Angiogenesis in abnormal uterine bleeding: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) has a significant socioeconomic impact since it considerably impacts quality of life. Therapeutic options are frequently based on trial and error and do not target disease aetiology. Pathophysiological insight in this disease is required for the development of novel treatment options. If no underlying cause is found for the AUB (e.g. fibroids, adenomyosis, polyps), endometrial-AUB (AUB-E) is usually caused by a primary endometrium disorder. When AUB is induced by prescribed (exogenous) hormones, it is classified as iatrogenic-AUB (AUB-I). Considering vascular modulation and function, AUB-E and AUB-I both could potentially result from abnormal vascularization in the endometrium due to alterations in the process of angiogenesis and vascular maturation. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We aim to investigate the fundamental role of angiogenesis and vascular maturation in patients with AUB and hypothesize that aberrant endometrial angiogenesis has an important role in the aetiology of both AUB-E and AUB-I, possibly through different mechanisms. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed until September 2021 in the Cochrane Library Databases, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science, with search terms such as angiogenesis and abnormal uterine bleeding. Included studies reported on angiogenesis in the endometrium of premenopausal women with AUB-E or AUB-I. Case reports, letters, reviews, editorial articles, and studies on AUB with causes classified by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics as myometrial, oncological, or infectious, were excluded. Study quality was assessed by risk of bias, using the Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. OUTCOMES: Thirty-five out of 2158 articles were included. In patients with AUB-E, vascular endothelial growth factor A and its receptors (1 and 2), as well as the angiopoietin-1:angiopoietin-2 ratio and Tie-1, were significantly increased. Several studies reported on the differential expression of other pro- and antiangiogenic factors in patients with AUB-E, suggesting aberrant vascular maturation and impaired vessel integrity. Overall, endometrial microvessel density (MVD) was comparable in patients with AUB-E and controls. Interestingly, patients with AUB-I showed a higher MVD and higher expression of proangiogenic factors when compared to controls, in particular after short-term hormone exposure. This effect was gradually lost after longer-term exposure, while alterations in vessel maturation were observed after both short- and long-term exposures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: AUB-E and AUB-I are most likely associated with aberrant endometrial angiogenesis and impaired vessel maturation. This review supports existing evidence that increased proangiogenic and decreased antiangiogenic factors cause impaired vessel maturation, resulting in more fragile and permeable vessels. This matches our hypothesis and these mechanisms appear to play an important role in the pathophysiology of AUB-E and AUB-I. Exploring the alterations in angiogenesis in these patients could provide treatment targets for AUB.

Experience with HPV self-sampling and clinician-based sampling in women attending routine cervical screening in the Netherlands.

Several countries offer HPV self-sampling for screening non-attendees. It is assumed that screening attendees also prefer self-sampling to clinician-based sampling, however, little research has been conducted with respect to this. Women participating in the IMPROVE-study were randomised (1:1) to self- or clinician-collected HPV testing, and HPV-positive women were retested using the other collection method. Three different questionnaires were sent out among a subset of participating women: Q1) HPV-positive women from both study groups were asked about their experiences with self-sampling and clinician-based sampling (n = 497); Q2) HPV-negative women from the self-sampling group were asked about their experiences with self-sampling (n = 2366); and Q3) HPV-negative women in the clinician-collection group were asked about their experiences with clinician-based sampling (n = 2092). Response rates ranged from 71.6 to 79.4%. Women reported significantly lower levels of shame, nervousness, discomfort and pain during self-sampling compared to clinician-based sampling. However, trust in correct sampling was significantly higher during clinician-based sampling. The majority of women in group Q1 preferred self-sampling (76.5%) to clinician-based sampling (11.9%) in future screening, while 11.6% of women reported to have no preference for either method. To conclude, women from a regular screening population have a positive attitude towards self-sampling but express some concerns with respect to accuracy. The majority prefers self-sampling to clinician-based sampling in future screening. Based on these results, a screening approach where women can choose for either self-sampling or clinician-based sampling seems highly justifiable.

