Genotyping for Human Papillomavirus Types 16 and 18 in Women With Minor Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to triage women with minor cervical lesions generates many referrals. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of genotyping for HPV types 16 and 18 and its utility as a second triage step after hrHPV testing in women with minor cervical lesions. DATA SOURCES: Searches of 4 bibliographic databases, without language restrictions, from 1 January 1999 to 1 February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies involving women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) who were triaged with tests for hrHPV and HPV 16/18 to find cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade ≥2 [CIN2+] or grade ≥3 [CIN3+]). DATA EXTRACTION: Independent study selection, extraction of data, and quality assessment by 2 reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-four moderate- to good-quality studies involving 8587 women with ASC-US and 5284 with LSIL were found. The pooled sensitivity of HPV 16/18 genotyping for CIN3+ was about 70% for women with either ASC-US or LSIL. The pooled specificity (with a threshold of grade <2 CIN) was 83% (95% CI, 80% to 86%) for women with ASC-US and 76% (CI, 74% to 79%) for those with LSIL. The average risk for CIN3+ was 17% and 19% in HPV 16/18-positive women with ASC-US and LSIL, respectively, and was 5% in hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women with either ASC-US or LSIL. LIMITATION: Methodological and technical heterogeneity among studies; insufficient data to assess accuracy of separate assays. CONCLUSION: Testing for HPV 16/18 to triage women with minor abnormal cytology is poorly sensitive but may be useful as a second triage test after hrHPV testing, with direct referral if the woman is positive for HPV 16/18. Whether colposcopy or repeated testing is recommended for hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women depends on local decision thresholds that can be derived from pretest-posttest probability plots. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission.

A comparison of different human papillomavirus tests in PreservCyt versus SurePath in a referral population-PREDICTORS 4.

BACKGROUND: Two transport media, PreservCyt and SurePath, are widely used for cervical cytology screening. There are concerns that they may perform differently for HPV testing. OBJECTIVES: A comparison of the performance of six different HPV tests in SurePath and PreservCyt in a referral population using two samples from each woman. The primary goal was to compare the performance of each test in the two media. Comparisons between assays and viral load comparisons between media were secondary aims. STUDY DESIGN: Two cervical samples were collected in random order at the same visit in women with abnormal cytology. One sample was placed in 20ml of PreservCyt and the other in 10ml of SurePath. Aliquots were taken for 4 DNA based tests: digene HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test, Abbott Realtime, BD Onclarity and Genera PapType, an RNA based test-: Hologic Aptima and a protein test: OncoHealth. RESULTS: 630 sample pairs were included in the analyses. For all tests except the protein test sensitivities were in excess of 90% for CIN2+ and 95% for CIN3+ for both media and with no significant differences except for a lower sensitivity for CIN2+ of Aptima in SurePath (93% vs 98%, P=0.005). Specificity for

Efficacy of human papillomavirus 16 and 18 (HPV-16/18) AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer in young women: final event-driven analysis of the randomized, double-blind PATRICIA trial.

