Search

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening programs still use one-size-fits-all protocols but efficiency and efficacy of programs may be improved by stratifying women based on previous screening results. Methods and findings We studied the association between cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) and previous screening results in the Population-Based Screening Study Amsterdam (POBASCAM) trial, performed in the Netherlands in the setting of regular screening, where women aged from 29 to 61 years old were invited to cytology and HPV co-testing at enrolment in year 1999/2002 and at the next round in 2003/2007. We selected 18,448 women (9,293 from the intervention group and 9,155 from the control group) who tested HPV-negative in 2003/2007 and did not have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or hysterectomy after enrolment. Follow-up was collected until 14 years after the 2003/2007 screen, covering 4 rounds of screening. Risk of CIN3+ and CIN2+ among women with an HPV-negative test, irrespective of previous round results and stratified according to previous round HPV and cytology results, were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. During 14 years of follow-up, 62 CIN3+ cases (24 in the intervention group and 38 in the control group) were detected. HPV-negative women had a 14-year CIN3+ risk of 0.48% (95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.62) and CIN2+ risk of 1.17% (0.99 to 1.38). The CIN3+ risk among HPV-negative women was increased in women with a previous positive HPV test (2.36%, 1.20 to 4.63; p < 0.001) or co-test (1.68%, 0.87 to 3.20; p < 0.001) and, equivalently, decreased in women with a previous negative HPV test (0.43%, 0.33 to 0.57) or a negative co-test (0.43%, 0.33 to 0.57). The CIN3+ risk was not influenced by the previous cytology result. The CIN3+ risk among HPV-negative women was increased after both a previous HPV16-positive test (3.90%, 1.47 to 10.12; p < 0.001) and a previous HPV16-negative/HPVother-positive test (1.91%, 0.76 to 4.74; p = 0.002). For endpoint CIN2+ (147 cases), findings were similar except that the CIN2+ risk was increased after previous abnormal cytology (4.06%, 2.30 to 7.12; p < 0.001). The presented risk estimates were calculated by tracking histological results through the Dutch nationwide pathology archive (PALGA) and were not adjusted for non-compliance with the colposcopy referral advice. Conclusions HPV-negative women had an increased long-term risk of CIN3+ when the HPV test in the previous screening round was positive. This supports the implementation of risk-based intervals that depend on HPV results in the current and previous screening round. Trial registration POBASCAM trial, trial registration number ISRCTN20781131., Author(s): Federica Inturrisi 1,2,*, Lawrence Rozendaal 3, Nienke J. Veldhuijzen 1, Daniëlle A. M. Heideman 3,4, Chris J. L. M. Meijer 3,4, Johannes Berkhof 1,2,* Introduction Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes [...]

The World Health Organization recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening. Extended genotyping can identify the highest‐risk HPV‐positive women. An inexpensive, rapid, mobile isothermal amplification assay (ScreenFire HPV RS test) was recently redesigned to yield four channels ordered by cancer risk (ie, hierarchical approach): HPV16, HPV18/45, HPV31/33/35/52/58 and HPV39/51/56/59/68. Stored specimens from 2076 women (mean age 30.9) enrolled in a colposcopy clinic, with high HPV prevalence, were tested with ScreenFire. We calculated hierarchical channel positivity and non‐hierarchical channel and type positivity, according to histologic diagnosis (256 cancer, 350 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]3, 409 CIN2, 1020 < CIN2) and known virologic reference results (Linear Array and TypeSeq). Additionally, we analyzed ScreenFire time‐to‐positive up to 60 min by channel and histology. Overall clinical sensitivity for CIN3+ was 94.7% (95% confidence interval 92.6‐96.4), similar to Linear Array (92.3, 89.7‐94.3) and TypeSeq (96.0, 93.9‐97.6). Sensitivity was high for all types and channels. The hierarchical approach was well in line with HPV typing and histologic diagnosis, prioritizing higher risk women having HPV16 and precancer. For HPV16, time‐to‐positive was shorter in women with precancer. ScreenFire showed excellent agreement with research reference typing tests and detection of CIN2+. Risk‐based type results could help guide clinical management of HPV‐positive women. Time‐to‐positive combined with genotyping might be useful. ScreenFire is rapid, mobile, relatively inexpensive and designed for implementation of HPV‐based screening and management, including in lower‐resource settings. Further validation in screening by self‐sampling and practical effectiveness merit evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the Netherlands, lower high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) positivity but higher cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection were found in self-collected compared with clinician-collected samples. To investigate the possible reason for these differences, we compared sociodemographic and screening characteristics of women and related these to screening outcomes. Methods: We extracted data from PALGA on all primary hrHPV screens and associated follow-up tests for 857,866 screened women, invited in 2017 and 2018. We linked these data with sociodemographic data from Statistics Netherlands. Logistic regression was performed for hrHPV positivity and CIN 2+/3+ detection. Results: Out of the 857,866 women, 6.8% chose to use a self-sampling device. A higher proportion of self-sampling users was ages 30 to 35 years, was not previously screened, was living in a one-person household, or was the breadwinner in the household. After adjustment for these factors self-sampling had lower hrHPV positivity (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68)) as compared with clinician-collected sampling, as well as lower odds of CIN 2+ (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) and CIN 3+ (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95) detection. Conclusions: It is likely that the observed differences between the two sampling methods are not only related to sociodemographic differences, but related to differences in screening test accuracy and/or background risk. Impact: Self-sampling can be used for targeting underscreened women, as a more convenient screening tool. Further investigation is required to evaluate how to implement self-sampling, when it is used as a primary instrument in routine screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening programs, management of HPV-positive women with normal cytology is debated. Longitudinal information on HPV type persistence may be employed for risk stratification. Methods: We assessed the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) after repeatedly testing positive for the same HPV type(s) in the randomized population-based screening study Amsterdam (POBASCAM). We compared 18-month CIN3+ risks in HPV-positive women (intervention, n = 1,066) to those in HPV-positive/cytology-negative women who tested HPV-positive in the next screening round (control, n = 111) five years later, stratified for HPV type concordance. Results: The 18-month CIN3+ risk was 15% in HPV-positive women in the intervention group, 40% in the control group after two-round type concordance (relative risk 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.9-3.4), and 20% in the control group after a type switch (1.3, 0.5-3.2). The relative increase in CIN3+ risk after two-round type concordance was similar in <35-year-old (3.0, 2.0-4.4) and older women (2.2, 1.4-3.5), and was high in high-risk HPV-positive women who were HPV16/18/31/33/45-negative in both rounds (9.9, 4.4-21.9). Conclusions: Five-year HPV type concordance signals high CIN3+ risk and warrants referral for colposcopy without additional cytology triage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Birth cohorts vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) are now entering cervical cancer screening. Assessment of (pre)cancer (CIN3+) risk is needed to assess the residual screening need in vaccinated women. We estimated the lifetime (screen‐detected) CIN3+ risk under five‐yearly primary HPV screening between age 30 and 60, using HPV genotyping and histology data of 21,287 women participating in a screening trial with two HPV‐based screening rounds, 5 years apart. The maximum follow‐up after an HPV‐positive test was 9 years. We re‐estimated the CIN3+ risk after projecting direct vaccine efficacy for the bivalent and the nonavalent HPV vaccines, assuming life‐long protection. The lifetime CIN3+ risk was 4.1% (95% confidence interval 3.5‐4.9) and declined by 53.5% and 70.5% after bivalent vaccination without and with cross‐protection, respectively, translating into a residual lifetime CIN3+ risk of 1.9% (1.4‐2.4) and 1.2% (0.9‐1.5). The CIN3+ risk declined by 88.5% after nonavalent vaccination, translating into a residual lifetime CIN3+ risk of 0.5% (0.2‐0.7). The latter risk increased to 1.6% when vaccine protection only lasted until the first screening round at age 30. Among HPV‐positive women with abnormal adjunct cytology, the nine‐year CIN3+ risk was 16.9% (8.7‐32.4) after nonavalent vaccination. In conclusion, HPV vaccination will lead to a strong decline in the lifetime CIN3+ risk and the remaining absolute CIN3+ risk will be very low. Primary HPV testing combined with adjunct cytology at five‐year intervals still seems feasible even after nonavalent vaccination, although unlikely to be cost‐effective. Our results support a de‐intensification of screening programs in settings with high vaccination coverage. What's new? Human papillomavirus (HPV)‐based screening and vaccination are key strategies for early detection and prevention of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer (CIN3+). Here the authors estimated the lifetime screen‐detected CIN3+ risk expected under different HPV vaccination scenarios using a novel statistical, data‐driven approach that deals with multiple‐type HPV infections. The model estimated that the lifetime CIN3+ risks under five‐yearly primary HPV screening will become very low in vaccinated women, in particular when protection is life‐long and provided beyond genotypes 16 and 18. These CIN3+ risks are important when defining new extended screening intervals for vaccinated cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing on self-collected samples has potential as a primary screening tool in cervical screening, but real-world evidence on its accuracy in hrHPV-based screening programmes is lacking., Methods: In the Netherlands, women aged 30-60 years invited for cervical screening can choose between sampling at the clinician's office (Cervex Brush) or self-sampling at home (Evalyn Brush). HrHPV testing is performed using Roche Cobas 4800. We collected screening test results between January 2017 and March 2018 and histological follow-up until August 2019. The main outcome measures were mean cycle threshold (Ct) value, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) and CIN grade 2 or worse (CIN2+)., Findings: 30,808 women had a self-collected and 456,207 had a clinician-collected sample. In hrHPV-positive women with adequate cytology, Ct values were higher for self-collection than clinician-collection with a mean Ct difference of 1·25 (95% CI 0·98-1·52) in women without CIN2+, 2·73 (1·75-3·72) in CIN2 and 3·59 (3·03-4·15) in CIN3+. The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN3+ was 0·94 (0·90-0·97) for self-collection versus clinician-collection and the relative specificity was 1·02 (1·02-1·02)., Interpretation: The clinical accuracy of hrHPV testing on a self-collected sample for detection of CIN3+ is high and supports its use as a primary screening test for all invited women. Because of the slightly lower sensitivity of hrHPV testing on a self-collected compared to a clinician-collected sample, an evaluation of the workflow procedure to optimise clinical performance seems warranted., Funding: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (the Netherlands) and the European Commission., Competing Interests: FI and JB report grants from the European Commission (RISCC, grant number 847845) during the conduct of the study. CA, IdK, and JB report grants from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, RIVM) during the conduct of the study. DAMH is minority shareholder of Self-screen B.V., a spin-off company of VUmc, which develops, manufactures and licences hrHPV and methylation marker assays for cervical cancer screening and holds patents on these tests. DAMH has been on the speakers’ bureau of Qiagen and serves occasionally on the scientific advisory boards of Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) has been associated with ovarian cancer risk. To clarify the role of Chlamydia trachomatis and other infectious agents in the development of ovarian cancer, we evaluated the association of serologic markers with incident ovarian cancer using a staged approach in two independent populations., Methods: Studies included: 1) a case-control study in Poland (244 ovarian cancers/556 control subjects) and 2) a prospective nested case-control study in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial (160 ovarian cancers/159 control subjects). Associations of serologic marker levels with ovarian cancer risk at diagnostic as well as higher thresholds, identified in Poland and independently evaluated in PLCO, were estimated using multivariable adjusted logistic regression., Results: In the Polish study, antibodies (based on laboratory cut-point) against the chlamydia plasmid-encoded Pgp3 protein (serological gold standard) were associated with increased ovarian cancer risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 2.22); when a positive result was redefined at higher levels, ovarian cancer risk was increased (cut-point 2: OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.38 to 2.89; cut-point 3 [max OR]: OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.29 to 3.73). In the prospective PLCO study, Pgp3 antibodies were associated with elevated risk at the laboratory cut-point (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.78 to 2.63) and more stringent cut-points (cut-point 2: OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.71); cut-point 3: OR = 2.53, 95% CI = 0.63 to 10.08). In both studies, antibodies against other infectious agents measured were not associated with risk., Conclusions: In two independent populations, antibodies against prior/current C. trachomatis (Pgp3) were associated with a doubling in ovarian cancer risk, whereas markers of other infectious agents were unrelated. These findings lend support for an association between PID and ovarian cancer., (Published by Oxford University Press 2018.)