Only clinically validated HPV assays can be accepted in cervical cancer screening.
To update the list of high-risk HPV assays that fulfil the 2009 international validation criteria (Meijer-2009).
...PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, references from selected studies; published in January 2014 to August 2020.
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+).
Women participating in cervical cancer screening.
Testing with an index and a comparator HPV test of clinician-collected cervical specimens and assessment of disease outcome (<CIN2, CIN2+). Comparator HPV assays were HC2, GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA, recommended in validation guidelines, or tests with consistent previous validations.
Assessment of relative clinical accuracy (including non-inferiority statistics index vs comparator assay) and test reproducibility in individual studies; random effects meta-analyses of the relative clinical sensitivity and specificity of index vs comparator tests.
Seven hrHPV DNA tests consistently fulfilled all validation criteria in multiple studies using predefined test positivity cut-offs (Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV, Anyplex II HPV HR Detection, BD Onclarity HPV Assay, Cobas 4800 HPV Test, HPV-Risk Assay, PapilloCheck HPV-Screening Test and Xpert HPV). Another assay (Alinity m HR HPV Assay) was fully validated in one validation study. The newer Cobas 6800 HPV Test, was validated in two studies against Cobas 4800. Other tests partially fulfilled the international validation criteria (Cervista HPV HR Test, EUROArray HPV, Hybribio's 14 High-Risk HPV, LMNX Genotyping Kit GP HPV, MALDI-TOF, RIATOL qPCR and a number of other in-house developed assays) since the non-inferior accuracy was reached after a posteriori cut-off optimization, inconsistent accuracy findings in different studies, and/or insufficient reproducibility assessment. The APTIMA HPV Assay targeting E6/E7 mRNA of hrHPV was fully validated in one formal validation study and showed slightly lower pooled sensitivity but higher specificity than the standard comparator tests in seven screening studies. However, the current international validation criteria relate to DNA assays. The additional requirement for longitudinal performance data required for non-DNA based HPV assays was not assessed in this review.
Eleven hrHPV DNA assays fulfil all requirements for use in cervical cancer screening using clinician-collected specimens.
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.
Summary Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions than is cytology, but detection of HPV by DNA screening in two screening ...rounds 5 years apart has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to assess whether HPV DNA testing in the first screen decreases detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse, CIN grade 2 or worse, and cervical cancer in the second screening. Methods In this randomised trial, women aged 29–56 years participating in the cervical screening programme in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to receive HPV DNA (GP5+/6+-PCR method) and cytology co-testing or cytology testing alone, from January, 1999, to September, 2002. Randomisation (in a 1:1 ratio) was done with computer-generated random numbers after the cervical specimen had been taken. At the second screening 5 years later, HPV DNA and cytology co-testing was done in both groups; researchers were masked to the patient's assignment. The primary endpoint was the number of CIN grade 3 or worse detected. Analysis was done by intention to screen. The trial is now finished and is registered, number ISRCTN20781131. Findings 22 420 women were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 22 518 to the control group; 19 999 in the intervention group and 20 106 in the control group were eligible for analysis at the first screen. At the second screen, 19 579 women in the intervention group and 19 731 in the control group were eligible, of whom 16 750 and 16 743, respectively, attended the second screen. In the second round, CIN grade 3 or worse was less common in the intervention group than in the control group (88 of 19 579 in the intervention group vs 122 of 19 731 in the control group; relative risk 0·73, 95% CI 0·55–0·96; p=0·023). Cervical cancer was also less common in the intervention group than in the control group (four of 19 579 in the intervention group vs 14 of 19 731; 0·29, 0·10–0·87; p=0·031). In the baseline round, detection of CIN grade 3 or worse did not differ significantly between groups (171 of 19 999 vs 150 of 20 106; 1·15, 0·92–1·43; p=0·239) but was significantly more common in women with normal cytology (34 of 19 286 vs 12 of 19 373; 2·85, 1·47–5·49; p=0·001). Furthermore, significantly more cases of CIN grade 2 or worse were detected in the intervention group than in the control group (267 of 19 999 vs 215 of 20 106; 1·25, 1·05–1·50; p=0·015). In the second screen, fewer HPV16-positive CIN grade 3 or worse were detected in the intervention