Search

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of p16/Ki-67 dual staining, for the identification of CIN in high-risk HPV-positive women from a non-responder screening cohort. P16/Ki-67 dual staining, Pap cytology, and HPV16/18 genotyping were performed on physician-taken liquid-based samples from 495 women who tested high-risk HPV positive on self-sampled material (PROHTECT-3B study). Different triage strategies involving p16/Ki-67 dual staining were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value for ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3, and compared to Pap cytology with a threshold of atypical cells of undetermined significance. Centrally revised histology or an adjusted endpoint with combined high-risk HPV negative and cytology negative follow-up at 6 months was used as gold standard. Pap cytology (threshold atypical cells of undetermined significance) triage of high-risk HPV-positive samples showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval: 85-98) with a specificity of 49% (95% confidence interval: 41-56) for ≥CIN3. Three triage strategies with p16/Ki-67 showed a significantly increased specificity with similar sensitivity. P16/Ki-67 triage of all high-risk HPV-positive samples had a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval: 84-97) and a specificity of 61% (95% confidence interval: 54-69) for ≥CIN3. Applying p16/Ki-67 triage to only high-risk HPV-positive women with low-grade Pap cytology showed a similar sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval: 84-97), with a specificity for ≥CIN3 of 64% (95% confidence interval: 56-71). For high-risk HPV-positive women with low-grade and normal Pap cytology, triage with p16/Ki-67 showed a sensitivity of 96% (95% confidence interval: 89-99), and a specificity of 58% (95% confidence interval: 50-65). HPV16/18 genotyping combined with Pap cytology showed a sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 similar to Pap cytology with an atypical cells of undetermined significance threshold. Because the quality of Pap cytology worldwide varies, and differences in sensitivity and specificity are limited between the three selected strategies, p16/Ki-67 triage of all high-risk HPV-positive samples would be the most reliable strategy in triage of high-risk HPV-positive women with an increased specificity and similar sensitivity compared with Pap cytology triage.

Cytology alone, or combined with HPV16/18 genotyping, might be an acceptable method for triage in hrHPV-cervical cancer screening. Previously studied HPV-genotype based triage algorithms are based on cytology performed without knowledge of hrHPV status. The aim of this study was to explore the value of hrHPV genotyping combined with cytology as triage tool for hrHPV-positive women. 520 hrHPV-positive women were included from a randomised controlled self-sampling trial on screening non-attendees (PROHTECT-3B). Eighteen baseline triage strategies were evaluated for cytology and hrHPV genotyping (Roche Cobas 4800) on physician-sampled triage material. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), referral rate, and number of referrals needed to diagnose (NRND) were calculated for CIN2+ and CIN3+. A triage strategy was considered acceptable if the NPV for CIN3+ was ≥98%, combined with maintenance or improvement of sensitivity and an increase in specificity in reference to the comparator, being cytology with a threshold of atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). Three triage strategies met the criteria: HPV16+ and/or ≥LSIL; HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL; (HPV16+ and/or HPV18+) and/or ≥HSIL. Combining HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL yielded the highest specificity (74.9%, 95% CI 70.5-78.9), with a sensitivity (94.4%, 95% CI 89.0-97.7) similar to the comparator (93.5%, 95% CI 87.7-97.1), and a decrease in referral rate from 52.2% to 39.5%. In case of prior knowledge of hrHPV presence, triage by cytology testing can be improved by adjusting its threshold, and combining it with HPV16/18 genotyping. These strategies improve the referral rate and specificity for detecting CIN3+ lesions, while maintaining adequate sensitivity., (© 2016 UICC.)