Performance of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse: a randomised, paired screen-positive, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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). INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport (Netherlands), and the European Commission.

Management of HPV-positive women in cervical screening using results from two consecutive screening rounds.

We studied whether triage of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women participating in an HPV-based screening programme can be improved by including the HPV result at the previous screen in the triage algorithm. We analyzed data of a subgroup of 366 women from the POBASCAM trial, screened by cytology and HPV cotesting. Women were included if they tested HPV-positive in the second HPV-based screening round. We evaluated the clinical performance of 16 strategies, consisting of cytology, HPV genotyping, and/or previous screen HPV result. The clinical endpoint was cervical precancer or cancer (CIN3+). The current Dutch triage testing policy for HPV-positive women is to refer women for colposcopy if they have abnormal cytology at baseline or after 6-18 months. In the second HPV-based screening round, this strategy yielded a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8% (95% confidence interval: 91.9-98.2) and colposcopy referral rate of 37.6% (32.3-43.2%). Replacing repeat cytology by the previous screen HPV result yielded a similar NPV (96.9%, 93.3-98.9) and colposcopy referral rate (38.8%, 33.4-44.4). A higher NPV (99.2%, 96.3-100%) at the cost of a higher colposcopy referral rate (49.2%, 43.6-54.8) was achieved when cytology was combined with HPV16/18 genotyping. The other 13 triage strategies yielded a lower NPV, a higher colposcopy referral rate or performed similarly but required additional testing. HPV-positive women in the second HPV-based screening round can be suitably managed by cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping and the HPV result at the previous screen, obviating the need for repeat testing of HPV-positive, cytology negative women.

HPV-positive women with normal cytology remain at increased risk of CIN3 after a negative repeat HPV test.

BACKGROUND: In human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening, a repeat HPV test is often recommended for HPV-positive women with normal cytology (HPV-pos/cyt-neg), but its absolute risk of cervical precancer (CIN3+) over two screening rounds needs to be assessed. METHODS: We compared the 5-year risk of HPV infection and CIN3+ in HPV-pos/cyt-neg women with a negative repeat HPV test to the risk in HPV-negative women with normal cytology (double negatives) in the POBASCAM cohort. We obtained histology data from the Dutch pathology registry (PALGA). RESULTS: Human papillomavirus infection risk was 20.4% (19 of 93) in HPV-pos/cyt-neg, repeat HPV-negative women and 3.2% (294 of 9186; P<0.001) in double negatives. Corresponding CIN3+ risks were 2.0% (4 of 199) and 0.2% (41 of 18 562; P<0.001). Infection risks were also increased in type-specific analyses of HPV16, 31, 33, 39, 52, 56 and 58. CONCLUSIONS: HPV-pos/cyt-neg women continue to have an increased CIN3+ risk, also when the repeat HPV test is negative. Therefore, intervals in primary HPV screening should be determined separately for HPV-positive and -negative women.

Stratifying HPV-positive women for CIN3+ risk after one and two rounds of HPV-based screening.

A main challenge of human papilloma (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer is to adequately identify HPV-positive women at highest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, CIN3+. The prognostic value of currently used adjunct markers (HPV16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology) may change after multiple rounds of HPV-based screening because of a change in the proportion of HPV-positive women with incident infections. To this end, we re-analyzed results from the POBASCAM trial (Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam). Women were randomized to HPV/cytology cotesting (intervention group) or to cytology-only (HPV blinded; control group) at enrolment. Our analytical population consisted of women with an HPV-positive result at the second round, 5 years after enrolment (n = 381 intervention, n = 392 control). Nine-year CIN3+ risks were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. HPV-positive women were stratified by risk markers: HPV16/18 genotyping, reflex cytology and preceding HPV results. When comparing one to two rounds of HPV-based screening, the prognostic value of an abnormal cytology result did not change (40.0% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.5617), but diminished for an HPV16/18 positive result (25.4% vs. 38.0%, p = 0.0132). HPV16/18 genotyping was nondiscriminative in women with incident HPV infections (HPV16/18 positive 10.0% vs. negative 12.1%, p = 0.3193). Women from the intervention group were more likely to have incident infections compared to women from the control group (incident screen-positive results 75.6% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.001) Our results indicate that at a second round of HPV-based screening, risk differentiation by cytology remained strong, but was diminished for HPV 16/18 genotyping because of a larger proportion of incident infections.