We report final event-driven analysis data on the immunogenicity and efficacy of the human papillomavirus 16 and 18 ((HPV-16/18) AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in young women aged 15 to 25 years from the PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults (PATRICIA). The total vaccinated cohort (TVC) included all randomized participants who received at least one vaccine dose (vaccine, n = 9,319; control, n = 9,325) at months 0, 1, and/or 6. The TVC-naive (vaccine, n = 5,822; control, n = 5,819) had no evidence of high-risk HPV infection at baseline, approximating adolescent girls targeted by most HPV vaccination programs. Mean follow-up was approximately 39 months after the first vaccine dose in each cohort. At baseline, 26% of women in the TVC had evidence of past and/or current HPV-16/18 infection. HPV-16 and HPV-18 antibody titers postvaccination tended to be higher among 15- to 17-year-olds than among 18- to 25-year-olds. In the TVC, vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or greater (CIN1+), CIN2+, and CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 55.5% (96.1% confidence interval [CI], 43.2, 65.3), 52.8% (37.5, 64.7), and 33.6% (-1.1, 56.9). VE against CIN1+, CIN2+, and CIN3+ irrespective of HPV DNA was 21.7% (10.7, 31.4), 30.4% (16.4, 42.1), and 33.4% (9.1, 51.5) and was consistently significant only in 15- to 17-year-old women (27.4% [10.8, 40.9], 41.8% [22.3, 56.7], and 55.8% [19.2, 76.9]). In the TVC-naive, VE against CIN1+, CIN2+, and CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 96.5% (89.0, 99.4), 98.4% (90.4, 100), and 100% (64.7, 100), and irrespective of HPV DNA it was 50.1% (35.9, 61.4), 70.2% (54.7, 80.9), and 87.0% (54.9, 97.7). VE against 12-month persistent infection with HPV-16/18 was 89.9% (84.0, 94.0), and that against HPV-31/33/45/51 was 49.0% (34.7, 60.3). In conclusion, vaccinating adolescents before sexual debut has a substantial impact on the overall incidence of high-grade cervical abnormalities, and catch-up vaccination up to 18 years of age is most likely effective. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT001226810.).

A randomized controlled trial in non-responders from Newcastle upon Tyne invited to return a self-sample for Human Papillomavirus testing versus repeat invitation for cervical screening.

BACKGROUND: Non-attenders for cervical screening are at increased risk of cervical cancer. Studies offering self-sampling for high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HrHPV) testing have shown greater uptake than sending another invitation for cytology. OBJECTIVES: To explore whether uptake would increase in a less diverse, more stable population than the previous English study, which demonstrated a lower response rate than other studies. The primary objective was whether non-attenders were more likely to respond to a postal invitation, including kit, to collect a self-sample compared with a further invitation for cytology screening. The secondary objective was whether women with an abnormal result would attend for follow-up. METHODS: 6000 non-attenders for screening in this pragmatic, randomized (1:1) controlled trial in Newcastle-upon-Tyne were sent an HPV self-sample kit (intervention) or a further invitation for cytology screening (comparator). RESULTS: 411(13%) responded to the intervention, returning a self-sample (247(8%)) or attending for cytology (164(5%)), compared with 183(6%) attending for cytology, relative risk 2.25 (95% CI 1.90-2.65) (comparator arm). Of those testing hrHPV positive (32(13%)), 19(59%) subsequently attended cytology screening. Of those in the intervention group who attended for cytology screening without returning an hrHPV self-sample (n = 164), 5% (n = 8) were referred for colposcopy - all attended. In the comparator group eight of the nine referred for colposcopy attended. CONCLUSION: Persistent non-responders to invitations for cervical screening are significantly more likely to respond to a postal invitation to return a self-collected sample for HPV testing than a further invitation for cytology screening. However, just over half followed up on this positive HPV result.

Attitudes towards cytology and human papillomavirus self-sample collection for cervical screening among Hindu women in London, UK: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the attitudes, views and understanding of women attending a Hindu temple in London, UK towards cervical screening, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and two HPV self-sample collection devices: the Dacron swab and Evalyn(®) brush. METHODS: A mixed methods design comprising a survey and four focus groups was adopted. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim and explored using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: A total of 185 Hindu women completed surveys and 23 attended focus groups. Of the respondents 75% aged 25-64 years reported having cervical screening within the last 5 years; 85% had attended college or university. Familiar barriers to attendance for screening were identified: fear of pain and the test result, embarrassment, screener's attitude, inconvenient appointment times and difficulty with child care. Additional barriers cited included age and country of birth, with older and Indian-born women thought to be less likely to attend for screening. Self-collected sampling had a mixed reception. Women were not confident that their sample would be as good as a clinician sample and expressed concern about the impact that a positive HPV result might have on their relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Screening attendance in this highly educated group of Hindu women was slightly lower than in the general population (75% of women aged 25-64 years had been screened in the last 5 years compared with 79% in England as a whole). Familiar barriers to screening were identified. Women felt able to collect their own sample for HPV testing with a Dacron swab but lacked confidence that it would be as good as that obtained by a clinician.

