Search

Given that high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the necessary cause of virtually all cervical cancer, the clinical meaning of HPV-negative cervical precancer is unknown. We, therefore, conducted a literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar to identify English-language studies in which (i) HPV-negative and -positive, histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (CIN2+) were detected and (ii) summarized statistics or deidentified individual data were available to summarize proportions of biomarkers indicating risk of cancer. Nineteen studies including 3,089 (91.0%) HPV-positive and 307 (9.0%) HPV-negative CIN2+ were analyzed. HPV-positive CIN2+ (vs. HPV-negative CIN2+) was more likely to test positive for biomarkers linked to cancer risk: a study diagnosis of CIN3+ (vs. CIN2; 18 studies; 0.56 vs. 0.24; P < 0.001) preceding high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology (15 studies; 0.54 vs. 0.10; P < 0.001); and high-grade colposcopic impression (13 studies; 0.30 vs. 0.18; P = 0.03). HPV-negative CIN2+ was more likely to test positive for low-risk HPV genotypes than HPV-positive CIN2+ (P < 0.001). HPV-negative CIN2+ appears to have lower cancer risk than HPV-positive CIN2+. Clinical studies of human high-risk HPV testing for screening to prevent cervical cancer may refer samples of HPV test–negative women for disease ascertainment to correct verification bias in the estimates of clinical performance. However, verification bias adjustment of the clinical performance of HPV testing may overcorrect/underestimate its clinical performance to detect truly precancerous abnormalities.

Supplemental Figures 1-2

Supplementary Data Legends

Given that high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the necessary cause of virtually all cervical cancer, the clinical meaning of HPV-negative cervical precancer is unknown. We, therefore, conducted a literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar to identify English-language studies in which (i) HPV-negative and -positive, histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (CIN2+) were detected and (ii) summarized statistics or deidentified individual data were available to summarize proportions of biomarkers indicating risk of cancer. Nineteen studies including 3,089 (91.0%) HPV-positive and 307 (9.0%) HPV-negative CIN2+ were analyzed. HPV-positive CIN2+ (vs. HPV-negative CIN2+) was more likely to test positive for biomarkers linked to cancer risk: a study diagnosis of CIN3+ (vs. CIN2; 18 studies; 0.56 vs. 0.24; P < 0.001) preceding high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology (15 studies; 0.54 vs. 0.10; P < 0.001); and high-grade colposcopic impression (13 studies; 0.30 vs. 0.18; P = 0.03). HPV-negative CIN2+ was more likely to test positive for low-risk HPV genotypes than HPV-positive CIN2+ (P < 0.001). HPV-negative CIN2+ appears to have lower cancer risk than HPV-positive CIN2+. Clinical studies of human high-risk HPV testing for screening to prevent cervical cancer may refer samples of HPV test–negative women for disease ascertainment to correct verification bias in the estimates of clinical performance. However, verification bias adjustment of the clinical performance of HPV testing may overcorrect/underestimate its clinical performance to detect truly precancerous abnormalities.

Methylation of host and viral genes is promising for triage of women with high-risk human papillomavirus infections (hrHPV). Using a population-based sample of hrHPV positive women with cervical biopsies within 12 months after cervical screening, the clinical value of the S5 methylation classifier (S5), HPV genotyping and cytology were compared as potential triage tests, for outcomes of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or greater (CIN3+), CIN2+ and CIN2, and the area under the curve (AUC) calculated. S5 scores increased with histopathology severity (P

The prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium among women aged 21 to 24 years was similar to that of Chlamydia trachomatis, for which women are screened regularly in the United States., In this population-based US study, the overall prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium was 1.95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62%–2.34%), declining from 6.12% (95% CI, 4.72%–7.92%) in women aged 21 to 24 years to 0.48% (95% CI, 0.25%–0.94%) in women aged 40 to 64 years. The prevalence of coinfections with Chlamydia trachomatis and Trichomonas vaginalis was low.

