Good performance of p16/ki-67 dual-stained cytology for surveillance of women treated for high-grade CIN.

Women treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are at risk of recurrent CIN Grade 2 or worse (rCIN2+). Currently, posttreatment monitoring is performed using cytology or cytology/high-risk (hr)HPV cotesting. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology (p16/Ki-67) for posttreatment monitoring. Three hundred and twenty-three women treated for high-grade CIN in the SIMONATH study underwent close surveillance by cytology, hrHPV and DNA methylation marker testing up to 12 months posttreatment. Histological endpoints were ascertained by colposcopy with biopsy at 6 and/or 12 months. p16/Ki-67 dual-staining was performed on residual liquid-based cytology samples obtained at, or shortly before biopsy collection. Clinical performance estimates of cytology, hrHPV, p16/Ki-67 testing and combinations thereof for the detection of rCIN2+ were determined and compared to each other. Sensitivity of p16/Ki-67 for rCIN2+ (69.2%) was nonsignificantly lower than that of cytology (82.1%; ratio 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71-1.01), but significantly lower than that of hrHPV testing (84.6%; ratio 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99). Specificity of p16/Ki-67 for rCIN2+ (90.4%) was significantly higher compared to both cytology (70.8%; ratio 1.28, 95% CI: 1.19-1.37) and hrHPV testing (76.2%; ratio 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12-1.26). Overall, hrHPV testing showed very high sensitivity, along with a good specificity. When considering cotesting, combined p16/Ki-67/hrHPV testing showed rCIN2+ sensitivity comparable to cytology/hrHPV cotesting (87.2% vs. 89.7%; ratio 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-1.03), but with significantly increased specificity (74.2% vs. 58.1%; ratio 1.28, 95% CI: 1.19-1.38). Thus, when considered in combination with hrHPV, p16/Ki-67 might be an attractive approach for surveillance of women treated for high-grade CIN.

FAM19A4 methylation analysis in self-samples compared with cervical scrapes for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women require triage to identify those with cervical high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer (⩾CIN3 (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3)). FAM19A4 methylation analysis, which detects advanced CIN and cancer, is applicable to different sample types. However, studies comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive self-samples and paired physician-taken scrapes are lacking. METHODS: We compared the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis (and/or HPV16/18 genotyping) in self-samples and paired physician-taken scrapes for ⩾CIN3 detection in hrHPV-positive women (n=450,18-66 years). RESULTS: Overall FAM19A4 methylation levels between sample types were significantly correlated, with strongest correlation in women with ⩾CIN3 (Spearman's ρ 0.697, P<0.001). The performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis and/or HPV16/18 genotyping did not differ significantly between sample types. In women ⩾30 years, ⩾CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 78.4% in self-samples and 88.2% in scrapes (ratio 0.89; CI: 0.75-1.05). In women <30 years, ⩾CIN3 sensitivities were 37.5% and 45.8%, respectively (ratio 0.82; CI: 0.55-1.21). In both groups, ⩾CIN3 specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was significantly higher in self-samples compared with scrapes. CONCLUSIONS: FAM19A4 methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive self-samples had a slightly lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for ⩾CIN3 compared with paired physician-taken scrapes. With a similarly good clinical performance in both sample types, combined FAM19A4 methylation analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping provides a feasible triage strategy for hrHPV-positive women, with direct applicability on self-samples.

p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in a HPV-positive gynecologic outpatient population.

Women who test positive for a high-risk type of the human papillomavirus (HPV) require triage testing to identify those women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (≥CIN3). Although Pap cytology is considered an attractive triage test, its applicability is hampered by its subjective nature. This study prospectively compared the clinical performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology to that of Pap cytology, with or without HPV16/18 genotyping, in high-risk HPV-positive women visiting gynecologic outpatient clinics (n=446 and age 18-66 years). From all women, cervical scrapes (for Pap cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, and p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology) and colposcopy-directed biopsies were obtained. The sensitivity of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for ≥CIN3 (93.8%) did neither differ significantly from that of Pap cytology (87.7%; ratio 1.07 and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.18) nor from that of Pap cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping (95.1%; ratio 0.99 and 95% CI: 0.91-1.07). However, the specificity of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for ≥CIN3 (51.2%) was significantly higher than that of Pap cytology (44.9%; ratio 1.14 and 95% CI: 1.01-1.29) and Pap cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping (25.8%; ratio 1.99 and 95% CI: 1.68-2.35). After exclusion of women who had been referred because of abnormal Pap cytology, the specificity of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for ≥CIN3 (56.7%) remained the same, whereas that of Pap cytology (60.3%) increased substantially, resulting in a similar specificity of both assays (ratio 0.94 and 95% CI: 0.83-1.07) in this sub-cohort. In summary, p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology has a good clinical performance and is an interesting objective microscopy-based triage tool for high-risk HPV-positive women.

Backgrounds of women applying for hymen reconstruction, the effects of counselling on myths and misunderstandings about virginity, and the results of hymen reconstruction.

ABSTRACT Objective To study the backgrounds of women requesting hymen 'repair', to assess the effects of extensive counselling, and the effects of hymen reconstruction. Methods A two-centre qualitative study, consisting of a semi-structured interview, education, discussion of alternatives, and instructions for self-examination (first visit), educational examination (second visit), decision on operation or alternative (third visit), and follow-up (fourth visit). Results Eighty-two women were interviewed at first visit. Sixty-eight women were followed until their decision to be operated upon or not. Forty-eight percent of all subjects reported a history of sexual violence, and 37% had had one or more abortions. Only 29% eventually decided to be operated. Seventeen of the 19 women who submitted to an operation and attended the follow-up visit reported no blood loss at first marital intercourse. Conclusions Most women requesting hymen reconstruction had a history complicated by critical life events related to their request. All women were afraid they would not bleed and/or would not be 'tight' enough during the wedding night. For 75% of the women empowerment by means of extensive counselling resulted in a decision against operation. Hymenoplasty alone does not help women because most operated women will not bleed and because they often also have to prove to be 'tight' enough.