group than in the control group (17 of 9481 vs 35 of 9354; 0·48, 0·27–0·85; p=0·012); detection of non-HPV16-positive CIN grade 3 or worse did not differ between groups (25 of 9481 vs 25 of 9354; 0·99, 0·57–1·72; p=1·00). The cumulative detection of CIN grade 3 or worse and CIN grade 2 or worse did not differ significantly between study arms, neither for the whole study group (CIN grade 3 or worse: 259 of 19 999 vs 272 of 20 106; 0·96, 0·81–1·14, p=0·631; CIN grade 2 or worse: 427 of 19 999 vs 399 of 20 106; 1·08, 0·94–1·24; p=0·292), nor for subgroups of women invited for the first time (CIN grade 3 or worse in women aged 29–33 years: 102 of 3139 vs 105 of 3128; 0·97, 0·74–1·27; CIN grade 2 or worse in women aged 29–33 years: 153 of 3139 vs 151 of 3128; 1·01, 0·81–1·26; CIN grade 3 or worse in women aged 34–56 years: 157 of 16 860 vs 167 of 16 978; 0·95, 0·76–1·18; CIN grade 2 or worse in women aged 34–56 years: 274 of 16 860 vs 248 of 16 978; 1·11, 0·94–1·32). Interpretation Implementation of HPV DNA testing in cervical screening leads to earlier detection of clinically relevant CIN grade 2 or worse, which when adequately treated, improves protection against CIN grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer. Early detection of high-grade cervical legions caused by HPV16 was a major component of this benefit. Our results lend support to the use of HPV DNA testing for all women aged 29 years and older. Funding Zorg Onderzoek Nederland (Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development).
The introduction of primary HPV screening has doubled the number of colposcopy referrals because of the direct referral of HPV-positive women with a borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) cytology ...(ASC-US/LSIL) triage test. Further risk-stratification is warranted to improve the efficiency of HPV-based screening.
This study evaluated the discriminative power of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 genotyping and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD (n = 294) in two Dutch screening trials. Absolute CIN3+ risks and colposcopy referrals within one screening round were calculated.
Methylation analysis discriminated well, yielding a CIN3+ risk of 33.1% after a positive result and a CIN3+ risk of 9.8% after a negative result. HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping resulted in a 27.6% and 24.6% CIN3+ risk after a positive result, and a 13.2% and 9.1% CIN3+ risk after a negative result. Colposcopy referral percentages were 41.2%, 43.2%, and 66.3% for FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping, respectively. The CIN3+ risk after a negative result could be lowered to 2.8% by combining methylation and extended genotyping, at the expense of a higher referral percentage of 75.5%.
The use of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation and/or HPV genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD can lead to a substantial reduction in the number of direct colposcopy referrals.
Little is known about the time span of progression from high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) to invasive cervical cancer. Estimation of this duration from longitudinal studies is ...not permitted, as CIN2/3 should be treated when detected. Cross-sectional data on the age-specific incidence of detected CIN2/3 and cervical cancer cases are readily available in national registries, but these data are difficult to interpret because neither the moment of lesion development nor the onset of invasive cancer is observed. We developed a statistical model for estimating the duration of time between CIN2/3 and preclinical cancer using Dutch national registries for the years 2000-2005. Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype data were used to separate CIN2/3 and cancer incidences to obtain estimates for HPV-16-positive and HPV-16-negative lesions. The median time from CIN2/3 to cancer was estimated to be 23.5 years (95% confidence interval: 20.8, 26.6), and 1.6% of the lesions progressed to cancer within 10 years. The median duration for HPV-16-positive lesions was similar, but 2.4% of the HPV-16-positive lesions progressed to cancer within 10 years, as compared with 0.6% for HPV-16-negative lesions. Estimated durations of time to cancer are essential for reassessment of the optimal screening interval in light of vaccination and novel screening tests.
Modelling studies have been widely used to inform human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination policy decisions; however, many models exist and it is not known whether they produce consistent predictions ...of population-level effectiveness and herd effects. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of model predictions of the long-term population-level effectiveness of vaccination against HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11 infection in women and men, to examine the variability in predicted herd effects, incremental benefit of vaccinating boys, and potential for HPV-vaccine-type elimination.
