Search

Background: High-risk (HR) Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Tests for HPV detection differ in sensitivity and specificity. In this study, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the HC2 HR HPV Test and the Cobas 4800 HPV Test in consecutive cervical samples collected from a referral population with a high prevalence of disease, using CIN2+ histology as clinical outcome., Methods: Ten thousand two-hundred and thirteen consecutive cervical samples were assayed for HR-HPV in the Laboratory Medicine Division of IEO: 5140 from January 2012 to June 2013 with HC2 and 5073 from July 2013 to December 2014 with the Cobas HPV Test. These two assays differ in terms of target genes and testing methods., Results: The test positivity rates for HC2 and Cobas 4800 were 29.5% (1515/5135, 95% CI 28.3-30.8%) and 23.9% (1212/5069, 95% CI 22.7-25.1%), respectively. The detection rates of CIN2+ in the two time periods were 2.8% (145/5140, 95% CI 2.4-3.3%) and 1.6% (79/5073, 95% CI 1.2-1.9%), respectively. The sensitivity for CIN2+ for HC2 and Cobas 4800 was 95.2% (138/145, 95% CI 91.7-98.7%) and 93.7% (74/79, 95% CI 88.3-99.0%), respectively. The specificity for CIN2+ for HC2 and Cobas 4800 was 72.4% (3613/4990, 95% CI 71.2-73.6%) and 77.2% (3852/4990, 95% CI 76.0-78.4%), respectively. There were 23 cases of cancer in each of the two time periods. HC2 detected 100% (23/23). Cobas 4800 detected 82.6% (19/23)., Conclusions: The detection rate of CIN2+ was higher in the first period than in the second period. There was no significant difference in sensitivity of HC2 and Cobas 4800 in women with CIN2+. The specificity of CIN2+ using Cobas 4800 in the second period was higher than HC2 in the first period, probably due to the lower prevalence of CIN2+ in the second period.

Aims: Mortality for cervical cancer varies between the different regions of the world, with high rates in low-income countries where screening programmes are not present and organised. However, increasing screening coverage is still a priority in all countries: one way to do that is to base screening on self-sampled screening. The success of a self-sampling screening strategy depends on capacity to recruit unscreened women, on the performance and acceptability of the device and on the clinical performance of the high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) test., Methods: This study based on 786 enrolled women investigates the best cut-off value of Hybrid Capture 2 HPV test (HC2) for self-sampled specimens in terms of sensitivity and specificity., Results: In this population, we found that the sensitivity and the specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more detection of HC2 performed on self-sampled specimens were 82.5% and 82.8%, respectively considering the relative light units (RLU) cut-off value of 1. Increasing the cut-off value the sensitivity decreases and the specificity raises and the best area under the curve for the RLU cut-off value is 1., Conclusions: Our results confirm that the cut-off value of 1 suggested by Qiagen for PreservCyt specimen is the best cut-off value also for self-sampled specimens., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: To evaluate, from a gynecology perspective, the transition from cytology-based HPV screening to primary HPV screening., Methods: Studies examining switching from cytology-based screening to primary HPV-DNA testing with triaging of patients with positive test results were retrieved and reviewed, with a particular focus on screening in an Italian setting., Results: The increased complexity of patient-management decisions when implementing HPV-based screening was a critical issue discussed in the literature. The change in strategy represents a paradigm shift in moving from a medical perspective of identifying the disease in individual patients, to a public-healthcare perspective of excluding HPV from the healthy population and identifying a small sub-group of individuals at increased risk of HPV., Conclusion: With knowledge about HPV screening evolving rapidly, new programs and related algorithms need to be sufficiently flexible to be adjusted according to ongoing research and the validation of new assays. The establishment of a national working group (including epidemiologists, gynecologists, pathologists, and healthcare providers) will be necessary to properly implement and govern this important technical and cultural transition., (© 2016 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Objectives: Little is known about the epidemiology of human papillomavirus (HPV) in Italy before the age of 25. At the European Institute of Oncology, a prospective observational study on cervical HPV infection in 18-year-old women undergoing quadrivalent HPV vaccination is ongoing., Methods: At the first visit before vaccination, all the young women answered an epidemiological questionnaire, and then, the presence of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) was tested. Samples positive for hrHPV were genotyped. Liquid-based cytology was done only to women declaring not to be virgins. Any positivity at cytology or HPV testing was completed with colposcopy and eventually biopsies., Results: Seven hundred and thirty women were enrolled. Two hundred sixty-six women were virgins; 7 (2.6%) of these resulted positive to hrHPV: 1 had HPV16 and CP6108, whereas the other 6 resulted negative at genotyping. Of the 464 nonvirgins, 61 (13.1%) were HPV positive: 19 had HPV16, 4 were positive to HPV18 with other hrHPVs, 25 to other hrHPVs, 7 to low-risk HPV, whereas 13 resulted negative at genotyping. HPV positivity was significantly associated to both smoking and having more than 3 partners. Cervical cytology was negative in 433 cases (93.3%), ASC-US in 10 cases (2.2%), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in 20 cases (4.3%), and ASC-H in 1 case (0.2%). No CIN2+ was identified., Conclusions: Overall, we found a low positivity to HPV in this population; however, the rate of HPV positivity was significantly related to smoking and sexual life. The cytology result low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion was more frequent than in the screening population, whereas no CIN2+ was identified, confirming the indication to avoid screening at this age.

Purpose: This study investigated the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection, co-infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and associated risk factors in a cohort of sexually active young women enrolled in an ongoing trial on HPV vaccination at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO, Milan, Italy)., Methods: Cervical samples were collected from 591 girls (median age 18.8 years) at the beginning of their sexual activity. At the time of sample collection, 354 women had not yet been vaccinated, and 237 women had been vaccinated for at least 12 months. All samples were analyzed through a molecular assay for the detection of C. trachomatis infection. Demographic, behavioral risk factors and high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) status were investigated., Results: The prevalence of C. trachomatis infection was 4.9 % and HPV/C. trachomatis co-infection rate was 1.5 %. The exact analysis has not underlined statistical significance for the variables considered, except for the infection with HR-HPV (p < 0.001). The prevalence of C. trachomatis infection among women who had not been immunized and those already vaccinated was similar (5.6 vs 3.8 %). However, the rate of HPV/C. trachomatis co-infection was twice as high in unvaccinated women (2 %) compared to vaccinated women (0.8 %)., Conclusions: Over 16 % of young women had at least one of the two STIs investigated. The risk of C. trachomatis infection was higher in HR-HPV infected compared to HR-HPV uninfected young women. The rate of co-infection was halved in HPV-vaccinated compared to unvaccinated women. This study underlines that HPV vaccination can confer benefits also in terms of co-infections prevention, leading to a decreased risk of developing cervical malignancies.

Analytical and clinical performance validation is essential before introduction of a new human papillomavirus (HPV) assay into clinical practice. This study compares the new BD Onclarity HPV assay, which detects E6/E7 DNA from 14 high-risk HPV types, to the Hybrid Capture II (HC2) HPV DNA test, to concurrent cytology and histology results, in order to evaluate its performance in detecting high-grade cervical lesions. A population of 567 women, including 325 with ≥ASCUS (where ASCUS stands for atypical cells of undetermined significance) and any HC2 result and 242 with both negative cytology and negative HC2 results, were prospectively enrolled for the study. The overall agreement between Onclarity and HC2 was 94.6% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 92.3% to 96.2%). In this population with a high prevalence of disease, the relative sensitivities (versus adjudicated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 [CIN2+] histology endpoints) of the Onclarity and HC2 tests were 95.2% (95% CI, 90.7% to 97.5%) and 96.9% (95% CI, 92.9% to 98.7%), respectively, and the relative specificities were 50.3% (95% CI, 43.2% to 57.4%) for BD and 40.8% (95% CI, 33.9%, 48.1%) for HC2. These results indicate that the BD Onclarity HPV assay has sensitivity comparable to that of the HC2 assay, with a trend to an increased specificity. Moreover, as Onclarity gives the chance to discriminate between the different genotypes, we calculated the genotype prevalence and the absolute risk of CIN2+: HPV 16 was the most prevalent genotype (19.8%) with an absolute risk of CIN2+ of 77.1%., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

Objective: Strong evidences shows that HPV testing is more sensitive than cytology in detecting high-grade CIN. HPV test can be performed on samples collected by women themselves by means of self-sampling devices. This study compares the results of self-sampled HPV tests with the results of liquid based cytology (LBC)., Study Design: Seven hundred women scheduled for cervical cytology self-collected a cervicovaginal sample for HPV testing and then underwent a clinician-collected LBC at the European Institute of Oncology. The HPV and LBC results were compared with the McNemar test., Results: All HSIL (N=5) resulted hrHPV positive. LBC resulted LSIL or worse in 38 (5.4%) women (out of 700). Self-sampled HPV was positive in 96 women (13.7%). A LSIL or worse LBC result was found in 15 (2.5%) patients, out of the 604 hrHPV negative women and in 23 (24%) patients, out of the 96 hrHPV positive women. Positive cytology after a self-sampled HPV positive result had an Odds Ratio of 12.4 (95% CI: 5.8-26.6)., Conclusion: Self-collected HPV testing identifies a group of women at high risk of positive LBC and high grade SIL., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Objective: Recent data showed that HPV16 infections in young women can lead to CIN3 formation very quickly and questioned the common assumption that invasive cervical cancer develops through slowly progressing pre-cancer lesions, CIN1, CIN2 and CIN3. The aim of the study is to compare the age distribution of HPV 16/18 related and HPV16/18 not related CIN., Methods: We used the data generated from the clinical use of HPV genotyping (LINEAR ARRAY, Roche Diagnostics). Patients were grouped on the basis of histology, CIN1 vs. CIN2+ and on HR-HPV genotype status., Results: The probability to develop a CIN2+ seemed to decrease with age in patients infected with HR-HPV genotype 16/18 while the inverse effect was observed in CIN2+ patients who were HR-HPV positive but HPV16/18 negative (Chi-square test, p(trend)=0.01). Only in HR-HPV positive but HPV 16/18 negative patients, a relative reduction of CIN1 vs. CIN2+ was observed with increasing age (Cochran-Armitage test, p(trend)=0.01); finally, in HR-HPV non-16/18 infected patients only a statistically significant difference in mean age between CIN1 and CIN2+ patients below age 35 was observed., Conclusions: Besides the limitations of the present cross-sectional analysis, these data suggest a genotype specific natural history of cervical cancer precursors development: one type, more frequent, HPV16/18 related, which develops quick and early in life; another one, non-16/18 HR-HPV related, which develops later, slowly, through low- to high-grade lesions. If confirmed, this hypothesis could influence screening policies, especially in the vaccinated population., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be used as a primary test for cervical cancer screening. HPV self-sampling has the potential to replace physician/nurse sampling. Our objective was to compare the acceptability of two self-sampling methods among 205 women undergoing an excisional procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO)., Methods: One hundred eleven patients were given a Hybrid Capture (HC) Cervical Sampler™ (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and 94 received a self-lavaging device, the Delphi® Screener (Delphi Bioscience, Scherpenzeel, The Netherlands), both with written instructions. Self-sampling was performed just before the clinician-collected cervical sample. Women responded to questions using 5-point ordinal scales on the general acceptability of self-sampling and the physical comfort, embarrassment, pain, and difficulty experienced. Participants were also asked whether they prefer self-sampling or clinician sampling., Results: Both self-sampling methods were generally accepted with a significantly high score (p = 0.005) and significantly lower embarrassment (p = 0.042) in favor of the Delphi Screener. Both self-sampling methods were physically well accepted, not painful, and easy to perform. Most women (n = 117, 68%) preferred the self-sampled compared to the clinician-sampled test, with a significantly higher proportion in the Delphi Screener group (n = 59, 77.6%) compared to those using the HC Sampler (n = 58, 60.4%) (p = 0.021)., Conclusions: The present study shows that self-sampling for HPV testing is favorably received by women. A sampling device specifically developed for self-sampling, such as the Delphi Screener, shows the highest degree of satisfaction. A well-accepted HPV sampling method could be especially useful for women who do not take part in cervical screening or in settings where organized screening is not fully implemented.

