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.

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.

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 .

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.

Cross-protective efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of the human papillomavirus HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis after 4 years of follow-up in PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults). METHODS: Healthy women aged 15-25 years with no more than six lifetime sexual partners were included in PATRICIA irrespective of their baseline HPV DNA status, HPV-16 or HPV-18 serostatus, or cytology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to HPV-16/18 vaccine or a control hepatitis A vaccine, via an internet-based central randomisation system using a minimisation algorithm to account for age ranges and study sites. The study was double-blind. The primary endpoint of PATRICIA has been reported previously; the present analysis evaluates cross-protective vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis. Analyses were done for three cohorts: the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (ATP-E; vaccine n=8067, control n=8047), total vaccinated HPV-naive cohort (TVC-naive; no evidence of infection with 14 oncogenic HPV types at baseline, approximating young adolescents before sexual debut; vaccine n=5824, control n=5820), and the total vaccinated cohort (TVC; all women who received at least one vaccine dose, approximating catch-up populations that include sexually active women; vaccine n=9319, control=9325). Vaccine efficacy was evaluated against 6-month persistent infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) associated with 12 non-vaccine HPV types (individually or as composite endpoints), and CIN3+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. FINDINGS: Consistent vaccine efficacy against persistent infection and CIN2+ (with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection) was seen across cohorts for HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51. In the most conservative analysis of vaccine efficacy against CIN2+, where all cases co-infected with HPV-16/18 were removed, vaccine efficacy was noted for HPV-33 in all cohorts, and for HPV-31 in the ATP-E and TVC-naive. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68), with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection, was 46·8% (95% CI 30·7-59·4) in the ATP-E, 56·2% (37·2-69·9) in the TVC-naive, and 34·2% (20·4-45·8) in the TVC. Corresponding values for CIN3+ were 73·8% (48·3-87·9), 91·4% (65·0-99·0), and 47·5% (22·8-64·8). INTERPRETATION: Data from the end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA show cross-protective efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine against four oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types-HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51-in different trial cohorts representing diverse groups of women. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) is the surrogate endpoint used in licensure trials of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. Vaccine efficacy against CIN3+, the immediate precursor to invasive cervical cancer, is more difficult to measure because of its lower incidence, but provides the most stringent evidence of potential cancer prevention. We report vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) in the end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults). METHODS: Healthy women aged 15-25 years with no more than six lifetime sexual partners were included in PATRICIA, irrespective of their baseline HPV DNA status, HPV-16 or HPV-18 serostatus, or cytology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine or a control hepatitis A vaccine via an internet-based central randomisation system using a minimisation algorithm to account for age ranges and study sites. The patients and study investigators were masked to allocated vaccine. The primary endpoint of PATRICIA has been reported previously. In the present end-of-study analysis, we focus on CIN3+ and AIS in the populations of most clinical interest, the total vaccinated cohort (TVC) and the TVC-naive. The TVC comprised all women who received at least one vaccine dose, approximating catch-up populations and including sexually active women (vaccine n=9319; control=9325). The TVC-naive comprised women with no evidence of oncogenic HPV infection at baseline, approximating early adolescent HPV exposure (vaccine n=5824; control=5820). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. FINDINGS: Vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 100% (95% CI 85·5-100) in the TVC-naive and 45·7% (22·9-62·2) in the TVC. Vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ (irrespective of HPV type in the lesion and including lesions with no HPV DNA detected) was 93·2% (78·9-98·7) in the TVC-naive and 45·6% (28·8-58·7) in the TVC. In the TVC-naive, vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ was higher than 90% in all age groups. In the TVC, vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ and CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was highest in the 15-17 year age group and progressively decreased in the 18-20 year and 21-25 year age groups. Vaccine efficacy against all AIS was 100% (31·0-100) and 76·9% (16·0-95·8) in the TVC-naive and TVC, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 835 (9·0%) and 829 (8·9%) women in the vaccine and control groups, respectively; only ten events (0·1%) and five events (0·1%), respectively, were considered to be related to vaccination. INTERPRETATION: PATRICIA end-of-study results show excellent vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ and AIS irrespective of HPV DNA in the lesion. Population-based vaccination that incorporates the HPV-16/18 vaccine and high coverage of early adolescents might have the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Comparison of seven tests for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears: the Predictors 2 study.

