Validation of BD Onclarity HPV Assay on Vaginal Self-Samples versus Cervical Samples Using the VALHUDES Protocol.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician-taken samples through the VALHUDES protocol. VALHUDES was designed as a diagnostic test accuracy study, where women referred to colposcopy collected self-samples followed by clinician-taken cervical samples. METHODS: Four hundred eighty-five women recruited in five colposcopy clinics (median age = 40 years; IQR, 31-49) with valid results for all specimens were included in the main analysis: 230 vaginal self-samples were collected with Evalyn Brush and 255 with Qvintip. Cervical samples were taken by the gynecologist with the Cervex-Brush. HPV testing was performed with BD Onclarity HPV assay (Onclarity). Colposcopy and histology were used as the reference standard for accuracy estimation. RESULTS: The sensitivity for CIN2+ on vaginal self-samples overall was not different from cervical samples (ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03), whereas specificity was significantly higher (ratio = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16). However, the relative accuracy (self- vs. clinician sampling) differed by vaginal collection device: relative sensitivity and specificity ratios of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.94-1.06) and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.05-1.25), respectively for Evalyn-Brush; 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-1.04) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.95-1.13), respectively for Qvintip. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical accuracy of BD Onclarity HPV assay on vaginal self-samples was not different from cervical samples. IMPACT: VALHUDES study showed that HPV testing with Onclarity HPV on vaginal self-samples is similarly sensitive compared with cervical specimens. However, differences in accuracy by self-sampling devices, although not significant, were noted. Onclarity HPV testing on vaginal self-samples following validated collection and handling procedures may be used in primary cervical cancer screening.

Clinical Performance of the RealTime High Risk HPV Assay on Self-Collected Vaginal Samples within the VALHUDES Framework.

The VALHUDES framework (NCT03064087) was established to evaluate the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with HPV testing on matched clinician-taken cervical samples. Women referred to colposcopy due to previous cervical abnormalities were recruited at five Belgian colposcopy centers. A total of 486 pairs of matched cervical samples and vaginal self-samples were included in the analysis (228 collected with Evalyn Brush and 258 with Qvintip). The dry vaginal brushes were transferred into 20 mL ThinPrep PreservCyt solution. All specimens were tested with the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV assay (Abbott RT). Testing on vaginal and cervical specimens was considered the index and comparator tests, respectively, and colposcopy and histology as the reference standard. The clinical sensitivity for CIN2+ of Abbott RT (cutoff ≤32 cycle number [CN]) on vaginal self-samples (Evalyn Brush and Qvintip combined) was 8% lower than on the cervical clinician-collected samples (ratio = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98]), while the specificity was similar (ratio = 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.12]). Sensitivity (ratio = 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02]) and specificity (ratio = 1.11 [95% CI, 0.995 to 1.23]) on Evalyn Brush samples was similar to cervical, while on Qvintip samples, the sensitivity was 12% lower than cervical samples (ratio = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.998]) with similar specificity (0.99 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10]). Exploratory cutoff optimization (cutoff ≤35 CN) resulted in an improvement of the relative sensitivity (self-sampling versus clinician sampling: ratio = 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02]) but yielded a loss in relative specificity (ratio = 0.92 [0.85 to 1.00]). The clinical accuracy of Abbott RT differed from the self-sampling device. However, after cutoff optimization, the sensitivity on self-samples taken with either of two vaginal brushes became similar to clinician-collected samples. IMPORTANCE Self-samples are becoming a crucial part of HPV-based cervical cancer screening programs to reach nonattendee women and increase screening coverage. Therefore, the VALHUDES framework was established to validate and evaluate HPV tests and devices on self-samples. Here, in the present manuscript, we evaluated the accuracy of the RealTime High Risk HPV assay (Abbott RT) on two different vaginal devices to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or higher (CIN2+). The study results demonstrated that the Abbott RT assay is similarly accurate on vaginal self-samples as on matched clinician-taken cervical samples after adjusting cutoff values. Moreover, we observed that some vaginal devices perform better than others in CIN2+ detection. We also underline the necessity of standardization and validation of general workflow and sample handling procedures for vaginal self-samples.

