Triaging HPV-positive women with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: Results from a sub-study nested into the ATHENA trial.

OBJECTIVES: In addition to genotyping for HPV16/18, dual-immunostaining for p16/Ki-67 has shown promise as a triage of HPV-positive women. We assessed the performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for triaging HPV-positive women undergoing primary HPV screening. METHODS: All women ≥25years with valid cervical biopsy and cobas® HPV Test results from the cross-sectional phase of ATHENA who were referred to colposcopy (n=7727) were eligible for enrolment. p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology was retrospectively performed on residual cytologic material collected into a second liquid-based cytology vial during the ATHENA enrolment visit. The diagnostic performance of dual-stained cytology, with or without HPV16/18 genotyping, for the detection of biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) was determined and compared to Pap cytology. Furthermore, the number of colposcopies required per CIN3+ detected was determined. RESULTS: Dual-stained cytology was significantly more sensitive than Pap cytology (74.9% vs. 51.9%; p<0.0001) for triaging HPV-positive women, whereas specificity was comparable (74.1% vs. 75.0%; p=0.3198). Referral of all HPV16/18 positive women combined with dual-stained cytology triage of women positive for 12 "other" HPV genotypes provided the highest sensitivity for CIN3+ (86.8%; 95% CI: 81.9-90.8). A similar strategy but using Pap cytology for the triage of women positive for 12 "other" HPV genotypes was less sensitive (78.2%; 95% CI: 72.5-83.2; p=0.0003), but required a similar number of colposcopies per CIN3+ detected. CONCLUSIONS: p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology, either alone or combined with HPV16/18 genotyping, represents a promising approach as a sensitive and efficient triage for colposcopy of HPV-positive women when primary HPV screening is utilized.

Evaluating HPV-negative CIN2+ in the ATHENA trial.

A post hoc analysis of the ATHENA study was performed to determine whether true HPV-negative cervical lesions occur and whether they have clinical relevance. The ATHENA database was searched for all CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) cases with cobas HPV-negative results and comparison was made with Linear Array (LA) and Amplicor to detect true false-negative HPV results. Immunostaining with p16 was performed on these cases to identify false-positive histology results. H&E slides were re-reviewed by the study pathologists with knowledge of patient age, HPV test results and p16 immunostaining. Those with positive p16 immunostaining and/or a positive histopathology review underwent whole tissue section HPV PCR by the SPF10/LiPA/RHA system. Among 46,887 eligible women, 497 cases of CIN2+ were detected, 55 of which tested negative by the cobas(®) HPV Test (32 CIN2, 23 CIN3/ACIS). By LA and/or Amplicor, 32 CIN2+ (20 CIN2, 12 CIN3/ACIS) were HPV positive and categorized as false-negatives by cobas HPV; nine of 12 false-negative CIN3/ACIS cases were p16+. There were 23 cases (12 CIN2, 11 CIN3/ACIS) negative by all HPV tests; seven of 11 CIN3/ACIS cases were p16+. H&E slides were available for six cases for re-review and all were confirmed as CIN3/ACIS. Tissue PCR was performed on the six confirmed CIN3/ACIS cases (and one without confirmation): four were positive for HPV types not considered oncogenic, two were positive for oncogenic genotypes and one was indeterminate. In summary, subanalysis of a large cervical cancer screening study did not identify any true CIN3/ACIS not attributable to HPV.

Performance of an Human Papillomavirus Test in Samples From Women With Histolopathologically Confirmed Invasive Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is now recognized as a single, necessary cause of cancer of the cervix. Although Pap tests have been central to cervical cancer screening programs for more than 50 years, tests that detect infection with these hrHPV genotypes are now being used increasingly in cervical cancer screening programs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the sensitivity of an HPV test to detect cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty successive cervical samples from women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer were tested using a molecular HPV DNA test. Thereafter, the residual sample was further tested with a different HPV genotyping test (capable of detecting 27 low- and high-risk types of HPV) and a nucleic acid hybridization test (capable of detecting 13 high-risk types of HPV). RESULTS: Of the 50 women tested, the first HPV test was positive in 47 cases. Of the 3 negative cases, all were negative by second polymerase chain reaction-based test and 2 were negative by the nucleic acid hybridization test. Human immunodeficiency virus status was positive in 14 women, the majority of whom were positive for HPV 16 (n = 8) and 1 was HPV negative. Most women were diagnosed with having stage II cervical cancer or higher. CONCLUSIONS: With a sensitivity of 94% of the first HPV test, 6 of 100 cervical cancers will be missed if this was the only test used in a population screening program. The missed cancers were however all clinically detectable.

Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: end of study results from the ATHENA study using HPV as the first-line screening test.

OBJECTIVES: ATHENA evaluated the cobas HPV Test as the primary screen for cervical cancer in women ≥25years. This reports the 3-year end-of-study results comparing the performance of HPV primary screening to different screening and triage combinations. METHODS: 42,209 women ≥25years were enrolled and had cytology and hrHPV testing. Women with abnormal cytology (≥atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) and those HPV positive were referred to colposcopy. Women not reaching the study endpoint of CIN2+ entered the 3-year follow-up phase. RESULTS: 3-year CIR of CIN3+ in cytology-negative women was 0.8% (95% CI; 0.5-1.1%), 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.7%) in HPV-negative women, and 0.3% (95% CI; 0.1-0.6%) in cytology and HPV negative women. The sensitivity for CIN3+ of cytology was 47.8% (95% CI; 41.6-54.1%) compared to 61.7% (95% CI; 56.0-67.5%) for the hybrid strategy (cytology if 25-29years and cotesting with cytology and HPV if ≥30years) and 76.1% (95% CI; 70.3-81.8%) for HPV primary. The specificity for CIN3+ was 97.1% (95% CI; 96.9-97.2%), 94.6% (95% CI; 94.4-94.8%), and 93.5% (95% CI; 93.3-93.8%) for cytology, hybrid strategy, and HPV primary, respectively. Although HPV primary detects significantly more cases of CIN3+ in women ≥25years than either cytology or hybrid strategy, it requires significantly more colposcopies. However, the number of colposcopies required to detect a single CIN3+ is the same as for the hybrid strategy. CONCLUSIONS: HPV primary screening in women ≥25years is as effective as a hybrid screening strategy that uses cytology if 25-29years and cotesting if ≥30years. However, HPV primary screening requires less screening tests.

Prevalence of high-risk human papilloma virus genotypes and associated risk of cervical precancerous lesions in a large U.S. screening population: data from the ATHENA trial.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the age-related prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) genotypes and the genotype-associated risk for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in a large U.S. screening population. METHODS: A total of 40,901 women aged ≥25 years were screened with liquid-based cytology and HPV testing in the ATHENA (Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics) trial. Genotyping was performed using the LINEAR ARRAY HPV Genotyping Test. RESULTS: HPV16 was the most prevalent genotype in all age groups, ranging from 3.5% to 0.8% in women aged 25-29 and ≥50 years, respectively. The next most prevalent genotypes were HPV52, HPV31 and HPV18. In the overall population, HPV16 conferred the greatest absolute risk of ≥CIN3 both in women aged 25-29 and ≥30 years (14.2% and 15.1%, respectively) followed by HPV31 (8.0% and 7.9%), HPV52 (6.7% and 4.4%) and HPV18 (2.7% and 9.0%). Similar trends were seen in women with negative cytology. The percent positivity increased markedly with disease progression for HPV16 and HPV18 which were responsible for 45.6% and 8.4% of ≥CIN3, respectively. Of note, HPV 18 was responsible for 50% of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and 50% of invasive cancer cases. CONCLUSIONS: HPV16 played a major role in the development of ≥CIN3 irrespective of age, supporting the identification of HPV16 in primary screening for all women. Identification of HPV18 is also warranted, given its significant contribution to AIS and cancer. Identification of non-16/18 genotypes as a pool should provide sufficient information for screening.

Interlaboratory variation in the performance of liquid-based cytology: insights from the ATHENA trial.