Context.—Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) standardization recommended p16INK4a immunohistochemistry (p16 IHC) for biopsies diagnosed morphologically as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 (CIN2) to classify them as low-grade or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs).Objective.—To describe the relationships of p16 IHC and other biomarkers associated with cervical cancer risk with biopsy diagnoses.Design.—A statewide, stratified sample of cervical biopsies diagnosed by community pathologists (CPs), including 1512 CIN2, underwent a consensus, expert pathologist panel (EP) review (without p16 IHC results), p16 IHC interpretation by a third pathology group, and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping, results of which were grouped hierarchically according to cancer risk. Antecedent cytologic interpretations were also available.Results.—Biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with increasing severity of CP diagnoses, overall (Ptrend ≤ .001) and within each HPV risk group (Ptrend ≤ .001 except for low-risk HPV [Ptrend < .010]). All abnormal grades of CP-diagnosed biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with a higher HPV risk group (Ptrend < .001), and testing p16 IHC positive was associated with higher HPV risk group than testing p16 IHC negative for each grade of CP-diagnosed biopsies (P < .001). p16 IHC–positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies were less likely than CP-diagnosed CIN3 biopsies to test HPV16 positive, have an antecedent HSIL+ cytology, or to be diagnosed as CIN3+ by the EP (P < .001 for all). p16 IHC–positive, CP-diagnosed CIN1 biopsies had lower HPV risk groups than p16 IHC–negative, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies (P < .001).Conclusions.—p16 IHC–positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 appears to be lower cancer risk than CP-diagnosed CIN3. LAST classification of “HSIL” diagnosis, which includes p16 IHC–positive CIN2, should annotate the morphologic diagnosis (CIN2 or CIN3) to inform all management decisions, which is especially important for young (

Objectives Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening has been shown to increase the yield of precancerous disease and reduce the incidence of cervical cancer more than cytology alone. Here we document the state-wide uptake of co-testing with HPV and cytology in women aged 30–64 years as recommended by national and international bodies. Methods Registry-based study of all screening cytology and HPV tests in New Mexico from 2008 to 2019 among women aged 21–64 years, with a focus on cytology negative tests to distinguish co-testing from reflex HPV testing to triage equivocal or mildly abnormal cytology. Results A total of 1,704,055 cervical screening tests from 681,440 women aged 21–64 years in the state of New Mexico were identified. The proportion of screening tests which were co-tests rose from 5.6% in 2008 to 84.3% in 2019 among women aged 30–64 years with a marked change from the near exclusive use of the Hybrid Capture II HPV test, (a signal amplified test method) to the use of target amplified HPV tests. The largest increases were seen between 2013 and 2015, reflecting the introduction and adoption of new clinical guidelines. Increases in co-testing were also seen in younger women. Conclusions Co-testing is now well established in women aged 30–64 years, but smaller increases have also been seen at younger ages, although this is not currently recommended. The impact of co-testing on cervical disease outcomes and number of colposcopies and biopsies in routine population settings remain important, especially in young women.

Failure to follow-up women after abnormal cervical screening could lead to cervical cancers, yet little is known about adherence to recommended follow-up after abnormal co-testing [cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing]. We documented clinical management following cervical screening by co-testing in a diverse population-based setting. A statewide surveillance program for cervical screening, diagnosis, and treatment was used to investigate all cytology, hrHPV and biopsy reports in the state of New Mexico from January 2015 through August 2019. Guideline-adherent follow-up after co-testing required 1) biopsy within 6 months for low-grade cytology if positive for hrHPV, for high-grade cytology irrespective of hrHPV, and for HPV 16/18 positive results irrespective of cytology and; 2) repeat co-testing within 18 months if cytology was negative and hrHPV test was positive (excluding types 16/18). Screening co-tests (2015-2017) for 164,522 women were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan Meier curves, and pairwise comparisons between groups. Guideline adherence was highest when both cytology and hrHPV tests were abnormal, ranging from 61.7% to 80.3%. Guideline-adherent follow-up was lower for discordant results. Women with high-grade cytology were less likely to receive a timely biopsy when hrHPV-testing was negative (48.1%) versus positive (83.3%) (p < 0.001). Only 47.9% of women received biopsies following detection of HPV16/18 with normal cytology, and 30.8% received no follow-up within 18-months. Among women with hrHPV-positive normal cytology without evidence of HPV 16/18 infection, 51% received no follow-up within 18 months. Provider education and creation of robust recall systems may help ensure appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening results.