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the human papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in women older than 25 years: 4-year interim follow-up of the phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled VIVIANE study.

BACKGROUND: Although adolescent girls are the main population for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, adult women who remain at risk of cervical cancer can also be vaccinated. We report data from the interim analysis of the ongoing VIVIANE study, the aim of which is to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the HPV 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy women older than 25 years to the HPV 16/18 vaccine or control (1:1), via an internet-based system with an algorithm process that accounted for region, age stratum, baseline HPV DNA status, HPV 16/18 serostatus, and cytology. Enrolment was age-stratified, with about 45% of participants in each of the 26-35 and 36-45 years age strata and 10% in the 46 years and older stratum. Up to 15% of women in each age stratum could have a history of HPV infection or disease. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or higher (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. The primary analysis was done in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, which consists of women who received all three vaccine or control doses, had negative or low-grade cytology at baseline, and had no history of HPV disease. Secondary analyses included vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types. Mean follow-up time was 40·3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294047. FINDINGS: The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit for the present analysis took place on Dec 10, 2010; 5752 women were included in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2881 vaccine, n=2871 control), and 4505 in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2264 vaccine, n=2241 control). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ was significant in all age groups combined (81·1%, 97·7% CI 52·1-94·0), in the 26-35 years age group (83·5%, 45·0-96·8), and in the 36-45 years age group (77·2%, 2·8-96·9); no cases were seen in women aged 46 years and older. Vaccine efficacy against atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or greater associated with HPV 16/18 was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (79·1%, 97·7% CI 27·6-95·9) and HPV 45 (76·9%, 18·5-95·6]) Serious adverse events occurred in 285 (10%) of 2881 women in the vaccine group and 267 (9%) of 2871 in the control group; five (<1%) and eight (<1%) of these events, respectively, were believed to be related to vaccination. INTERPRETATION: In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine is efficacious against infections and cervical abnormalities associated with the vaccine types, as well as infections with the non-vaccine HPV types 31 and 45. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

Risk of newly detected infections and cervical abnormalities in women seropositive for naturally acquired human papillomavirus type 16/18 antibodies: analysis of the control arm of PATRICIA.

BACKGROUND: We examined risk of newly detected human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical abnormalities in relation to HPV type 16/18 antibody levels at enrollment in PATRICIA (Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults; NCT00122681). METHODS: Using Poisson regression, we compared risk of newly detected infection and cervical abnormalities associated with HPV-16/18 between seronegative vs seropositive women (15-25 years) in the control arm (DNA negative at baseline for the corresponding HPV type [HPV-16: n = 8193; HPV-18: n = 8463]). RESULTS: High titers of naturally acquired HPV-16 antibodies and/or linear trend for increasing antibody levels were significantly associated with lower risk of incident and persistent infection, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or greater (ASCUS+), and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 1/2 or greater (CIN1+, CIN2+). For HPV-18, although seropositivity was associated with lower risk of ASCUS+ and CIN1+, no association between naturally acquired antibodies and infection was demonstrated. Naturally acquired HPV-16 antibody levels of 371 (95% confidence interval [CI], 242-794), 204 (95% CI, 129-480), and 480 (95% CI, 250-5756) EU/mL were associated with 90% reduction of incident infection, 6-month persistent infection, and ASCUS+, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Naturally acquired antibodies to HPV-16, and to a lesser extent HPV-18, are associated with some reduced risk of subsequent infection and cervical abnormalities associated with the same HPV type.

Individual detection of 14 high risk human papilloma virus genotypes by the PapType test for the prediction of high grade cervical lesions.

