Infection of cervical epithelium with high-risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) might result in productive or transforming cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions, the morphology of which can ...overlap. In transforming CIN lesions, aberrations in host cell genes accumulate over time, which is necessary for the ultimate progression to cancer. On the basis of (epi)genetic changes, early and advanced transforming CIN lesions can be distinguished. This paves the way for new molecular tools for cervical screening, diagnosis and management of cervical cancer precursor lesions.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Highlights ► In triage of LSIL, methods more specific than general hrHPV DNA tests may be preferred. ► To predict failure of treatment of high-grade cervical precancer, HPV tests are more sensitive ...than and as specific as cytology. ► In screening, a negative hrHPV DNA test is associated with a low future risk of precancer and cancer. ► HPV-screening followed by cytology triage of HPV+ women (30 years or older) is more effective than cytology-based screening.
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.
Highlights • HPV is globally prevalent and related to at least 6 different cancer sites in women and men • Prevention of HPV infections and its consequences is now technologically feasible • Novel ...options for prevention include HPV vaccination and the use of HPV screening methods • Vaccination is cost-effective with high efficacy for HPV infection and disease • International major efforts are needed to extend HPV-related cancer prevention to developing countries
Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples is a potential alternative to HPV testing on clinician-collected samples, but non-inferiority of its clinical accuracy remains to be ...assessed in the regular screening population. The IMPROVE study was done to evaluate the clinical accuracy of primary HPV testing on self-collected samples within an organised screening setting.
In this randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 29–61 years were invited to participate in the study as part of their regular screening invitation in the Netherlands. Women who provided informed consent were randomly allocated (1:1, with a block size of ten stratified by age) to one of two groups: a self-sampling group, in which women were requested to collect their own cervicovaginal sample using an Evalyn Brush (Rovers Medical Devices BV, Oss, Netherlands); or a clinician-based sampling group, in which samples were collected by a general practitioner with a Cervex-Brush (Rovers Medical Devices BV). All samples were tested for HPV using the clinically validated GP5+/6+ PCR enzyme immunoassay (Labo Biomedical Products BV, Rijswijk, Netherlands). HPV-positive women in both groups were retested with the other collection method and triaged by cytology and repeat cytology in accordance with current Dutch screening guidelines. Primary endpoints were detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). Non-inferiority of HPV testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples was evaluated against a margin of 90% for the relative sensitivity and 98% for the relative specificity. This study is registered at the Dutch Trial register (NTR5078) and has been completed.
Of the 187 473 women invited to participate, 8212 were randomly allocated to the self-sampling group and 8198 to the clinician-based sampling group. After exclusion of women who met the exclusion criteria or who did not return their sample, 7643 women were included in the self-sampling group and 6282 in the clinician-based sampling group. 569 (7·4%) self-collected samples and 451 (7·2%) clinician-collected samples tested positive for HPV (relative risk 1·04 95% CI 0·92–1·17). Median follow-up duration for HPV-positive women was 20 months (IQR 17–22). The CIN2+ sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing did not differ between self-sampling and clinician-based sampling (relative sensitivity 0·96 0·90–1·03; relative specificity 1·00 0·99–1·01). For the CIN3+ endpoint, relative sensitivity was 0·99 (0·91–1·08) and relative specificity was 1·00 (0·99–1·01).
HPV testing done with a clinically validated PCR-based assay had similar accuracy on self-collected and clinician-collected samples in terms of the detection of CIN2+ or CIN3+ lesions. These findings suggest that HPV self-sampling could be used as a primary screening method in routine screening.
Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport (Netherlands), and the European Commission.
Abstract 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.
Human papillomavirus (HPV)-related screening technologies and HPV vaccination offer enormous potential for cancer prevention, notably prevention of cervical cancer. The effectiveness of these ...approaches is, however, suboptimal owing to limited implementation of screening programmes and restricted indications for HPV vaccination. Trials of HPV vaccination in women aged up to 55 years have shown almost 90% protection from cervical precancer caused by HPV16/18 among HPV16/18-DNA-negative women. We propose extending routine vaccination programmes to women of up to 30 years of age (and to the 45-50-year age groups in some settings), paired with at least one HPV-screening test at age 30 years or older. Expanding the indications for HPV vaccination and much greater use of HPV testing in screening programmes has the potential to accelerate the decline in cervical cancer incidence. Such a combined protocol would represent an attractive approach for many health-care systems, in particular, countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, and some more-developed parts of Africa. The role of vaccination in women aged >30 years and the optimal number of HPV-screening tests required in vaccinated women remain important research issues. Cost-effectiveness models will help determine the optimal combination of HPV vaccination and screening in public health programmes, and to estimate the effects of such approaches in different populations.
Summary Background In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the ...endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. Methods 176 464 women aged 20–64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1 214 415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. Findings The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40–0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46–1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25–0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15–0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 105 (1·1–12·1) and 8·7 per 105 (3·3–18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 105 (7·9–27·0) and 36·0 per 105 (23·2–53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14–0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49–1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30–34 years (0·36, 0·14–0·94). Interpretation HPV-based screening provides 60–70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. Funding European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health.
Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening programs still use one-size-fits-all protocols but efficiency and efficacy of programs may be improved by stratifying women based on previous screening ...results. We studied the association between cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) and previous screening results in the Population-Based Screening Study Amsterdam (POBASCAM) trial, performed in the Netherlands in the setting of regular screening, where women aged from 29 to 61 years old were invited to cytology and HPV co-testing at enrolment in year 1999/2002 and at the next round in 2003/2007. We selected 18,448 women (9,293 from the intervention group and 9,155 from the control group) who tested HPV-negative in 2003/2007 and did not have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or hysterectomy after enrolment. Follow-up was collected until 14 years after the 2003/2007 screen, covering 4 rounds of screening. Risk of CIN3+ and CIN2+ among women with an HPV-negative test, irrespective of previous round results and stratified according to previous round HPV and cytology results, were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. HPV-negative women had an increased long-term risk of CIN3+ when the HPV test in the previous screening round was positive. This supports the implementation of risk-based intervals that depend on HPV results in the current and previous screening round.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK