Prognostic value of molecular classification in stage IV endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple studies have proven the prognostic value of molecular classification for stage I-III endometrial cancer patients. However, studies on the relevance of molecular classification for stage IV endometrial cancer patients are lacking. Hypothetically, poor prognostic molecular subtypes are more common in higher stages of endometrial cancer. Considering the poor prognosis of stage IV endometrial cancer patients, it is questionable whether molecular classification has additional prognostic value. Therefore, we determined which molecular subclasses are found in stage IV endometrial cancer and if there is a correlation with progression-free and overall survival. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted using data from five Dutch hospitals. Patients with stage IV endometrial cancer at diagnosis who were treated with primary cytoreductive surgery or cytoreductive surgery after induction chemotherapy between January 2000 and December 2018 were included. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years or recurrent disease. The molecular classification was performed centrally on all tumor samples according to the World Health Organization 2020 classification (including POLE and estrogen receptor status). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate progression free and overall survival in the molecular subclasses, for the different histological subtypes and for estrogen receptor positive versus estrogen receptor negative tumors. Groups were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: 164 stage IV endometrial cancer patients were molecularly classified. Median age of the patients was 67 years (range 33-86). Most patients presented with a non-endometrioid histological subtype (58%). Intra-abdominal complete cytoreductive surgery was achieved in 60.4% of the patients. 101 tumors (61.6%) were classified as p53 abnormal, 35 (21.3%) as no specific molecular profile, 21 (12.8%) as mismatch repair deficient, and 6 (3%) as POLE mutated. Molecular classification had no significant impact on progression free (p=0.056) or overall survival (p=0.12) after cytoreductive surgery. Overall survival was affected by histologic subtype (p<0.0001) and estrogen receptor status (p=0.013). CONCLUSION: The distribution of the molecular subclasses in stage IV endometrial cancer patients differed substantially from the distribution in stage I-III endometrial cancer patients, with the unfavorable subclasses being more frequently present. Although the molecular classification was not prognostic in stage IV endometrial cancer, it could guide adjuvant treatment decisions.

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.

Comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping for the detection of cervical (pre)cancer in high-risk HPV-positive women of a gynecologic outpatient population (COMETH study).

Recently, DNA methylation analysis of FAM19A4 in cervical scrapes has been shown to adequately detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥ CIN3) in high-risk HPV (hrHPV)-positive women. Here, we compared the clinical performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis to cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping, separately and in combination, for ≥ CIN3 detection in hrHPV-positive women participating in a prospective observational multi-center cohort study. The study population comprised hrHPV-positive women aged 18-66 years, visiting a gynecological outpatient clinic. From these women, cervical scrapes and colposcopy-directed biopsies (for histological confirmation) were obtained. Cervical scrapes were analyzed for FAM19A4 gene promoter methylation, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping. Methylation analysis was performed by quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP). Sensitivities and specificities for ≥ CIN3 were compared between tests. Stratified analyses were performed for variables that potentially influence marker performance. Of all 508 hrHPV-positive women, the sensitivities for ≥ CIN3 of cytology, FAM19A4 methylation analysis, and cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping were 85.6, 75.6 and 92.2%, respectively, with corresponding specificities of 49.8, 71.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Both sensitivity and specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis were associated with age (p ≤ 0.001 each). In women ≥ 30 years (n = 287), ≥ CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 88.3% (95%CI: 80.2-96.5) which was noninferior to that of cytology [85.5% (95%CI: 76.0-94.0)], at a significantly higher specificity [62.1% (95%CI: 55.8-68.4) compared to 47.6% (95%CI: 41.1-54.1)]. In conclusion, among hrHPV-positive women from an outpatient population aged ≥ 30 years, methylation analysis of FAM19A4 is an attractive marker for the identification of women with ≥ CIN3.

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.

Posttreatment assessment of women at risk of developing high-grade cervical disease: proposal for new guidelines based on data from the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Women treated for high-grade cervical disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or grade 3 [CIN2/3]) face a significant risk of developing post-treatment disease. Therefore, in most European countries, they are monitored by cytologic testing at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. Although testing for high-risk types of the human papillomavirus (hrHPV) in the follow-up seems to be a valuable supplementary method, its use is not yet fully explored. METHODS: Besides reviewing the literature, we completed a long-term follow-up study describing the cumulative risk for CIN2/3 or cancer (CIN2+) of different hrHPV and cytology test results after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk HPV testing improves the sensitivity to detect posttreatment CIN2/3 (relative sensitivity=1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.06-1.25), but the highest sensitivity (95%, 95% CI=91%-98%) is reached by performing cotesting (both cytology and hrHPV). The CIN2+ risk after a single negative cotesting result taken 6 months after treatments was similar to the risk after 3 consecutive negative cytologic test results (5-y CIN2+ risk being 3.0% [95% CI=1.5%-6.1%] and 2.9% [95% CI=1.2%-7.1%], respectively). Women who test negative for cotesting at both 6 and 24 months after treatment have a minimal risk of developing CIN3+ in the next 5 years (0.0%, 95% CI=0.0%-3.0%). RECOMMENDATIONS: We propose a new posttreatment surveillance protocol, consisting of combined testing with both cytology and hrHPV at 6 and 24 months after treatment. After 2 negative cotesting results, women should be retested after 5 years.

High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, women treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3) are followed-up by cytology to monitor them for residual and recurrent (post-treatment) disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis determine the test performance of testing for high-risk types of the human papillomavirus (hrHPV), cytology and co-testing (combined hrHPV testing and cytology) in predicting high-grade post-treatment disease (CIN2+). METHODS: Studies that compared at least two of three post-treatment surveillance methods, and were published between January 2003 and May 2011, were identified through a bibliographic database search (PubMed, Embase.com and Wiley/Cochrane Library). Identification of relevant studies was conducted independently by two reviewers with a multi-step process. The reference standard used to diagnose post-treatment disease was histologically confirmed CIN2+. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios and relative sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each study. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model if heterogeneity among studies was significant, otherwise by using a fixed effects model. Estimates were reported with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Out of 2410 potentially relevant citations, 8 publications, incorporating 1513 treated women, were included. Pooled sensitivities were 0.79 (95%CI 0.72-0.85) for cytology, 0.92 (0.87-0.96) for hrHPV testing, and 0.95 (0.91-0.98) for co-testing. HrHPV testing was more sensitive than cytology to predict post-treatment CIN2+ (relative sensitivity 1.15; 95%CI 1.06-1.25). Pooled specificities were 0.81 (95%CI 0.74-0.86) for cytology, 0.76 (0.67-0.84) for hrHPV testing and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for co-testing. HrHPV testing and cytology had a similar specificity (relative specificity 0.95, 95%CI 0.88-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that the hrHPV test should be included in post-treatment testing 6months after treatment, because hrHPV testing has a higher sensitivity than cytology in detecting high-grade post-treatment disease and has a similar specificity.

[Chlamydia mimics suspected ovarian cancer in a 21-year-old patient]. / Chlamydia-infectie imiteert ovariumcarcinoom.

BACKGROUND: The antigen CA125 is mainly known as a tumour marker in ovarian cancer, but may also be elevated in benign gynaecological disorders and non-gynaecological diseases. CASE DESCRIPTION: We examined a 21-year-old patient in the gynaecological oncology outpatient clinic, after she was referred with abnormal ovaries on ultrasound and a significantly elevated CA125. The patient had seen a gynaecologist four weeks earlier because of persistent abdominal pain, deep dyspareunia and vaginal bleeding after insertion of a Mirena IUD that has since been removed. The IUD turned out to be placed in the presence of an undiagnosed STD (Chlamydia), which seems to explain the abnormal ovaries and elevated tumour marker due to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). CONCLUSION: PID can present atypically resembling ovarian carcinoma. Before inserting an IUD, evaluation of sexual history is essential to estimate the risk of an STI and, if necessary, to perform diagnostics.

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.

Arguments in favor of HPV testing for cervical screening and post-treatment CIN2+ monitoring.

Several studies have shown that the human papilloma virus (HPV) test is a more sensitive and objective primary cervical cancer screening tool than cytology. Therefore, conversion of cytology into HPV screening (as is planned in The Netherlands and some other European regions) will result in a better protection against cervical cancer and high-grade precursor lesions. Moreover, offering self-sampling for HPV testing will increase screening attendance by re-attracting former non-attendees. However, triage of HPV positive women is necessary because the specificity of HPV testing is 2-4% lower than of cytology. Several triage strategies have been evaluated, of which two, with cytology testing included, are feasible and were recently recommended. As an alternative for cytology triage, objective, non-morphological disease markers are upcoming and so far have shown promising results. Finally, HPV testing can also contribute to a more efficient monitoring of women treated for high-grade cervical precursor lesions, permitting fewer follow-up visits.