Objectives: Triage of HPV screen-positive women is needed to identify those with underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2/3+). Presently, cytology on a physician-taken cervical scrape is mostly accepted as triage test, but needs follow-up testing in order not to miss severe disease. Here, we evaluated the performance of combined cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation analysis as triage test on physician-taken cervical scrapes of HPV positive women., Methods: In this post-hoc analysis, we used 364 left-over HPV positive cytology triage samples of participants of a randomized controlled trial (PROHTECT-3: n=46,001) performed in population-based cervical screening. Study endpoints were CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection. Cytology testing with and without methylation marker analysis was evaluated with regard to sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and referral rate., Results: Bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation positivity increased proportionally with severity of underlying lesions. Overall, cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation analysis yielded similar performances with regard to CIN3+ detection, yet in combination a significantly higher sensitivity for CIN3+ (88.7%) was obtained at a specificity of 53.6% and a colposcopy referral rate of 53.6%. The combined strategy detected all six cervical cancers, whereas triage by cytology alone failed to detect two of them., Conclusions: Cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL-methylation analysis perform complementary for CIN2+/CIN3+ detection when used as triage tool on cervical scrapes of HPV positive women. This approach not only results in a higher CIN3+ sensitivity than cytology triage with an acceptable referral rate, but also seems to reduce the risk of missing cervical cancers and advanced high-grade lesions., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage-based one for testing for hrHPV (high-risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non-responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33-63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n = 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush-based or a lavage-based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self-sampling responders testing hrHPV-positive were invited for a physician-taken sample for cytology; triage-positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush-based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage-based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8-4.2). The hrHPV-positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87-1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83-1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92-1.70 for CIN3+. The two self-sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush-based device to non-responders is noninferior to offering a lavage-based device in terms of participation. The two self-sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted., (© 2014 UICC.)

Objectives: Methylation marker analysis using bi-marker panel MAL/miR-124-2 is a promising triage test for identifying cervical (pre)cancer in high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) positive women. Bi-marker panel MAL/miR-124-2 can be applied directly on self-sampled cervico-vaginal material and its sensitivity is non-inferior to that of cytology, yet at the cost of more colposcopy referrals. Our objective was to increase specificity of MAL/miR-124-2 methylation analysis by varying the assay thresholds and adding HPV16/18 genotyping., Methods: 1019 hrHPV-positive women were selected from a randomized controlled self-sampling trial (PROHTECT-3; 33-63 years, n=46,001) and nine triage strategies with methylation testing of MAL/miR-124-2 and HPV16/18 genotyping were evaluated. The methylation assay threshold was set at four different predefined levels which correspond with clinical specificities for end-point cervical intra-epithelial grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) of 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80%., Results: The CIN3+ sensitivity of methylation analysis decreased (73.5 to 44.9%) while specificity increased (47.2 to 83.4%) when increasing the assay threshold. CIN3+ sensitivity and specificity of HPV16/18 genotyping were 68.0% and 65.6%, respectively. Combined methylation analysis at threshold-80 and HPV16/18 genotyping yielded similar CIN3+ sensitivity as that of methylation only at threshold-50 (77.6%) with an increased specificity (54.8%)., Conclusions: Combined triage by MAL/miR-124-2 methylation analysis with threshold-80 and HPV16/18 genotyping reaches high CIN3+ sensitivity with increased specificity to identify women with cervical (pre)cancer among HPV self-sample positive women. The combined strategy is attractive as it is fully molecular and identifies women at the highest risk of cervical (pre)cancer because of strongly elevated methylation levels and/or HPV16/18 positivity., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in cervical cancer screening shows relatively low specificity, which makes triage testing necessary. In this study, DNA methylation analysis was compared with cytology for triage testing in hrHPV-positive women. Moreover, feasibility of DNA methylation analysis directly on brush-based self-sampled specimens was assessed., Methods: Non-responding women from population-based screening were invited to self-collect a cervico-vaginal specimen for hrHPV testing; hrHPV-positive women were referred to a physician for triage liquid-based cytology. DNA methylation analysis was performed on 128 hrHPV-positive physician-collected triage samples and 50 matched brush self-samples with QMSP for C13ORF18, EPB41L3, JAM3 and TERT., Results: In physician-taken triage material, DNA methylation analysis of JAM3 showed the highest combined specificity (88%) and sensitivity (82%) for detection of CIN3+, whereas cytology showed a specificity of 48% and a sensitivity of 91%. Out of 39 women with abnormal cytology and normal histology (false-positive by cytology), 87% were negative for JAM3 and 90% for C13ORF18 methylation. Agreement between DNA methylation analysis performed directly on the matched self-sampled material and physician-taken samples was 88% for JAM3 (κ=0.75, P<0.001) and 90% for C13ORF18 (κ=0.77; P<0.001)., Conclusions: DNA methylation analysis as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women is an attractive alternative to cytology. Furthermore, DNA methylation is feasible directly on brush-based self-samplers and showed good correlation with matched physician-taken samples. Direct molecular triage on self-collected specimens could optimise the screening program, especially for non-responders, as this would eliminate the need for an additional physician-taken scraping for triage testing.