BACKGROUND: HR HPV genotypes when assayed collectively, achieve high sensitivity but low specificity for the prediction of CIN2+. Knowledge of the specific genotypes in an infection may facilitate the use of HR HPV detection in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To compare the rate of HR HPV detection and the accuracy of CIN2+ prediction between PapType test (Genera Biosystems) and other commercially available HR HPV assays, and to examine the value of full HPV genotyping. STUDY DESIGN: PreservCyt samples from 1099 women referred for abnormal cervical cytology were used. CIN2+ was chosen as the primary end-point but CIN3+ was also evaluated. A hierarchy of HR HPV genotypes was created using PPV and this was used to create 3 groups of genotypes with potentially different management. RESULTS: The PapType assay has a specificity of 22.4% and a sensitivity of 94.6% for CIN2+ prediction. Classification into Groups A (HPV33 and HPV16, very highly predictive), B (HPV31, 18, 52, 35, 58, 51 highly predictive) and C (HPV68, 45, 39, 66, 56, 59, intermediate predictive) could double the specificity (44.5%) but only slightly reduce the sensitivity for CIN2+ (91.5%) and CIN3+ (94.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The PapType assay is a simple, reproducible and effective test for HR HPV detection and genotyping. HPV 33 was found to have a very high PPV and should therefore be managed as for HPV16.

A DNA methylation classifier of cervical precancer based on human papillomavirus and human genes.

Testing for high-risk (hr) types of human papillomavirus (HPV) is highly sensitive as a screening test of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic (CIN2/3) disease, the precursor of cervical cancer. However, it has a relatively low specificity. Our objective was to develop a prediction rule with a higher specificity, using combinations of human and HPV DNA methylation. Exfoliated cervical specimens from colposcopy-referral cohorts in London were analyzed for DNA methylation levels by pyrosequencing in the L1 and L2 regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31 and human genes EPB41L3, DPYS and MAL. Samples from 1,493 hrHPV-positive women were assessed and of these 556 were found to have CIN2/3 at biopsy; 556 tested positive for HPV16 (323 CIN2/3), 201 for HPV18 (73 CIN2/3) and 202 for HPV31 (98 CIN2/3). The prediction rule included EPB41L3 and HPV and had area under curve 0.80 (95% CI 0.78-0.82). For 90% sensitivity, specificity was 36% (33-40) and positive predictive value (PPV) was 46% (43-48). By HPV type, 90% sensitivity corresponded to the following specificities and PPV, respectively: HPV16, 38% (32-45) and 67% (63-71); HPV18, 53% (45-62) and 52% (45-59); HPV31, 39% (31-49) and 58% (51-65); HPV16, 18 or 31, 44% (40-49) and 62% (59-65) and other hrHPV 17% (14-21) and 21% (18-24). We conclude that a methylation assay in hrHPV-positive women might improve PPV with minimal sensitivity loss.

Risk of first cervical HPV infection and pre-cancerous lesions after onset of sexual activity: analysis of women in the control arm of the randomized, controlled PATRICIA trial.

BACKGROUND: More information is needed about time between sexual initiation and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and development of cervical precancer. METHODS: The objectives were to investigate the time between first sexual activity and detection of first cervical HPV infection or development of first cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and associated factors in women from the double-blind, multinational, 4-year PATRICIA trial. PATRICIA enroled women aged 15-25 years with no more than 6 lifetime sexual partners. Women were randomized 1:1 to the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine or to control, but only women from the control arm who began sexual intercourse during the study or within 6 months before enrolment, and had no HPV infection detected before the recorded date of their first sexual intercourse, were included in the present analysis. The time between onset of sexual activity and detection of the first cervical HPV infection or development of the first CIN lesion was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 9337 women were enroled in the control arm of PATRICIA of whom 982 fulfilled the required inclusion criteria for analysis. A cumulative total of 28%, 44%, and 62% of the subjects had HPV infection within 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively. The overall incidence rate was 27.08 per 100 person-years. The most common oncogenic types associated with 6-month persistent infection were HPV-16 (incidence rate: 2.74 per 100 person-years), HPV-51 (2.70), HPV-52 (1.66), HPV-66 (1.14), and HPV-18 (1.09). Increased infection risk was associated with more lifetime sexual partners, being single, Chlamydia trachomatis history, and duration of hormone use. CIN1+ and CIN2+ lesions were most commonly associated with HPV-16, with an overall incidence rate of 1.87 and 1.07 per 100 person-years, respectively. Previous cervical HPV infection was most strongly associated with CIN development. CONCLUSIONS: More than 25% of women were infected with HPV within 1 year of beginning sexual activity. Without underestimating the value of vaccination at older ages, our findings emphasize its importance before sexual initiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00122681 .

