Comparison of HPV-positive triage strategies combining extended genotyping with cytology or p16/ki67 dual staining in the Italian NTCC2 study.

BACKGROUND: Each high-risk HPV genotype has different oncogenic potential, and the risk of CIN3+ varies according to genotype. We evaluated the performance of different strategies of HPV-positivity triage combining cytology, p16/ki67 dual staining (DS), and extended genotyping. METHODS: Samples from 3180 consecutive women from the NTCC2 study (NCT01837693) positive for HPV DNA at primary screening, were retrospectively analyzed by the BD Onclarity HPV Assay, which allows extended genotyping. Genotypes were divided into three groups based on the risk of CIN3+. HPV DNA-positive women were followed up for 24 months or to clearance. FINDINGS: Combining the three groups of genotypes with cytology or DS results we identify a group of women who need immediate colposcopy (PPV for CIN3+ from 7.8 to 20.1%), a group that can be referred to 1-year HPV retesting (PPV in those HPV-positive at retesting from 2.2 to 3.8), and a group with a very low 24-month CIN3+ risk, i.e. 0.4%, composed by women cytology or DS negative and positive for HPV 56/59/66 or 35/39/68 or negative with the Onclarity test, who can be referred to 3-year retesting. INTERPRETATION: Among the baseline HPV DNA positive/cytology or DS negative women, the extended genotyping allows to stratify for risk of CIN3+, and to identify a group of women with a risk of CIN3+ so low in the next 24 months that they could be referred to a new screening round after 3 years. FUNDING: Italian Ministry of Health (grant number RF-2009-1536040). Hologic-Genprobe, Roche Diagnostics, and Becton & Dickinson provided financial and non-financial support.

The Consensus Project: Participation in cervical cancer screening by the first cohorts of girls offered HPV vaccination at age 15-16 years in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between human papillomavirus vaccination status and participation in cervical cancer screening (at age 25) by the first cohorts of girls who were offered vaccination at the age of 15 to 16 years in Italy. METHODS: Women born in 1993, 1994 and 1995 were invited to participate in cervical cancer screening between 2018 and 2020. We report participation in screening by vaccination status in three large areas, Florence province, Piedmont region and Savona province, where the Consensus Project was carried out. The relative risk of participation among vaccinated (≥2 doses) and unvaccinated women was estimated. Odds ratios (OR) of participation by vaccination status were estimated by logistic regression, adjusted by birthplace and birth cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 34,993 women were invited for screening: 13,006 (37.2%) participated and 10,062 of these agreed to participate in the Consensus intervention study. Among the invited women and screening participants, vaccinated women were 51.0% and 60.6%, respectively. Comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated women, the adjusted OR of screening participation was 1.80 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.72-1.89), 2.17 (95% CI: 1.94-2.42), 1.59 (95% CI: 1.50-1.68) and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.86-1.54) for overall, Florence, Piedmont and Savona, respectively. About 33% of the invited women were unvaccinated and did not participate in screening: 25.8%, 59.5% and 64.2% of women born in Italy, in high migration pressure countries and in advanced development countries, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Screening participation was higher among vaccinated than unvaccinated women. Active policies are needed to reduce inequalities, targeting the unscreened and unvaccinated population, particularly non-native women, to accelerate cervical cancer elimination in Italy.

Performance of HPV E6/E7 mRNA assay as primary screening test: Results from the NTCC2 trial.

As the primary screening test, E6/E7 mRNA has shown similar sensitivity for CIN3+ and lower positivity rate than the HPV DNA test. Nevertheless, the overall mRNA positivity is too high for immediate colposcopy, making a triage test necessary. The aim was to estimate the mRNA performance as a primary test with different triage strategies. All HPV DNA-positives were tested for mRNA, cytology and p16/ki67. A sample of HPV DNA-negatives was also tested for mRNA to estimate test specificity. We included all CIN3+ histologically diagnosed within 24 months since recruitment. Of the 41 127 participants, 7.7% were HPV DNA-positive, of which 66.4% were mRNA-positive. Among the HPV DNA-negatives, 10/1108 (0.9%) were mRNA-positive. Overall, 97 CIN3+ were found. If mRNA was used as the primary test, it would miss about 3% of all CIN3+ with a 22% reduction of positivity compared with HPV DNA. The weighted specificity estimate for

p16/ki67 and E6/E7 mRNA Accuracy and Prognostic Value in Triaging HPV DNA-Positive Women.

BACKGROUND: The study presents cross-sectional accuracy of E6 and E7 (E6/E7) mRNA detection and p16/ki67 dual staining, alone or in combination with cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV)16/18 genotyping, as a triage test in HPV DNA-positive women and their impact on cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) overdiagnosis. METHODS: Women aged 25-64 years were recruited. HPV DNA-positive women were triaged with cytology and tested for E6/E7 mRNA and p16/ki67. Cytology positive women were referred to colposcopy, and negatives were randomly assigned to immediate colposcopy or to 1-year HPV retesting. Lesions found within 24 months since recruitment were included. All P values were 2-sided. RESULTS: 40 509 women were recruited, and 3147 (7.8%) tested HPV DNA positive; 174 CIN2+ were found: sensitivity was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 53.6 to 68.0), 94.4% (95% CI = 89.1 to 97.3), and 75.2% (95% CI = 68.1 to 81.6) for cytology, E6/E7 mRNA, and p16/ki67, respectively. Immediate referral was 25.6%, 66.8%, and 28.3%, respectively. Overall referral was 65.3%, 78.3%, and 63.3%, respectively. Cytology or p16/ki67, when combined with HPV16/18 typing, reached higher sensitivity with a small impact on referral. Among the 2306 HPV DNA-positive and cytology-negative women, relative CIN2+ detection in those randomly assigned at 1-year retesting vs immediate colposcopy suggests a -28% CIN2+ regression (95% CI = -57% to +20%); regression was higher in E6/E7 mRNA-negatives (Pinteraction = .29). HPV clearance at 1 year in E6/E7 mRNA and in p16/ki67 negative women was about 2 times higher than in positive women (Pinteraction < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: p16/ki67 showed good performance as a triage test. E6/E7 mRNA showed the highest sensitivity, at the price of too high a positivity rate to be efficient for triage. However, when negative, it showed a good prognostic value for clearance and CIN2+ regression.

Combined use of cytology, p16 immunostaining and genotyping for triage of women positive for high-risk human papillomavirus at primary screening.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is very sensitive for primary cervical screening but has low specificity. Triage tests that improve specificity but maintain high sensitivity are needed. Women enrolled in the experimental arm of Phase 2 of the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer randomized controlled cervical screening trial were tested for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) and referred to colposcopy if positive. hrHPV-positive women also had HPV genotyping (by polymerase chain reaction with GP5+/GP6+ primers and reverse line blotting), immunostaining for p16 overexpression and cytology. We computed sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for different combinations of tests and determined potential hierarchical ordering of triage tests. A number of 1,091 HPV-positive women had valid tests for cytology, p16 and genotyping. Ninety-two of them had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) histology and 40 of them had CIN grade 3+ (CIN3+) histology. The PPV for CIN2+ was >10% in hrHPV-positive women with positive high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (61.3%), positive low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL+) (18.3%) and positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (14.8%) cytology, p16 positive (16.7%) and, hierarchically, for infections by HPV33, 16, 35, 59, 31 and 52 (in decreasing order). Referral of women positive for either p16 or LSIL+ cytology had 97.8% sensitivity for CIN2+ and women negative for both of these had a 3-year CIN3+ risk of 0.2%. Similar results were seen for women being either p16 or HPV16/33 positive. hrHPV-positive women who were negative for p16 and cytology (LSIL threshold) had a very low CIN3+ rate in the following 3 years. Recalling them after that interval and referring those positive for either test to immediate colposcopy seem to be an efficient triage strategy. The same applies to p16 and HPV16.

A comparison of diagnostic indicators of cervical cancer screening among women accessing through volunteer organisations and those via the organised programme in Turin (Piedmont Region, Northern Italy).

OBJECTIVES: to compare cervical cancer screening diagnostic indicators in women accessing screening through volunteer non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and in those who access via the National Health Service (NHS) programme. DESIGN: cohort study on archive data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: the study cohort consists of 93,086 women aged 30-64 years who underwent an HPV test via NHS screening programme or through premises implemented within volunteers NGOs in Turin between 2015 and 2019. The screening history and Census data recorded into the Piedmont screening archive were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: positive baseline HPV test, positive triage cytology (low-grade lesions, ASC-US, L-SIL and high-grade lesions, H-SIL, ASC-H, AGC, Cancer), attendance at one-year HPV test repeat, referral and attendance to colposcopy at first and test repeat, and detection rate at first and test repeat, for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade >=2 (CIN2+) and >=3 (CIN3+), overall detection rates. RESULTS: women performing cervical screening through volunteer NGOs (WASVO) are disadvantaged in terms of diagnostic indicators compared to women accessing via the NHS. WASVO are 60% more likely to be positive at the first HPV-test (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.6; 95%CI 1.2-2.0); their likelihood of being referred to colposcopy is double (adj PR 2.1; 95%CI 1.3-3.4); attendance rate to one year HPV test repeat is lower (adj PR 0.2; 95%CI 0.1-0.5); detection rates at first HPV screening test both for CIN2+ (adj PR 2.1; 95%CI 0.9-4.6) and CIN3+ (adj PR 2.1; 95%CI 0.9-5.1) is higher, even if statistical significance is borderline for the latter results. CONCLUSIONS: those responsible for screening programmes should establish and maintain collaborative relationships with local volunteer NGOs and migrant organisations for promoting strategies to raise awareness on cancer prevention among subgroups that are not captured in the main screening programs.

