitive approach for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and higher (CIN2+). However, whether HPV testing alone, with extended intervals between visits, is more effective than HPV testing and liquid‐based cytology (LBC) combined for cervical screening remains uncertain. Here, HPV testing every four years was found to be at least as effective as LBC every two years for CIN2+ identification. Moreover, women were more likely to comply with screening protocol when four‐year intervals were used, compared to two‐year intervals. Women with CIN1 at colposcopy and women initially HPV‐positive may require screening with both methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: There is limited information about the relative effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing alone compared with cytology in North American populations.Objective: To evaluate histologically confirmed cumulative incident cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detected up to and including 48 months by primary HPV testing alone (intervention) or liquid-based cytology (control).Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in an organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Canada. Participants were recruited through 224 collaborating clinicians from January 2008 to May 2012, with follow-up through December 2016. Women aged 25 to 65 years with no history of CIN2+ in the past 5 years, no history of invasive cervical cancer, or no history of hysterectomy; who have not received a Papanicolaou test within the past 12 months; and who were not receiving immunosuppressive therapy were eligible.Interventions: A total of 19 009 women were randomized to the intervention (n = 9552) and control (n = 9457) groups. Women in the intervention group received HPV testing; those whose results were negative returned at 48 months. Women in the control group received liquid-based cytology (LBC) testing; those whose results were negative returned at 24 months for LBC. Women in the control group who were negative at 24 months returned at 48 months. At 48-month exit, both groups received HPV and LBC co-testing.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of CIN3+ 48 months following randomization. The cumulative incidence of CIN2+ was a secondary outcome.Results: Among 19 009 women who were randomized (mean age, 45 years [10th-90th percentile, 30-59]), 16 374 (8296 [86.9%] in the intervention group and 8078 [85.4%] in the control group) completed the study. At 48 months, significantly fewer CIN3+ and CIN2+ were detected in the intervention vs control group. The CIN3+ incidence rate was 2.3/1000 (95% CI, 1.5-3.5) in the intervention group and 5.5/1000 (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) in the control group. The CIN3+ risk ratio was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.25-0.69). The CIN2+ incidence rate at 48 months was 5.0/1000 (95% CI, 3.8-6.7) in the intervention group and 10.6/1000 (95% CI, 8.7-12.9) in the control group. The CIN2+ risk ratio was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.67). Baseline HPV-negative women had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of CIN3+ at 48 months than cytology-negative women (CIN3+ incidence rate, 1.4/1000 [95% CI, 0.8-2.4]; CIN3+ risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.13-0.48]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among women undergoing cervical cancer screening, the use of primary HPV testing compared with cytology testing resulted in a significantly lower likelihood of CIN3+ at 48 months. Further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness.Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN79347302. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• First estimates of HPV prevalence 10 years post school-based vaccination in BC. • Non-statistically significant decline in prevalence of HPV16/18 post-vaccination. • Changes in screening guidelines may underestimate the vaccination program impact. British Columbia (BC) introduced a publicly funded, school-based human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization program in 2008 with the quadrivalent vaccine. In 2010/2011, a baseline evaluation of HPV prevalence was conducted among women undergoing cervical cancer screening. After 10 years of publicly funded HPV vaccination, HPV-type prevalence was re-evaluated. From August 2017 to March 2018, 1107 physicians were invited to return cytobrushes used during routine Pap screening to the Cervical Cancer Screening Laboratory for HPV testing. Only age or year of birth was collected. Specimens were screened for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) and positive samples were genotyped. HPV type prevalence was compared for females 15–22 yrs (those eligible for the school-based vaccination) and 23+ yrs (ineligible for school-based vaccination) for the 2010/2011 and the 2017/2018 data. There were 3309 valid samples received for testing; of these, 3107 were included in the analysis. The overall hrHPV prevalence was 12.2% (95% CI 11.3–13.3) in 2010/11, and 12.0% (95% CI 10.9–13.2) in 2017/18. For the 15–22 age group, the prevalence for any hrHPV was 26.8% (95% CI 23.1–30.8) in 2010/11 and 25.4% (95% CI 15.3–37.9) in 2017/18. For those aged 15–22, HPV16 prevalence in 2010/11 was 8.8% (95% CI 6.5–11.5) and in 2017/18 was 6.3% (95% CI 1.8–15.5), with corresponding figures for HPV18 3.7% (95% CI 2.3–5.7) and 0% (95% CI 0.0–5.7), respectively. For all hrHPV types, there were no statistically significant differences between the 2010/11 and 2017/18 periods. This study illustrates the prevalence of hrHPV in BC over time in women undergoing cervical cancer screening, where an indication of a decline in HPV16/18 is seen in vaccine eligible women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]