We searched MEDLINE and Embase for transmission-dynamic modelling studies published between Jan 1, 2009, and April 28, 2015, that predicted the population-level impact of vaccination on HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 infections in high-income countries. We contacted authors to determine whether they were willing to produce new predictions for standardised scenarios. Strategies investigated were girls-only vaccination and girls and boys vaccination at age 12 years. Base-case vaccine characteristics were 100% efficacy and lifetime protection. We did sensitivity analyses by varying vaccination coverage, vaccine efficacy, and duration of protection. For all scenarios we pooled model predictions of relative reductions in HPV prevalence (RRprev) over time after vaccination and summarised results using the median and 10th and 90th percentiles (80% uncertainty intervals UI).
16 of 19 eligible models from ten high-income countries provided predictions. Under base-case assumptions, 40% vaccination coverage and girls-only vaccination, the RRprev of HPV 16 among women and men was 0·53 (80% UI 0·46–0·68) and 0·36 (0·28–0·61), respectively, after 70 years. With 80% girls-only vaccination coverage, the RRprev of HPV 16 among women and men was 0·93 (0·90–1·00) and 0·83 (0·75–1·00), respectively. Vaccinating boys in addition to girls increased the RRprev of HPV 16 among women and men by 0·18 (0·13–0·32) and 0·35 (0·27–0·39) for 40% coverage, and 0·07 (0·00–0·10) and 0·16 (0·01–0·25) for 80% coverage, respectively. The RRprev were greater for HPV 6, 11, and 18 than for HPV 16 for all scenarios investigated. Finally at 80% coverage, most models predicted that girls and boys vaccination would eliminate HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18, with a median RRprev of 1·00 for women and men for all four HPV types. Variability in pooled findings was low, but increased with lower vaccination coverage and shorter vaccine protection (from lifetime to 20 years).
Although HPV models differ in structure, data used for calibration, and settings, our population-level predictions were generally concordant and suggest that strong herd effects are expected from vaccinating girls only, even with coverage as low as 20%. Elimination of HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11 is possible if 80% coverage in girls and boys is reached and if high vaccine efficacy is maintained over time.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Primary testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical screening requires triage to differentiate women with transient infection from those with persistent infection who require more intensive ...management given their risk for cervical (pre)cancer. In this study, the clinical performance of a novel methylation marker FAM19A4 for the triage of high-risk (hr)HPV-positive women was evaluated. Using a training-validation set approach, we analyzed a FAM19A4 quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP). The training set comprised hrHPV-positive cervical scrapes of 43 women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) and 135 women with ≤CIN1. The validation set comprised hrHPV-positive cervical scrapes of 52 women with CIN2+, including 33 CIN3+, 19 CIN2, and 166 women with ≤CIN1. The methylation threshold of FAM19A4 qMSP that gave rise to CIN3+ specificity of 70% in the training set was applied in the validation set. This resulted in CIN3+ sensitivity of 75.8% 95% confidence interval (CI), 61.1-90.4 at 67.0% (95% CI, 60.3-73.8) specificity. Next, the validated qMSP was applied to an independent series of hrHPV-positive cervical scrapes of 22 women with cervical cancer, 29 with advanced CIN2/3 i.e., women with a known preceding hrHPV infection (PHI) lasting ≥5 years as proxy of longer duration of lesion existence, and 19 with early CIN2/3 (i.e., PHI <5 years). All carcinomas (22/22) and advanced CIN2/3 lesions (29/29) were FAM19A4 methylation-positive, compared with 42.1% (8/19; 95% CI, 19.9-64.3) of early CIN2/3 lesions. In conclusion, FAM19A4 is an attractive triage marker for hrHPV-positive women, with a high reassurance for the detection of cervical carcinoma and advanced CIN2/3 lesions.
Multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials in which more than two drugs are simultaneously investigated provide gains over separate single- or two-arm trials. In this paper we propose a generic Bayesian ...adaptive decision-theoretic design for multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials with K (
K
≥
2
) arms. The basic idea is that after each stage a decision about continuation of the trial and accrual of patients for an additional stage is made on the basis of the expected reduction in loss. For this purpose, we define a loss function that incorporates the patient accrual costs as well as costs associated with an incorrect decision at the end of the trial. An attractive feature of our loss function is that its estimation is computationally undemanding, also when K > 2. We evaluate the frequentist operating characteristics for settings with a binary outcome and multiple experimental arms. We consider both the situation with and without a control arm. In a simulation study, we show that our design increases the probability of making a correct decision at the end of the trial as compared to nonadaptive designs and adaptive two-stage designs.
PDF