Cervical cancer screening using HPV tests on self-samples: attitudes and preferences of women participating in the VALHUDES study.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to reach women who do not participate regularly in screening may reduce the risk of cervical cancer. Self-collection of a vaginal specimen has been shown to increase participation. The relative clinical accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on first-void urine (with Colli-Pee) and on vaginal self-samples versus on cervical clinician-collected samples is being investigated in the VALHUDES trial. The current study assesses attitudes and experiences regarding self-sampling among women enrolled in VALHUDES. METHODS: Questionnaires from 515 women (age 25-64 years [N = 498]; < 25 [N = 10], age ≥ 65 [N = 3], enrolled between December 2017 - January 2020) referred to colposcopy because of previous cervical abnormalities and enrolled in VALHUDES (NCT03064087) were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 515 participants, nearly all women confirmed that self-sampling may help in reaching under-screened women (93%). Nevertheless, 44% of the participants stated before starting collection that a clinician-collected sample is more effective than a self-collected sample. After self-sampling, the large majority of women (> 95%) declared that instructions for self-collection were clear, that collection was easy, and that they were confident about having performed the procedure correctly, for both urine and vaginal collection. However, a proportion of women found self-sampling unpleasant (9.5% [49/515] for urine collection; 18.6% [96/515] and 15.5% [80/515] for vaginal sampling with cotton swabs or plastic brushes, respectively). For their next screening round, 57% would prefer self-sampling whereas 41% opted for collection by a clinician. Among women preferring self-sampling, 53% would choose for urine collection, 38% for vaginal self-collection and 9% had no preference. Age did not modify preferences. CONCLUSION: We conclude that both urine and vaginal self-sampling are well accepted by women, with a preference for urine sampling. Although the large majority of women are confident in their ability to perform self-sampling, four to five over ten women preferred specimen collection by a clinician. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study VALHUDES was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03064087 ).

Clinical and analytical evaluation of the RealTime High Risk HPV assay in Colli-Pee collected first-void urine using the VALHUDES protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Urine self-sampling has gained increasing interest for cervical cancer screening. In contrast to analytical performance, little information is available regarding the clinical accuracy for high-risk Human Papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing on urine. METHODS: VALHUDES is a diagnostic test accuracy study comparing clinical accuracy to detect high-grade cervical precancer (CIN2+) of HPV testing on self-collected compared to clinician-collected samples (NCT03064087). Disease outcome was assessed by colposcopy and histology. The Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV assay performance was evaluated on Colli-Pee collected first-void urine with cervical outcomes as comparator. RESULTS: As no assay cut-off for urine has been clinically validated, we used the predefined cut-off for cervical samples (CN ≤ 32). Using this cut-off, hrHPV testing was similarly sensitive (relative sensitivity 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88-1.01) and specific (relative specificity 1.03; 95% CI: 0.95-1.13) for detection of CIN2+ compared to testing cervical samples. In the subgroup of women of 30 years and older, similar relative sensitivity (0.97; 95% CI: 0.89-1.05) and specificity (1.02; 95% CI: 0.93-1.12) was found. Additionally, an exploratory cut-off (CN ≤ 33.86) was defined which further improved sensitivity and analytical test performance. CONCLUSION: HrHPV-DNA based PCR testing on home-collected first-void urine has similar accuracy for detecting CIN2+ compared to cervical samples taken by a clinician.

2020 list of human papillomavirus assays suitable for primary cervical cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Only clinically validated HPV assays can be accepted in cervical cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: To update the list of high-risk HPV assays that fulfil the 2009 international validation criteria (Meijer-2009). DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, references from selected studies; published in January 2014 to August 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: HPV test validation studies and primary screening studies, involving testing with an index HPV test and a comparator HPV test with reporting of disease outcome (occurrence of histologically confirmed cervical precancer; CIN2+). PARTICIPANTS: Women participating in cervical cancer screening. INTERVENTIONS: Testing with an index and a comparator HPV test of clinician-collected cervical specimens and assessment of disease outcome (

Meta-analysis of the accuracy of p16 or p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry versus HPV testing for the detection of CIN2+/CIN3+ in triage of women with minor abnormal cytology.

BACKGROUND: Women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) can be triaged accurately with a high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test to identify those who need a referral. However, the triage of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) with hrHPV testing has very low specificity. Overexpression of p16, with or without Ki-67, indicates neoplastic transformation of human papillomavirus-infected cervical cells and may more accurately predict underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). METHODS: A literature search was conducted in 3 bibliographic databases. Studies were selected if they included women with ASC-US or LSIL who were triaged with dual staining (p16/Ki-67) and/or p16 staining and, if available, with a comparator hrHPV test to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or CIN3+. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were eligible. The sensitivity of p16 staining for CIN3+ was significantly lower than that of hrHPV DNA testing (ratio for ASC-US, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.97; ratio for LSIL, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93). In contrast, the specificity of p16 staining was substantially higher with relative specificities of 1.60 (95% CI, 1.35-1.88) and 2.29 (95% CI, 2.05-2.56) for ASC-US and LSIL respectively. Dual staining was as sensitive as hrHPV DNA testing but was more specific (ratio for ASC-US, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.92; ratio for LSIL, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.17-2.77). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis confirms that p16 staining and p16/Ki-67 staining are more specific for CIN2+/CIN3+ than hrHPV DNA testing. Although p16 staining is less sensitive for CIN3+ than hrHPV DNA testing, dual staining has similar sensitivity.