p16/Ki67 dual stain triage versus cytology in primary human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening with limited genotyping.

The introduction of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening requires the implementation of an appropriate triage strategy that will be effective in detecting high-grade cervical disease without losing diagnostic specificity. From the 30.066 screening tests results, a total of 1086 with available high-risk human papillomavirus (HRHPV) with limited genotyping, cytology, and p16/Ki67 dual-stain were selected. Two triage strategies for primary HPV screening were analyzed retrospectively based on the study group. Performance characteristics for p16/Ki67 and cytology triage in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) were calculated, detected in colposcopic biopsy. In HPV16/18-positive cases, primary HPV with p16/Ki67 triage was significantly more specific than cytology (53.1%/16.8% for CIN2+; p < 0.0001; 45.9%/17.0% for CIN3+; p < 0.0001), with yielded sensitivity (95.7%/84.8% for CIN2+; p = 0.0955; 100.0%/87.5% for CIN3+; p = 0.0832). In other HRHPV-positive cases (N16/N18), p16/Ki67 triage was also significantly higher specific (51.3%/15.3% for CIN2+; p < 0.0001; 44.5%/16.5% for CIN3+; p < 0.0001), with sensitivity (92.3%/74.4% for CIN2+; p = 0.0522; 90.9%/81.8% for CIN3+; p = 0.5637). Diagnostic predictive values were significantly higher for p16/Ki67 triage with the highest PPV in HPV16/18-positive cases for CIN2+ (45.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.2-55.8; p < 0.0001) and very high NPV in all HPV-positive cases regardless of detected genotype (96.3%-100.0%). The risk (1-NPV) for CIN3+ in HRHPV16/18-positive/p16/Ki67-negative women was 0.0%. Superior diagnostic performance compared to cytology for detecting cervical cancer precursors indicates that p16/Ki67 dual-immunostain may be a highly effective tool of triage in primary HPV screening with limited HPV 16/18 genotyping in secondary cervical cancer prevention.

Is Primary HPV with Secondary p16/Ki67 Dual-Stain an Alternative HSIL-Risk Detection Strategy in Cervical Cancer Screening for Women under 30 Years?

Recently, cervical cancer rates elevation has been noted in women aged 20-39 years in regions with a very high human development index (HDI). The onset of cancer elevation rates is observed in the age range of 25-29 years, which should necessitate effective precancer screening in younger age groups, including those <25 years. From 30.066 liquid-based screening tests results (n = 30.066), 3849 liquid-based cytology, 1321 high-risk human papillomavirus (HRHPV) and 316 p16/Ki67 performed in women <30 years were selected. Performance characteristics were calculated for three screening models: primary HRHPV with p16/Ki67 triage, primary cytology with reflex HPV and primary cytology alone. Primary HRHPV with p16/Ki67 triage was significantly more sensitive in high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion quantified with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse [HSIL(CIN2+)] detection than cytology with reflex HRHPV and cytology alone (83.3% vs. 70.8%/45.8%) and had significantly higher diagnostic predictive values (PPV:29.4%/21.3%/22.9%; NPV:91.7%/82.9%/82.2%, respectively at CIN2+ threshold). The number of colposcopies per HSIL(CIN2+) detection indices was 3.4, 4.7 and 4.4, respectively. Primary HPV testing in women <30 years with p16/Ki67 triage of HPV-positive cases might be an effective cervical cancer screening strategy for HSIL(CIN2+) detection with superior diagnostic performance when compared with primary cytology-based models. Women <25 years might also benefit from an introduction to a more sensitive screening approach.

Liquid-Based Screening Tests Results: HPV, Liquid-Based Cytology, and P16/Ki67 Dual-Staining in Private-Based Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening.

The baseline data from the private-based opportunistic cervical cancer screening with HRHPV14, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and p16/Ki67 testing, and its quality assessment/quality control (QA/QC) tools are lacking. The age-stratified analysis of 30,066 screening tests results in a Polish population, including the investigation of HRHPV14 status, LBC, and p16/Ki67 dual-staining reporting rates, along with immediate histopathologic correlations, was conducted. For cytopathologic QA/QC, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) benchmarks and enhanced safety protocol were used. The NILM/ASC-US/LSIL/ASC-H/HSIL/AGC reporting rates were 93.9/3.4/2.0/0.22/0.24/0.11, respectively, with correlating HRHPV14-positive rates of 8.4/48.9/77.2/84.6/90.7/26.7. The reporting rates for HSIL (CIN2+) in HRHPV-positive women with NILM/ASC-US/LSIL/ASC-H/HSIL/AGC referred for a colposcopy with biopsy were 19.1/25.8/22.5/12.4/19.1/1.1% of the total HSIL (CIN2+). In total, of the 1130 p16/Ki67 tests, 30% were positive. In NILM HRHPV14-positive women with available histology result, HSIL(CIN2+) was detected in 28.3% of cases. In the first such large-scale Polish study presenting HRHPV14, informed LBC and HSIL (CIN2+) results, the reporting rates were highly consistent with data from American and other CAP-certified laboratories, confirming the possibility of using the 2019 ASCCP risk-based guidelines as one of the screening strategies outside of the US, in conditions of proper QA/QC. The private-based screening model can be effective in cervical cancer prevention, particularly in countries with low population coverage of public funds-based systems.