The performance of single and combination test strategies using visual inspection, cytology, high-risk HPV DNA and HPV16/18 to screen South African women with and without HIV-infection.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening strategies should ideally be informed by population-specific data. Strategies recommended for secondary prevention, are often inadequately studied in populations with high cervical disease burdens. This report describes the test performance measured against CIN2 + /CIN3 + histology in HIV-positive women (HPW) and HIV-negative women (HNW) with the aim to determine the most effective strategies to identify South African women at risk. METHODS: Primary screening using visual inspection, cytology and HPV DNA (cobas®) was performed in two South African provinces on 456 HPW and 639 HNW participating in the multicentric DiaVACCS trial. Histology was obtained for 91.7% screen-positive and 42.7% screen-negative participants, and unavailable histology was determined by multiple imputation to adjust for verification bias. Cross-sectional test performance was calculated for single and combination test strategies with and without intermediate risk categories using different cut-offs. Minimum acceptability for sensitivity and specificity, treatment and follow-up numbers were considered to evaluate strategies. RESULTS: The only single test to reach acceptability in HPW was cytology (LSIL) [sensitivity 71.2%; specificity 90.5%; treatment 33.4%]; in HNW only HPV (hr) qualified [sensitivity 68.2%; specificity 85.2%; treatment 23.5%]. The universally best performing strategy which also resulted in smaller treatment numbers without intermediate risk group was primary HPV(hr), with treatment of both HPV(16/18) and cytology (ASCUS +) [HPW: sensitivity 73.6%; specificity 89.7%; treatment 34.7%. HNW: sensitivity 59.1%; specificity 93.6%; treatment 13.9%]. DNA testing for hrHPV (any) and hrHPV (16/18) was the best universally acceptable strategy with an intermediate risk category (early follow-up) in HPW [sensitivity 82.1%; specificity 96.4%; treatment 17.1%; follow-up 31.4%] and HNW [sensitivity 68.2%; specificity 96.7%; treatment 7.6%; follow-up 15.9%]. In comparison, using both HPV (16/18) and cytology (ASCUS +) as secondary tests in hrHPV positive women, decreased follow-up [HPW 13.8%, HNW 9.6%], but increased treatment [HPW 34.7%, HNW 13.9%]. CONCLUSION: Using hrHPV (any) as primary and both HPV16/18 and cytology as secondary tests, was universally acceptable without an intermediate risk group. Strategies with follow-up groups improved screening performance with smaller treatment numbers, but with effective management of the intermediate risk group as prerequisite.

Utility of Extended HPV Genotyping as Primary Cervical Screen in an Unscreened Population With High HIV Co-Infection Rate.

OBJECTIVE: Screening with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been evaluated in highly prescreened populations with lower HPV and HIV prevalence than what is the case in South Africa. High prevalence of HPV and underlying precancer in women living with HIV (WLWH) affect the clinical performance of screening tests significantly. This study investigates the utility and performance of an extended genotyping HPV test in detection of precancer in a population with a high coinfection rate with HIV. METHODS: A total of 1,001 women aged 25 to 65 years with no cervical cancer screening in the preceding 5 years were tested with cytology and primary extended genotyping HPV testing. The cohort of 1,001 women included 430 WLWH (43.0%) and 564 HIV-negative (56.3%) women. RESULTS: Abnormal cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher) was significantly higher in WLWH (37.2% vs 15.9%) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or above (23.5% vs 5.2%). The WLWH also tested positive more often for any HPV type (44.3% vs 19.6%; p < .0001) The specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ at 91.2% of a combination of HPV types, 16/18/45 (very high risk) and 31/33/58/52 (moderate risk), performed better than cytology or any HPV-positive result to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3+ on histology. The additional genotype information supports direct referral to treatment or colposcopy in a larger proportion of the screen-positive population. CONCLUSIONS: The potential contribution of extended genotyping is demonstrated. The ideal choice of sensitivity and specificity ultimately depends on the health budget. More information will allow a screening algorithm, guiding management according to risk.

Cytology compared with Hybrid Capture 2 human papilloma virus cervical cancer screening in HIV positive and HIV negative South African women.

OBJECTIVES: Cervical cancer is preventable and caused by persistent infection with oncogenic human papilloma virus (HPV) types. HPV screening is more sensitive and is the preferred screening test. HPV screening data are mainly from developed settings, and the purpose of this study was to investigate the performance of HPV screening in previously unscreened HIV positive and negative women. METHODS: In this cross sectional multicenter study, liquid based cytology and HPV testing were performed on women attending different clinics. Patients with positive screening tests had colposcopy and biopsy or large loop excision of the transformation zone. Some women with normal screening had colposcopy and biopsy. Data of women with histology results, and data of HIV positive and negative women were analyzed for comparison. For women without histology results, data were imputed using a statistical model. RESULTS: In 903 women with known HIV status, 683 (75.6%) had negative cytology, 202 women (22.4%) had abnormal cytology, and in 18 patients (2.0%) the results were uncertain. Mean age was 41.4 years (range 25-65). HPV tests were negative in 621 women (68.8%). In HIV positive women, 54.5% tested negative compared with 79.7% HIV negative women (p<0.0001). HPV screening had higher sensitivity (60.9%), but lower specificity (82.4%), compared with cytology (48.6% and 86.7%) for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ in all women. For detection of CIN 3+, HPV screening had higher sensitivity (70.4%) compared with cytology (62.9%), and specificity (75.5%) was lower compared with cytology at a threshold of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS+) (82.4%). CONCLUSION: HPV screening was more sensitive than cytology in HIV positive and HIV negative women, but specificity was lower. Although HPV screening should be the preferred screening test, cytology is a suitable screening test in HIV positive women in low resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02956031.