Natural history of progression of HPV infection to cervical lesion or clearance: analysis of the control arm of the large, randomised PATRICIA study.

BACKGROUND: The control arm of PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults, NCT00122681) was used to investigate the risk of progression from cervical HPV infection to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or clearance of infection, and associated determinants. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Women aged 15-25 years were enrolled. A 6-month persistent HPV infection (6MPI) was defined as detection of the same HPV type at two consecutive evaluations over 6 months and clearance as ≥2 type-specific HPV negative samples taken at two consecutive intervals of approximately 6 months following a positive sample. The primary endpoint was CIN grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) associated with the same HPV type as a 6MPI. Secondary endpoints were CIN1+/CIN3+ associated with the same HPV type as a 6MPI; CIN1+/CIN2+/CIN3+ associated with an infection of any duration; and clearance of infection. The analyses included 4825 women with 16,785 infections (3363 women with 6902 6MPIs). Risk of developing a CIN1+/CIN2+/CIN3+ associated with same HPV type as a 6MPI varied with HPV type and was significantly higher for oncogenic versus non-oncogenic types. Hazard ratios for development of CIN2+ were 10.44 (95% CI: 6.96-15.65), 9.65 (5.97-15.60), 5.68 (3.50-9.21), 5.38 (2.87-10.06) and 3.87 (2.38-6.30) for HPV-16, HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45 and HPV-18, respectively. HPV-16 or HPV-33 6MPIs had ~25-fold higher risk for progression to CIN3+. Previous or concomitant HPV infection or CIN1+ associated with a different HPV type increased risk. Of the different oncogenic HPV types, HPV-16 and HPV-31 infections were least likely to clear. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical infections with oncogenic HPV types increased the risk of CIN2+ and CIN3+. Previous or concomitant infection or CIN1+ also increased the risk. HPV-16 and HPV-33 have by far the highest risk of progression to CIN3+, and HPV-16 and HPV-31 have the lowest chance of clearance.

Efficacy of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against low-risk HPV types (PATRICIA randomized trial): an unexpected observation.

BACKGROUND: Public Health England has reported a decrease of up to 20.8% in new diagnoses of external genital warts (GWs) among women aged <19 years since the national vaccination program with the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine began in 2008. A post hoc analysis of the phase III PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults) trial (NCT00122681) was performed to ascertain whether protection against low-risk HPV types was apparent. METHODS: Vaccine efficacy (VE) at 48 months was assessed against 6-month persistent infection (6MPI) with low-risk HPV types in the total vaccinated cohort (TVC) and in the TVC naive (for 25 HPV types tested) populations. RESULTS: In the TVC naive cohort, VE against 6MPI (95% confidence interval) was 34.5% (11.3 to 51.8) for HPV-6/11, 34.9% (9.1 to 53.7) for HPV-6, 30.3% (-45.0 to 67.5) for HPV-11, and 49.5% (21.0 to 68.3) for HPV-74. CONCLUSIONS: The HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine appears to have moderate efficacy against persistent infections with a number of low-risk HPV types (HPV-6/11/74), which are responsible for the majority of external GWs, and recently, antibody and cell-mediated immune response to HPV-6/11 have been observed. These findings may help to explain the decrease in external GW diagnoses seen in England.