Objectives: High attendance rates in cervical screening are essential for effective cancer prevention. Offering HPV self-sampling to non-responders increases participation rates. The objectives of this study were to determine why non-responders do not attend regular screening, and why they do or do not participate when offered a self-sampling device., Methods: A questionnaire study was conducted in the Netherlands from October 2011 to December 2012. A total of 35,477 non-responders were invited to participate in an HPV self-sampling study; 5347 women did opt out. Finally, 30,130 women received a questionnaire and self-sampling device., Results: The analysis was based on 9484 returned questionnaires (31.5%) with a self-sample specimen, and 682 (2.3%) without. Among women who returned both, the main reason for non-attendance to cervical screening was that they forgot to schedule an appointment (3068; 32.3%). The most important reason to use the self-sampling device was the opportunity to take a sample in their own time-setting (4763; 50.2%). A total of 30.9% of the women who did not use the self-sampling device preferred after all to have a cervical smear taken instead., Conclusions: Organisational barriers are the main reason for non-attendance in regular cervical screening. Important reasons for non-responders to the regular screening to use a self-sampling device are convenience and self-control., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cytology is a widely used method of triaging women who test positive for human papillomavirus (HPV). However, self-sampled specimens, which can substantially increase participation in screening programmes, are not suitable for accurate cytological assessment. We investigated whether direct DNA methylation-based molecular triage on self-sampled cervicovaginal specimens was non-inferior to cytology triage on additional physician-collected cervical samples in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse in women who did not attend cervical screening programmes., Methods: In this randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, we invited women (aged 33-63 years) registered as non-attendees of cervical screening in the Netherlands in 2007 to submit a self-collected cervicovaginal sample for HPV testing. Using a computer-generated sequence, we randomly allocated women who tested positive for high-risk hrHPV on a self-sample to either triage by cytology on an additional physician-taken smear or direct triage on the self-sample by methylation analysis of MAL and miR-124-2 genes (1:1; stratified by age and region, with block sizes by age group). Triage-positive women in either group were referred for colposcopy. The primary endpoint was detection of CIN2 or worse, analysed by intention to treat. The non-inferiority margin was 0·80. This study is registered in the Primary Trial Register of the Netherlands, number NTR6026., Findings: We invited 46,001 women to participate, 12,819 of whom returned self-sampled material; 1038 samples tested positive for high-risk HPV. Between Nov 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2011, after exclusion of women who were ineligible, we enrolled and randomly allocated 515 women to methylation triage and 509 to cytology triage. The detection of CIN2 or worse with methylation triage was non-inferior to that with cytology triage (90 [17%] of 515 women vs 75 [15%] of 509 women; relative risk 1·19, 95% CI 0·90-1·57). Referral for colposcopy was more common in the molecular group (284 [55%] women) than in the cytology group (149 [29%] women; p<0·0001). Mean time to CIN2 or worse diagnosis was shorter in the molecular triage group (96 days, range 44-101) than in the cytology triage group (158 days, 71-222; p=0·00084)., Interpretation: DNA methylation analysis of MAL and miR-124-2 genes on HPV-test-positive self-samples is non-inferior to cytology triage in the detection of CIN2 or worse, opening the way to full molecular screening., Funding: Midden-West and Oost Screening Organisations and Stichting Achmea Gezondheidszorg., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians., Methods: We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models., Findings: We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69-82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72-92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83-89) and 87% (84-90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85-0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83-0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95-0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93-0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples., Interpretation: In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs., Funding: The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling, i.e., offering self-sampling of (cervico-)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician-taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self-sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self-samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician-obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self- and clinician-sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non-attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self-sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re-attracting original non-attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self-testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self-sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology-based call-recall programs., (Copyright © 2012 UICC.)