Although it is recognized that cervical cytology is highly subjective, and that there is considerable interlaboratory variation in how slides are evaluated, little is known as to how this impacts the performance of cytology. In the ATHENA trial, liquid-based cytology specimens from 46,887 eligible women ≥21 years of age were evaluated at four large regional US laboratories, providing a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of interlaboratory variations on the performance of cervical cytology. All women with abnormal cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher) were referred to colposcopy, as were all high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women ≥25 years of age and a random subset of those ≥25 years of age who were negative by both hrHPV testing and cytology. Sociodemographics, risk factors for cervical disease, and prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were similar across the laboratories. There were considerable differences among the laboratories both in overall cytological abnormal rates, ranging from 3.8 to 9.9%, and in sensitivity of cytology to detect CIN grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), from 42.0 to 73.0%. In contrast, the hrHPV positivity rate varied only from 10.9 to 13.4%, and the sensitivity of hrHPV testing from 88.2 to 90.1%. These observations suggest that hrHPV testing without cytology should be considered as the initial method for cervical cancer screening.

Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions.

Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) is a common cytologic finding in cervical screening, yet only about 10-20% have significant histologic abnormalities and these are almost always positive for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV). This analysis aims to clarify the role of hrHPV DNA testing in the triage of women with LSIL cytology. In the ATHENA screening trial, we examined 1,084 cases of LSIL, of which 925 had an evaluable biopsy, to determine the extent to which hrHPV testing can identify those patients who have precursor lesions in need of immediate clinical referral and those who have changes more likely to regress spontaneously. Overall, 71.2% of LSIL cases were hrHPV positive, but the prevalence was age dependent, with only 56.1% in women ≥ 40 years. Among women with LSIL, 11.6% (107/925) had a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) histologic diagnosis and, of these, only nine were hrHPV negative. For CIN3+, 91.7% (44/48) of women with LSIL were hrHPV positive. The negative predictive value of hrHPV testing for CIN3+ in LSIL was 100% for women aged ≥ 40 years. Women who were HPV16 positive had a higher positive predictive value for CIN2+ (25.4%) than those who were positive for 12 other pooled hrHPV types (11.5%). Testing for hrHPV in women with LSIL is effective in identifying high-grade cervical lesions, thereby avoiding unnecessary referrals to colposcopy and potential over-treatment of non-progressive lesions, especially for women aged ≥ 40 years.

Development and characterization of the cobas human papillomavirus test.

The cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test, approved by the FDA in April 2011, is a fully automated assay for the detection of 14 high-risk (hr) HPV genotypes from cervical specimens collected in liquid-based cytology medium using real-time PCR amplification of the L1 gene and TaqMan probes. Results are simultaneously reported as positive or negative for the pooled 12 oncogenic HPV types (HPV31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -59, -66, and -68) from channel 1, with HPV16 and HPV18 genotypes read individually from channels 2 and 3. A fourth channel detects the human ß-globin gene as a control for sample adequacy and assay inhibition. To optimize clinical sensitivity and specificity, cutoff values (cycle thresholds [C(T)]) were established for each channel based on the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or greater (≥CIN2). For women aged ≥21 years with cytology results indicating atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), CT values provided a sensitivity of 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.5% to 94.8%) for the detection of ≥CIN2 and a specificity of 70.5% (95% CI, 68.1% to 72.7%). The analytic sensitivity (limit of detection) ranged from 150 to 2,400 copies/ml, depending on genotype. The analytic specificity, evaluated by comparing the HPV result with a combined comparator of Sanger sequencing and the Qiagen digene HC2 high-risk HPV DNA test (hc2), demonstrated overall positive agreement of 96.3% for 14 hrHPV types in women with ASC-US cytology results who were aged ≥21 years and 86.1% in women with NLIM (negative for intraepithelial neoplasia or malignancy) cytology who were aged ≥30 years. These and other performance validation studies demonstrate that the cobas HPV test is a fully automated and clinically validated robust test.