Human papilloma virus genotyping for the cross-sectional and longitudinal probability of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more.

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.

Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is known to be more sensitive, but less specific than cytology for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We assessed the efficacy of cervical-cancer screening policies that are based on HPV testing. METHODS: Between March, 2004, and December, 2004, in two separate recruitment phases, women aged 25-60 years were randomly assigned to conventional cytology or to HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology (first phase) or alone (second phase). Randomisation was done by computer in two screening centres and by sequential opening of numbered sealed envelopes in the remaining seven centres. During phase one, women who were HPV-positive and aged 35-60 years were referred to colposcopy, whereas women aged 25-34 years were referred to colposcopy only if cytology was also abnormal or HPV testing was persistently positive. During phase two, women in the HPV group were referred for colposcopy if the HPV test was positive. Two rounds of screening occurred in each phase, and all women had cytology testing only at the second round. The primary endpoint was the detection of grade 2 and 3 CIN, and of invasive cervical cancers during the first and second screening rounds. Analysis was done by intention to screen. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN81678807. FINDINGS: In total for both phases, 47,001 women were randomly assigned to the cytology group and 47,369 to HPV testing. 33,851 women from the cytology group and 32,998 from the HPV-testing group had a second round of screening. We also retrieved the histological diagnoses from screening done elsewhere. The detection of invasive cervical cancers was similar for the two groups in the first round of screening (nine in the cytology group vs seven in the HPV group, p=0.62); no cases were detected in the HPV group during round two, compared with nine in the cytology group (p=0.004). Overall, in the two rounds of screening, 18 invasive cancers were detected in the cytology group versus seven in the HPV group (p=0.028). Among women aged 35-60 years, at round one the relative detection (HPV vs cytology) was 2.00 (95% CI 1.44-2.77) for CIN2, 2.08 (1.47-2.95) for CIN3, and 2.03 (1.60-2.57) for CIN2 and 3 together. At round two the relative detection was 0.54 (0.23-1.28) for CIN2, 0.48 (0.21-1.11) for CIN3, and 0.51 (0.28-0.93) for CIN2 and 3 together. Among women aged 25-34 years, there was significant heterogeneity between phases in the relative detection of CIN3. At round one the relative detection was 0.93 (0.52-1.64) in phase one and 3.91 (2.02-7.57) in phase two. At round two the relative detection was 1.34 (0.46-3.84) in phase one and 0.20 (0.04-0.93) in phase two. Pooling both phases, the detection ratio of CIN2 for women aged 25-34 years was 4.09 (2.24-7.48) at round one and 0.64 (0.23-1.27) at round two. INTERPRETATION: HPV-based screening is more effective than cytology in preventing invasive cervical cancer, by detecting persistent high-grade lesions earlier and providing a longer low-risk period. However, in younger women, HPV screening leads to over-diagnosis of regressive CIN2. FUNDING: European Union, Italian Ministry of Health, Regional Health Administrations of Piemonte, Tuscany, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna, and Public Health Agency of Lazio.

Use of p16-INK4A overexpression to increase the specificity of human papillomavirus testing: a nested substudy of the NTCC randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Human-papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive, but less specific, than conventional cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We assessed whether HPV testing with triage by p16-INK4A overexpression can increase specificity while maintaining sensitivity. METHODS: HPV-positive women were enrolled between June 10, 2003, and Dec 31, 2004 in a multicentre randomised controlled trial, which compared stand-alone HPV testing by Hybrid Capture 2 (experimental group) with conventional cytology, were referred for colposcopy. In seven of nine centres, cytospin preparations from these women were tested for p16-INK4A overexpression by immunostaining. The sensitivity and specificity for CIN grade 2 or more, determined at blind review of histology, were calculated for these women. We also estimated the relative sensitivity and relative referral to colposcopy that would have been obtained by HPV testing with p16-INK4A triage compared with conventional cytology. This trial is registered as a Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81678807. FINDINGS: 24 661 women were randomly assigned to the experimental group. 1137 women (74% of those undergoing colposcopy in relevant centres), including 50 with CIN2 and 42 with CIN3 or cancer, had valid p16-INK4A immunostaining. For the endpoint of CIN2+, sensitivity and specificity of p16-INK4A (deemed positive with any number of stained cells-except endocervical, metaplastic, and atrophic cells if morphologically normal) in HPV-positive women of any age were 88% (81 of 92; 95% CI 80-94) and 61% (633 of 1045; 57-64), respectively. In the 35-60-year age group, the relative sensitivity of HPV testing and p16-INK4A triage versus conventional cytology for CIN2+ was 1.53 (95% CI 1.15-2.02) and relative referral was 1.08 (0.96-1.21). In the 25-34-year age group, relative sensitivity was 3.01 (1.82-5.17) and relative referral was 1.15 (0.96-1.37). In the latter age group, when 5% or more stained cells were deemed positive, the corresponding values were 2.06 (1.20-3.68) and 0.58 (0.46-0.73), respectively. INTERPRETATION: HPV testing with p16-INK4A triage produces a significant increase in sensitivity compared with conventional cytology, with no substantial increase in referral to colposcopy.

Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test.

BACKGROUND: In the first recruitment phase of a randomized trial of cervical cancer screening methods (New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening [NTCC] study), we compared screening with conventional cytology with screening by human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in combination with liquid-based cytology. HPV-positive women were directly referred to colposcopy if aged 35 or older; if younger, they were retested after 1 year. METHODS: In the second recruitment phase of NTCC, we randomly assigned women to conventional cytology (n = 24,661) with referral to colposcopy if cytology indicated atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe abnormality or to testing for high-risk HPV DNA alone by Hybrid Capture 2 (n = 24,535) with referral to colposcopy if the test was positive at a concentration of HPV DNA 1 pg/mL or greater. For the main endpoint of the study, histologic detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more (CIN2+), we calculated and compared sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the two screening methods using HPV DNA cutoffs of 1 pg/mL and 2 pg/mL. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: For women aged 35-60 years, the relative sensitivity of HPV testing for detection of CIN2+ at a cutoff of 1 pg/mL vs conventional cytology was 1.92 (95% CI = 1.28 to 2.87) and the relative PPV was 0.80 (95% CI = 0.55 to 1.18). At a cutoff of 2 pg/mL HPV DNA, the relative sensitivity was 1.81 (95% CI = 1.20 to 2.72) and the relative PPV was 0.99 (95% CI = 0.67 to 1.46). In this age group, there was no evidence of heterogeneity between study phases. Among women aged 25-34 years, the relative sensitivity for detection of CIN2+ of HPV testing at a cutoff of 1 pg/mL vs cytology was 3.50 (95% CI = 2.11 to 5.82), statistically significantly larger (P = .019) than that observed in phase 1 at this age (1.58; 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.44). CONCLUSIONS: For women aged 35-60 years, HPV testing with a cutoff of 2 pg/mL achieves a substantial gain in sensitivity over cytology with only a small reduction in PPV. Among women aged 25-34 years, the large relative sensitivity of HPV testing compared with conventional cytology and the difference between relative sensitivity during phases 1 and 2 suggests that there is frequent regression of CIN2+ that are detected by direct referral of younger HPV-positive women to colposcopy. Thus, triage test or repeat testing is needed if HPV is to be used for primary testing in this context.

Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology in primary screening of women younger than 35 years: results at recruitment for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is more sensitive but less specific than cytological analysis. Loss in specificity is most relevant in women younger than 35 years because of increased HPV prevalence. We aimed to compare conventional screening with an experimental strategy in women aged 25-34 years, and investigate the effect of different criteria of referral to define the best methods of HPV screening. METHODS: Women were randomly assigned to the conventional procedure (standard cytology, with referral to colposcopy if cytology showed atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more [ASCUS+]) or an experimental procedure (liquid-based cytology and testing for high-risk HPV types, with referral to colposcopy with ASCUS+ cytology). Women positive for HPV (cutoff > or = 1 pg/mL) but with normal cytology were retested after 1 year. The main endpoint was the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in reviewed histology. The main analysis was by intention to screen. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81678807. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 5808 women aged 25-34 years to the conventional group and 6002 to the experimental group. The experimental procedure was significantly more sensitive than the conventional procedure (55 vs 33 CIN2+ lesions detected; relative sensitivity 1.61 [95% CI 1.05-2.48]), but had a lower positive predictive value (PPV; relative PPV 0.55 [0.37-0.82]). HPV testing (> or = 1 pg/mL) with cytology triage was also more sensitive than conventional cytology (relative sensitivity 1.58 [1.03-2.44], relative PPV 0.78 [0.52-1.16]). Relative PPV could be improved, with minimum loss in sensitivity, by use of a 2 pg/mL cutoff for HPV testing. Compared with conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology had a relative sensitivity of 1.32 (0.84-2.06), relative PPV 0.58 [0.38-0.89]). INTERPRETATION: HPV testing alone with cytology triage could be a feasible alternative to conventional cytology for screening women younger than 35 years. Follow-up will provide data on possible overdiagnosis and on the feasibility of extended intervals.