Background: Attendance rates of cervical screening programs can be increased by offering HPV self-sampling to non-attendees. Acceptability, DNA yield, lavage volumes and choice of hrHPV test can influence effectiveness of the self-sampling procedures and could therefore play a role in recruiting non-attendees. To increase user-friendliness, a frequently used lavage sampler was modified. In this study, we compared this second generation lavage device with the first generation device within similar birth cohorts., Methods: Within a large self-sampling cohort-study among non-responders of the Dutch cervical screening program, a subset of 2,644 women received a second generation self-sampling lavage device, while 11,977 women, matched for age and ZIP-code, received the first generation model. The second generation device was different in shape, color, lavage volume, and packaging, in comparison to its first generation model. The Cochran's test was used to compare both devices for hrHPV positivity rate and response rate. To correct for possible heterogeneity between age and ZIP codes in both groups the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity was used. A T-test was utilized to compare DNA yields of the obtained material in both groups., Results: Median DNA yields were 90.4 μg/ml (95% CI 83.2-97.5) and 91.1 μg/ml (95% CI 77.8-104.4, p= 0.726) and hrHPV positivity rates were 8.2% and 6.9% (p= 0.419) per sample self-collected by the second - and the first generation of the device (p= 0.726), respectively. In addition, response rates were comparable for the two models (35.4% versus 34.4%, p= 0.654)., Conclusions: Replacing the first generation self-sampling device by an ergonomically improved, second generation device resulted in equal DNA yields, comparable hrHPV positivity rates and similar response rates. Therefore, it can be concluded that the clinical performance of the first and second generation models are similar. Moreover, participation of non-attendees in cervical cancer screening is probably not predominantly determined by the type of self-collection device.

Reactive oxygen species producing NADPH oxidases play important roles under different (patho)physiological conditions. NOX1, NOX2, and NOX4 are important sources of reactive oxygen species in the heart, but knowledge of the calcium-dependent NOX5 in the heart is lacking. The presence of NOX5 was studied via RT-PCR in heart tissue from patients with end-stage heart failure; the tissue was obtained during cardiac transplantation surgery. NOX5 positivity and cellular localization were studied via IHC and digital-imaging microscopy in heart tissues of patients who did not have heart disease and in infarction areas of patients who died of myocardial infarctions of different durations. Furthermore, NOX5 expression was analyzed in vitro by using Western blot analysis. NOX5 RNA was found in the hearts of controls and patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. In controls, NOX5 localized to the endothelium of a limited number of intramyocardial blood vessels and to a limited number of scattered cardiomyocytes. In infarcted hearts, NOX5 expression increased, especially in infarctions >12 hours, which manifested as an increase in NOX5-positive intramyocardial blood vessels, as well as in endothelium, smooth muscle, and cardiomyocytes. NOX5 was found in cardiomyocyte cytoplasm, plasma membrane, intercalated disks, and cross striations. Western blot analysis confirmed NOX5 expression in isolated human cardiomyocytes. For the first time to our knowledge, we demonstrate NOX5 expression in human intramyocardial blood vessels and cardiomyocytes, with significant increases in the affected myocardium after acute myocardial infarction., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)