Human papilloma virus (HPV) testing is more sensitive but less specific than cytology. We evaluated stand-alone genotyping as a possible triage method. During a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HPV testing to conventional cytology, HPV-positive women were referred to colposcopy and followed up if no high-grade lesion was detected. HPV-positive samples were genotyped by GP5+/GP6+ primed polymerase chain reaction followed by reverse line blot. Genotypes were hierarchically ordered by positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN grade 2 or more (CIN2+), and grouped by cluster analysis into three groups (A, B and C in decreasing order). Receiver operating characteristic curves were computed. Among 2,255 HPV-positive women with genotyping, 239 CIN2+ (including 113 CIN3+) were detected at baseline or during a 3-year follow-up. HPV33 had the highest PPV with CIN2+ and CIN3+ as the endpoint and when considering lesions detected at baseline or also during follow-up. HPV16 and HPV35 were the second and third, respectively. Cross-sectional sensitivity for CIN2+ at baseline was 67.3% (95% CI 59.7-74.2), 91.8% (95% CI 86.6-95.5) and 94.7% (95% CI 90.2-97.6), respectively, when considering as "positive" any of the HPV types in group A (33, 16 and 35), A or B (31, 52, 18, 59 and 58) and A or B or C (39, 51, 56, 45 and 68). The corresponding cross-sectional PPVs for CIN2+ were 15.8% 95% (CI 13.2-18.7), 12.0% (95% CI 10.3-13.9) and 9.6% (95% CI 8.2-11.1), respectively. HPV33, 16 and 35 confer a high probability of CIN2+ but this rapidly decreases when adding other genotypes.

The relationship between malocclusion, orthodontic treatment, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL) is complicated, with some traits, such as increased overjet, having a potentially greater adverse effect on an adolescent's OHRQOL. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on OHRQOL in adolescents presenting with Class II Division 1 malocclusion and explore the relationship between OHRQOL using a condition-specific and generic instrument and occlusal outcome.Two groups of adolescents were recruited from a United Kingdom university hospital: a pretreatment group of adolescents with Class II Division 1 malocclusion and a treated (posttreatment) group whose Class II Division 1 malocclusion had been corrected. Self-reported OHRQOL was assessed using the malocclusion impact questionnaire (MIQ) and the short form of Child Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires. Occlusion severity and outcome were assessed using Peer Assessment Rating scores.A total of 241 participants (106 male; 135 female) were recruited. MIQ scores differed significantly between the pretreatment and posttreatment groups, with scores being 11.35 times lower posttreatment than pretreatment, after adjusting for age and sex (95% confidence interval, -17.28 to -5.42; P 0.001). Females had higher total MIQ scores by 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 4.82), which was statistically significant (P = 0.022). There was a moderate correlation between MIQ and Peer Assessment Rating scores, but this relationship strengthened when omitting the global MIQ questions (Spearman's correlation coefficient, 0.59).Increased overjet was associated with impaired OHRQOL using a condition-specific measure. A deeper understanding of associations between malocclusion, orthodontic treatment, and OHRQOL would benefit from longitudinal evaluation.

Human papilloma virus (HPV) testing is more sensitive but less specific than cytology. We evaluated stand‐alone genotyping as a possible triage method. During a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HPV testing to conventional cytology, HPV‐positive women were referred to colposcopy and followed up if no high‐grade lesion was detected. HPV‐positive samples were genotyped by GP5+/GP6+ primed polymerase chain reaction followed by reverse line blot. Genotypes were hierarchically ordered by positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN grade 2 or more (CIN2+), and grouped by cluster analysis into three groups (A, B and C in decreasing order). Receiver operating characteristic curves were computed. Among 2,255 HPV‐positive women with genotyping, 239 CIN2+ (including 113 CIN3+) were detected at baseline or during a 3‐year follow‐up. HPV33 had the highest PPV with CIN2+ and CIN3+ as the endpoint and when considering lesions detected at baseline or also during follow‐up. HPV16 and HPV35 were the second and third, respectively. Cross‐sectional sensitivity for CIN2+ at baseline was 67.3% (95% CI 59.7–74.2), 91.8% (95% CI 86.6–95.5) and 94.7% (95% CI 90.2–97.6), respectively, when considering as “positive” any of the HPV types in group A (33, 16 and 35), A or B (31, 52, 18, 59 and 58) and A or B or C (39, 51, 56, 45 and 68). The corresponding cross‐sectional PPVs for CIN2+ were 15.8% 95% (CI 13.2–18.7), 12.0% (95% CI 10.3–13.9) and 9.6% (95% CI 8.2–11.1), respectively. HPV33, 16 and 35 confer a high probability of CIN2+ but this rapidly decreases when adding other genotypes., What's new? The Human papilloma virus (HPV) infection genotype is an early predictor of cervical lesions. The current focus lies on high‐risk genotypes 16 and 18, frequently found in cancers. Here the authors studied the predictive value of all carcinogenic types and identified infections with HPV16, but also HPV33 and 35, as conferring very high risk for the development of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). However, HPV genotyping alone did not reliably triage women, and combinations with other methods are recommended.