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

Knowledge of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) status might influence a cytotechnician's assessment of cellular abnormalities. The authors compared original cytotechnicians' Papanicolaou (Pap) readings for which HPV status was concealed with Pap rereads for which HPV status was revealed separately for 3 screening populations.Previously collected cervical Pap smears and clinical data were obtained from the Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial (study A), the Democratic Republic of Congo Community-Based Screening Study (study B), and the Brazilian Investigation into Nutrition and Cervical Cancer Prevention (study C). Smears were reread with knowledge of HPV status for all HPV-positive women as well as a sample of HPV-negative women. Diagnostic performance of Pap cytology was compared between original readings and rereads.A total of 1767 Pap tests were reread. Among 915 rereads for HPV-positive women, the contrast between "revealed" and "concealed" Pap readings demonstrated revisions from negative to positive results for 109 women (cutoff was atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse) and 124 women (cutoff was low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [LSIL] or worse). For a disease threshold of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse, specificity significantly declined at the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cutoff for studies A (86.6% to 75.3%) and C (42.5% to 15.5%), and at the LSIL cutoff for study C (61.9% to 37.6%). Sensitivity remained nearly unchanged between readings, except in study C, in which reread performance was superior (91.3% vs 71.9% for the LSIL cutoff).A reduction in the diagnostic accuracy of Pap cytology was observed when revealing patients' cervical HPV status, possibly due to a heightened awareness of potential abnormalities, which led to more false-positive results.

The clinical usefulness of the ProEx C (Becton Dickinson) and PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA tests (Proofer; Norchip) for the triage of ASCUS and LSIL cytology was determined in comparison with the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test (HC2; Qiagen). The study population consisted of women with a history of abnormal cytology referred to colposcopy. Histology-confirmed CIN 2+ served as the disease endpoint. The study was based on 1,360 women (mean age 30.7 years), of whom 380 had CIN 2+. Among 315 with ASCUS (CIN 2+, n = 67), the sensitivities of ProEx C, Proofer, and HC2 to detect CIN 2+ were, 71.6, 71.6, and 95.5%, respectively, with a corresponding specificity of 74.6, 74.2, and 35.1%. Among 363 with LSIL (CIN 2+, n = 108), the sensitivities of ProEx C, Proofer, and HC2 were, 67.6, 74.1, and 96.3%, respectively, with a corresponding specificity of 60, 68.2, and 18.4%. Among 225 HC2-positive ASCUS (CIN 2+, n = 64), 105 tested positive by ProEx C, reducing colposcopy referral by 53.3% and detecting 71.9% of CIN 2+; Proofer was positive in 112/225, reducing colposcopy referral by 50.2% and detecting 75.0% of CIN 2+. Among 312 HC2-positive LSIL (CIN 2+, n = 104), 160 tested positive by ProEx C, reducing coloposcopy referral by 48.7% and detecting 66.3% of CIN 2+; Proofer was positive in 159/312, reducing colposcopy referral by 49.0% and detecting 75.0% of CIN 2+. In conclusion, both ProEx C and Proofer have a similar performance profile with a significantly higher specificity but lower sensitivity than HC2 for the detection of CIN 2+. Consequently, although they can reduce colposcopy referral, they will miss a proportion of CIN 2+ cases. This is a major limitation and should be taken into account if these tests are considered for ASCUS or LSIL triage.

To the Editor. —We read with interest the article about Vibrio alginolyticus conjunctivitis by Lessner and colleagues 1 in the February 1985Archives. Although V alginolyticus was not known to cause disease in humans until 1973 and has been encountered only occasionally in human infections since, its pathogenic potential has been recognized with increasing frequency in recent years. 2-4 The majority of nonfecal isolations of V alginolyticus have been from patients with skin infections, including ulcers, cellulitis, abscesses, and ear infections. 3 Ocular infections due to V alginolyticus are extremely rare, but there have been at least three references to these. 5-7 As far back as 1969, Twedt and associates 5 indicated studying Vibrio organisms isolated from eye discharge; although identified as Vibrio parahaemolyticus by these investigators, some of these isolates were subsequently found to be V alginolyticus . 8 Baumann et al 6 reported characterizing of an isolate of