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA/RNA testing provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Several new HPV tests are now available for this purpose, and a direct comparison of their properties is needed. Seven tests were evaluated with samples in liquid PreservCyt transport medium from 1,099 women referred for colposcopy: the Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen), Cobas (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), Aptima HPV (Gen-Probe), and Abbott RealTime assays, the BD HPV test, and CINtec p16(INK4a) cytology (mtm laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology found on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. Three hundred fifty-nine women (32.7%) had CIN grade 2+ (CIN2+), with 224 (20.4%) having CIN3+. For detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture 2 had 96.3% sensitivity, 19.5% specificity, and 37.4% PPV. Cobas had 95.2% sensitivity, 24.0% specificity, and 37.6% PPV. The BD HPV test had 95.0% sensitivity, 24.2% specificity, and 37.8% PPV. Abbott RealTime had 93.3% sensitivity, 27.3% specificity, and 38.2% PPV. Aptima had 95.3% sensitivity, 28.8% specificity, and 39.3% PPV. PreTect HPV-Proofer had 74.1% sensitivity, 70.8% specificity, and 55.4% PPV. CINtec p16(INK4a) cytology had 85.7% sensitivity, 54.7% specificity, and 49.1% PPV. Cytology of a specimen taken at colposcopy (mild dyskaryosis or worse) had 88.9% sensitivity, 58.1% specificity, and 50.7% PPV. Our study confirms that, in a referral setting, HPV testing by a number of different tests provides high sensitivity for high-grade disease. Further work is needed to confirm these findings in a routine screening setting.

Prevalence and risk factors for cervical HPV infection and abnormalities in young adult women at enrolment in the multinational PATRICIA trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated baseline data from the PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults (PATRICIA; NCT00122681) on the association between behavioral risk factors and HPV infection and cervical abnormalities. METHODS: Women completed behavioral questionnaires at baseline. Prevalence of HPV infection and cervical abnormalities (detected by cytological or histological procedures) and association with behavioral risk factors were analyzed by univariate and stepwise multivariable logistic regressions. RESULTS: 16782 women completed questionnaires. Among 16748 women with data for HPV infection, 4059 (24.2%) were infected with any HPV type. Among 16757 women with data for cytological abnormalities, 1626 (9.7%) had a cytological abnormality, of whom 1170 (72.0%) were infected with at least one oncogenic HPV type including HPV-16 (22.7%) and HPV-18 (9.3%). Multivariable analysis (adjusted for age and region, N=14404) showed a significant association between infection with any HPV type and not living with a partner, smoking, age <15 years at first sexual intercourse, higher number of sexual partners during the past 12 months, longer duration of hormonal contraception and history of sexually transmitted infection (STI). For cervical abnormalities, only history of STI (excluding Chlamydia trachomatis) remained significant in the multivariable analysis after adjusting for HPV infection. CONCLUSIONS: Women reporting 3+ sexual partners in the past 12 months had the highest risk of HPV infection at baseline. HPV infection was the main risk factor for cervical abnormalities, and history of STIs excluding Chlamydia trachomatis increased risk to a lesser extent. Although behavioral factors can influence risk, all sexually active women are susceptible to HPV infection.

HPV vaccination and cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide and often affects women under 40 years with young families. Vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) is a major advance, since it offers primary prevention against the infectious agent that is the main cause of the disease. Two prophylactic vaccines have shown great promise in clinical trials. One of these (Gardasil(®)) contains all four HPV types, offering protection against genital warts (types 6 and 11) as well as cervical cancer (types 16 and 18). The other (Cervarix(®)) contains types 16 and 18, targeting cervical cancer alone, but also has a degree of cross-protection against types 31 and 45, which could significantly increase the level of protection. Adolescent girls remain the primary target of vaccination programmes, but the issues of vaccinating boys and older women are increasingly debated.