Despite worldwide human papillomavirus (HPV) types distribution showed constant rates of HPV 16/18 in cervical cancers, regional variations have been consistently documented. Very little data is available on HPV genotype prevalence among Italian women with invasive cervical cancer. This study aims to determine the HPV type distribution in cervical specimens obtained from Italian women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer and referred to the European Institute of Oncology (IEO). Two hundred-sixty eight cervical specimens were obtained from patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer referred to the European Institute of Oncology between 1996 and 2006. Following preparation, all cervical samples were sent to laboratories at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, Lyon, France) for DNA extraction and HPV typing by the multiplex PCR/APEX assay. The study population was divided into four groups from different macro regions: (i) Milan and surrounding area (n=57, 21.3%), (ii) northern Italy (n=81, 30.2%), (iii) central Italy (n=64, 23.9%) and (iv) southern Italy (n=66, 24.6%). The present study is the first at our knowledge that examines a fair number of Italian cervical cancers, about one tenth of all estimated cervical cancer cases occurring yearly, distributed across the whole country. Two-hundred and fifty-one patients (93.7%) resulted HPV DNA positive; of these 201 patients (80.1%) presented a single infection, whereas 50 women (19.9%) presented multiple infection. One hundred and eighty-nine specimens (75.3%) tested positive for either HPV 16 or HPV 18, whereas 62 (24.7%) resulted positive for other high-risk HPV genotypes only. The proportion of HPV 16/18 positive invasive cervical cancers was similar for all the four geographical Italian areas considered. A statistically significant association with younger age and earlier stage was observed for HPV 16/18 related invasive cervical cancers. The results demonstrate that the proportion of HPV 16/18 cervical cancers is fairly constant in all the areas and covers more than 70% of Italian cervical cancer cases. This observation strengthens the decision to start the vaccination programme in all the Italian regions. In addition, the present study provides new and original data on the genotype related differences of the disease that are worth of further investigation.

Although cervical cytology screening has dramatically reduced its incidence, cervical cancer still occurs. The clinical history of 261 cervical cancer patients referred to the European Institute of Oncology between 1996 and 2006 was analysed in depth to better understand the difficulties in the diagnosis and prevention of this neoplasia in Italy. Data concerning anagraphical characteristics, tumour type and stage, Pap smear history, colposcopic and histologic data, treatment outcome were reviewed. Patients who had taken Pap smear in the 3-year time span preceding diagnosis were 199 and 55 (27.7%) of these smears were negative. A negative Pap smear was observed in 62.5% of the women with a cancer at stage IV or III. One hundred and seventy-two patients were symptomatic at diagnosis: 43 (25%) had a negative Pap smear in the 3 years preceding diagnosis while 54 (31.4%) had never done a Pap smear or had one taken more than 3 years before. Eighty-nine women were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis; 13 patients (14.6%) had a negative Pap smear while 8 had no smear taken in the 3 years preceding diagnosis or no smear at all. The present retrospective investigation indicates that the screening system still has some critical points. Although multiple techniques and approaches have been proposed to improve the general performance of the system, prophylactic vaccination may dramatically limit the failures in an easier, and possibly more cost-effective way. We also stress that history taking and clinical examination are important tools to diagnose cervical cancers. However a clinical diagnosis requires experience, which, with the advent of more efficient screening system and prophylactic vaccination, many of the newer practising gynaecologists might lack.