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.

Five-Year Cervical (Pre)Cancer Risk of Women Screened by HPV and Cytology Testing.

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening will be introduced in the Netherlands in 2016. We assessed the 5-year cervical (pre)cancer risk of women with different combinations of HPV and cytology test results. Special attention was paid to risks for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and 2 or more (CIN3+/2+) of HPV-positive women with a negative triage test, because this determines the safety of a 5-year screening interval for HPV-positive, triage test-negative women. In addition, age-related effects were studied. A total of 25,553 women were screened by HPV testing and cytology in a screening setting. Women were managed on the presence of HPV and/or abnormal cytology. Five-year cumulative incidences for CIN3+/2+ were calculated. Five-year CIN3+(2+) risk was 10.0% (17.7%) among HPV-positive women. When stratified by cytology, the CIN3+(CIN2+) risk was 7.9% (12.9%) for women with normal cytology and 22.2% (45.3%) for women with equivocal or mildly abnormal (i.e., BMD) cytology. For HPV-negative women, the 5-year CIN3+(2+) risk was 0.09% (0.21%). Additional triage of HPV-positive women with normal cytology by repeat cytology at 12 months showed a 5-year CIN3+(2+) risk of 4.1% (7.0%). HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal cytology at baseline had comparable risks of 3.5% (7.9%). HPV-non 16/18-positive women with normal baseline cytology and normal repeat cytology had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 0.42%. No age-related effects were detected. In conclusion, HPV-positive women with normal cytology and a negative triage test, either repeat cytology after 12 months or baseline HPV 16/18 genotyping, develop a non-negligible CIN3+ risk over 5 years. Therefore, extension of the screening interval over 5 years only seems possible for HPV screen-negative women.

Triaging HPV-positive women with normal cytology by p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology testing: baseline and longitudinal data.

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening results in a 2-5% lower specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared to Pap cytology. To identify HPV-positive women with CIN2+, we retrospectively evaluated the cross-sectional and longitudinal performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology in HPV-positive women with normal cytology participating in population-based cervical screening. Conventional Pap cytology specimens of 847 of these women derived from the VUSA-Screen study were dual-stained for p16/Ki-67. Cross-sectional clinical performance in detecting CIN3 or worse (CIN3+), and CIN2+ was compared to that of baseline HPV genotyping. Moreover, 5-year cumulative incidence risks (CIR) for CIN3+ (CIN2+) were determined. The sensitivity of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for CIN3+ (CIN2+) was 73.3% (68.8%) with a specificity of 70.0% (72.8%). HPV16/18 genotyping showed a sensitivity for CIN3+ (CIN2+) of 46.7% (43.8%), with a specificity of 78.3% (79.4%). The 5-year CIR for CIN3+ in HPV-positive women with normal cytology was 6.9%. Testing these women with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology resulted in a significantly lower CIN3+ 5-year CIR of 3.3% (p = 0.017) in case of a negative test result. A negative HPV16/18 genotyping test result also led to a lower 5-year CIN3+ CIR of 3.6%. p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology detects more than 70% of underlying CIN3+ lesions in HPV-positive women with normal cytology at baseline and is therefore suitable for triaging these women to colposcopy. Furthermore, the CIN3+ 5-year CIR of 3.3% after a negative dual-stain result is significantly lower compared to the 5-year CIR of 6.9% in women without p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology triage.