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.

Women's attitudes towards monthly bleeding: results of a global population-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: Monthly bleeding can be uncomfortable and inconvenient. Fifty years after the introduction of the pill, one wonders whether women still want to bleed every month. METHODS: Cross-national online survey of women aged 15-49 years (N = 4039) who were currently using, had used or would consider using a hormonal contraceptive. The survey was conducted in eight countries across Europe, North America and Latin America to assess attitudes towards monthly bleeding. RESULTS: Almost one-third of women reported that bleeding had a severe negative impact on their daily life, particularly with respect to sexual life and sports activities. Approximately 60% of women would, at least sometimes, like to postpone their bleeding and 50% wished they had the flexibility to determine when their menstrual bleeding starts. Overall, 34% of women would change the frequency of their bleeding to once every two or three months. CONCLUSIONS: Past, current or future users of hormonal contraception reported that bleeding has a severe negative impact on daily life. Given the choice, most women surveyed would reduce the frequency of their bleeding.

Human papillomavirus genotype detection and viral load in paired genital and urine samples from both females and males.

The ability to detect type-specific high risk HPV (HR-HPV) infections in samples from females and males is important for monitoring the epidemiology of HPV and the impact of vaccination. Type-specific detection concordance between paired urine and genital samples from females (n = 264) undergoing routine colposcopy and males (n = 88) attending a genito-urinary medicine clinic was evaluated using an in-house genotyping assay. The overall inter-rater agreement (κ) was 0.781 for female pairs and 0.346 for male pairs. Female urine had sensitivity for detection of HPV16/18 and HR-HPV of 75% and 84%, respectively, while male urine had sensitivities of 13% and 28%, respectively. Genital samples had a higher HPV DNA copy number than urine although a small proportion (10%) of urine samples had a higher copy number than the corresponding genital sample. The proportion of females with normal cytology positive for HPV16/18 was 19%, increasing to 57% in moderate or severely dyskaryotic samples. The same trend was seen in the corresponding urine (19-43%) compounded by the reduced sensitivity of this sample type. The HPV16 viral load in female genital samples, but not in urine, was weakly associated with cervical disease stage. Despite reduced sensitivity, urine appears to be an appropriate surrogate sample for type-specific HPV detection in females for epidemiological objectives. The lower sensitivity and lack of association between viral load and disease stage in urine suggest that urine may not be useful for clinical management of HPV infection. The utility of urine for type-specific detection in males is less certain.

Performance of the Abbott RealTime high-risk HPV test in women with abnormal cervical cytology smears.

HPV DNA testing is known to be much more sensitive than cytology, but less specific. A range of HPV and related tests in 858 women referred for colposcopy because of an abnormal smear were evaluated to compare the performances of these tests. This article compared the Abbott test to other tests which had been previously evaluated. This test was a real true test for 14 high-risk HPV types. The Abbott test was found to be highly sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) (98.9%) with a specificity of 31.5%. These numbers were comparable with the Qiagen HC2 test, the Roche Linear Array and Amplicor tests, and the Gen-Probe APTIMA test. Differences between these tests appeared to be related mostly to the choice of cutoff level. An added feature of the Abbott test was the provision of type specific results for HPV 16 and 18.

50 years of "The Pill": celebrating a golden anniversary.

The past 50 years have seen great advances in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) that have resulted in reduced risks of adverse events and improved cycle control. The most important changes in COCs over time include repeated lowering of the estrogen dose, development of new progestogens, and the reduction or elimination of the pill-free interval. Most recently, formulations that deliver estradiol in lieu of ethinylestradiol have been introduced. The advantages of COCs generally far outweigh the disadvantages. Current options in oral contraception include a wide spectrum of products that enable clinicians to choose the most appropriate formulation for individual women. This article summarises the advances in oral contraceptives over time and describes the most current clinical data regarding the use of COCs.