Triage of women with minor abnormal cervical cytology: meta-analysis of the accuracy of an assay targeting messenger ribonucleic acid of 5 high-risk human papillomavirus types.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA detection is generally accepted for the triage of women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). However, no consensus has been reached on the optimal management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL). METHODS: In this meta-analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) detection of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) of 5 hrHPV types (the PreTect HPV-Proofer and NucliSENS EasyQ tests) for detecting grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3+ was assessed in women who had a diagnosis of ASC-US and LSIL. The results were compared with the Hybrid Capture-2 (HC2) assay, which detects the DNA of 13 hrHPV types. A bivariate random-effect model that incorporated the intrinsic correlation between the true-positive and false-positive rates was used for a pooled meta-analysis. RESULTS: Considering underlying CIN2+, the pooled absolute sensitivity of the 10 included studies was 75.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.1%-82.7%) and 76.2% (95% CI, 68.3%-76.9%) for the triage of ASC-US and LSIL, respectively. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 77.9% (95% CI, 70.1%-85.7%) and 74.2% (95% CI, 69.5%-78.8%) in women with ASC-US and LSIL, respectively. Five studies allowed direct comparison of the mRNA assays with HC2. Considering CIN2+ in women with ASC-US and LSIL, mRNA testing was substantially more specific than the HC2 assay (ratio: 1.98 and 3.36, respectively; P < .001) but was less sensitive (ratio: 0.80 and 0.74, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: HPV assays for detecting the mRNA of 5 hrHPV types may reduce the over-diagnosis of women who have minor cytologic abnormalities. However, given the lower sensitivity, women with negative mRNA test results cannot be considered free of CIN2+ and require further surveillance.

Comparison of human papillomavirus testing strategies for triage of women referred with low-grade cytological abnormalities.

AIM: To compare triage strategies using different human papillomavirus (HPV) consensus and genotyping tests and a p16(INK4a) test. METHODS: 1228 women referred with a borderline or single mildly dyskaryotic smear. Samples were taken at colposcopy using PreservCyt. Tests included Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer, APTIMA and p16(INK4a). Results were based on the worst histology within 9 months. RESULTS: 97/1228 (7.9%) women had CIN3+ (203/1228 (17%) CIN2+). HPV testing alone using Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800 or APTIMA had a sensitivity for CIN3+ ranging from 99.0% to 100.0% and specificity for

New technologies and procedures for cervical cancer screening.

The clearly higher sensitivity and reproducibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) has led to widespread calls to introduce it as the primary screening test. The main concern has been its lower specificity, due to the fact that it cannot separate transient from persistent infections, and only the latter are associated with an increased risk of high-grade CIN and cancer. Thus, even proponents of HPV testing generally only recommend it for women over the age of 30 years (or in some cases 35 years). If HPV testing is to reach its full potential, new approaches with better specificity are needed, either as triage tests for HPV positive women or, if the high sensitivity of HPV DNA testing can be maintained, as alternate primary screening modalities. Approaches that may useful in this regard, especially as triage tests, include HPV typing, methylation (and consequent silencing) of host and viral genes, and new cytologic methods, such as p16(INK4a) staining, which attempt to identify proliferating cells. At an earlier stage of development are direct methods based on detection of HPV E6 or E7 proteins. Recent progress and current status of these methods is discussed in this chapter. The current status of visual inspection (VIA and VILI) methods is also surveyed and progress on self-sampling is reviewed. This article forms part of a special supplement entitled "Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases" Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012.

Barriers to cervical screening in women who have experienced sexual abuse: an exploratory study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore self-reported cervical screening history and barriers to attendance among women who have been sexually abused and to identify measures to improve the experience of cervical screening for these women. METHODS: Women visiting the website of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC), who had been sexually abused, were invited to complete a survey of their views and experiences of cervical screening. This included closed questions on demographic characteristics and cervical screening attendance, open questions on barriers to screening, and the opportunity to submit suggestions to improve this experience for women who have been sexually abused. Content analysis was used to code responses to the open questions. Four women also participated in a discussion group. RESULTS: Overall, 135 women completed the closed questions and 124 provided open-ended responses. 77.5% of responding women who were eligible for cervical screening in England had ever attended, 48.5% at least once in the previous 5 years, but 42.1% of women aged 25-49 within 3 years. A total of nine higher order themes were identified related to barriers to screening, one related to intention to attend screening and five related to suggestions to improve screening. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the idea that women who have experienced sexual abuse are less likely to attend for regular cervical screening, with under half screened in the last 5 years compared to the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme figure of 78.6%. Suggestions to improve the experience for abused women focused on communication, safety, trust and sharing control. Further research in this area is warranted to ensure that this at-risk population is appropriately served by cervical screening.