Long-term follow-up of cervical abnormalities among women screened by HPV testing and cytology-Results from the Hammersmith study.

Several studies have shown that HPV testing is substantially more sensitive than cytology for primary cervical screening. However, less data exist concerning the duration of protection afforded by a negative HPV test compared to a normal cytological outcome. Here we report the long-term findings from the Hammersmith study in women aged 35 or more. HPV testing by Hybrid Capture II was performed on all available samples from the baseline screening visit. Passive surveillance of subsequent cytology screening results for the 2,982 women in the study was undertaken using a national registry. Histological outcomes were sought for all women with abnormal smears. The primary outcome was duration of protection against histologically confirmed CIN2+ afforded by a negative HPV test compared to normal cytology. 2,516 women had at least one further smear at least 1 year after entry and 20 new cases of CIN2+ were identified during a median follow-up of 6.4 years. Including disease identified at baseline, the risk of developing CIN2+ at 1, 5 and 9 years after a normal cytology was 0.33%, 0.83% and 2.20% respectively whereas it was 0.19%, 0.42% and 1.88% after a negative HPV test. HPV testing offered excellent protection from CIN2+ for at least 6 years after a negative test, whereas the protection from cytology began to wane after about 3 years. Substantially more CIN2+ lesions were found in the follow-up period in those initially HPV positive compared to those HPV negative (HR = 6.52, p = 0.001), whereas there was little difference according to initial cytology (HR = 1.64, p = 0.51).

Comparison of predictors for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears.

BACKGROUND: The detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of several adjunctive tests for the detection of high-grade CIN in a population referred to colposcopy because of abnormal cytology. METHODS: 953 women participated in the study. Up to seven tests were carried out on a liquid PreservCyt sample: Hybrid Capture II (Digene), Amplicor (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), APTIMA HPV assay (Gen-Probe), Linear Array (Roche), Clinical-Arrays (Genomica), and CINtec p16INK4a Cytology (mtm Laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology seen on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. RESULTS: 273 (28.6%) women had high-grade disease (CIN2+) on worst histology, with 193 (20.2%) having CIN3+. For the detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture II had a sensitivity of 99.6%, specificity of 28.4%, and PPV of 36.1%. Amplicor had a sensitivity of 98.9%, specificity of 21.7%, and PPV of 33.5%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 73.6%, specificity of 73.1%, and PPV of 52.0%. APTIMA had a sensitivity of 95.2%, specificity of 42.2%, and PPV of 39.9%. CINtec p16INK4a Cytology had a sensitivity of 83.0%, specificity of 68.7%, and PPV of 52.3%. Linear Array had a sensitivity of 98.2%, specificity of 32.8%, and PPV of 37.7%. Clinical-Arrays had a sensitivity of 80.9%, specificity of 37.1%, and PPV of 33.0%.

Improving the quality of communication in organised cervical cancer screening programmes.

OBJECTIVE: To provide health professionals involved in cervical cancer screening with an insight into the complex issues relating to communication about screening and to provide a framework for a more effective communication strategy. METHODS: This paper has been compiled by a multidisciplinary pan-European group of health professionals and cancer advocates from several European screening programmes. European surveys on screening communication, literature reviews and group discussion were used for this purpose. RESULTS: Information on cervical screening must be accessible, relevant, comprehensible, comprehensive, client-centred, phase-specific and multilevel. An effective communication strategy should consider health professionals' screening knowledge and their communication skills, consumers' health literacy skills and the communication needs of specific sub-groups in the target population. Co-operation between screening professionals, advocacy groups and journalists should be promoted. CONCLUSION: To communicate effectively and appropriately is a complex task which can be influenced by a number of factors. Screening workers need better information themselves and must take into account the needs and characteristics of the target population. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This document should provide a useful tool to help screening professionals in designing and developing good quality and effective communication strategies.