Comparison of cervical cancer screening strategies incorporating different combinations of cytology, HPV testing, and genotyping for HPV 16/18: results from the ATHENA HPV study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare 9 cervical cancer screening strategies to the current screening standard (cytology with human papillomavirus [HPV] triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) for the detection of high-grade cervical disease. STUDY DESIGN: Women (n = 34,254) aged 30 years or older from the Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics (ATHENA) study underwent screening with cytology and HPV testing with simultaneous HPV16/18 genotyping; those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cytology or greater or HPV-positive status were referred for colposcopy. RESULTS: In general, screening strategies that offered greater sensitivity also required more referral to colposcopy. HPV testing was more sensitive than cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater, but strategies that depended on cytology for triage of HPV-positive women decreased this sensitivity. Various strategies of cotesting with cytology increased sensitivity but did so by increasing testing. Strategies that included integrated HPV16/18 testing provided more efficient referral to colposcopy. CONCLUSION: Strategies that maximize detection of women at greatest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or greater by immediate referral to colposcopy, with follow-up testing of women at intermediate risk, maximize the benefits of cervical cancer screening while decreasing the potential harm. Incorporating screening with HPV and triage of HPV-positive women by a combination of genotyping for HPV16/18 and cytology provided a good balance between maximizing sensitivity (benefit) and specificity by limiting the number of colposcopies (potential harm).

The ATHENA human papillomavirus study: design, methods, and baseline results.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to describe baseline data from Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics, a prospective, multicenter US cervical cancer screening trial. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 47,208 women aged 21 years or older undergoing routine screening were enrolled; liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing were performed. Women with abnormal cytology underwent colposcopy, as did high-risk HPV (hrHPV)-positive women and a random subset of women negative by both tests aged 25 years or older. Verification bias adjustment was applied; 95% confidence intervals were computed by the bootstrap method. RESULTS: The prevalence of cytologic abnormalities was 7.1%. hrHPV, HPV 16, and HPV 18 were detected using the cobas HPV Test in 12.6%, 2.8%, and 1.0% of women, respectively. Both cytologic abnormalities and hrHPV positivity declined with increasing age. The adjusted prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or greater in women aged 25-34 years was 2.3%, decreasing to 1.5% among older women. CONCLUSION: The Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics study provides important estimates of the prevalence of cytologic abnormalities, hrHPV positivity, and CIN2 or greater in a US screening population.

Performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25 years and older: a subanalysis of the ATHENA study.

BACKGROUND: The ATHENA study was designed to assess the performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping compared with liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening in a large US population aged 21 years and older. We did a subanalysis of this population to compare the screening performance of the cobas HPV test versus liquid-based cytology in women aged 25 years and older, and assess management strategies for HPV-positive women. METHODS: Women aged 25 years or older who were attending routine cervical screening were enrolled from 61 clinical centres in 23 US states. Cervical specimens were obtained for liquid-based cytology and HPV DNA testing with two first-generation assays (Amplicor HPV test and Linear Array HPV genotyping test) and the second-generation cobas HPV test (with individual HPV16 and HPV18 detection). Colposcopy and diagnostic biopsies were done on women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse cytology, those who tested positive with either first-generation HPV test, and a random sample of women who tested negative for HPV and cytology. All women not selected for colposcopy received their results and exited the study. Participants and colposcopists were masked to cytology and HPV test results until the colposcopy visit was completed. The primary endpoint for this substudy was histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or worse. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00709891; the study is in the follow-up phase, which is due to be completed in December, 2012. FINDINGS: From May 27, 2008, to Aug 27, 2009, 47,208 women were enrolled, of whom 41,955 met our eligibility criteria. Valid cobas HPV and liquid-based cytology test results were available for 40,901 women (97%), who were included in this analysis. Of these, 4275 women (10%) tested cobas HPV positive and 2617 (6%) had abnormal cytology. 431 women were diagnosed with CIN2 or worse and 274 with CIN3 or worse. In women who had colposcopy, the cobas HPV test was more sensitive than liquid-based cytology for detection of CIN3 or worse (252/274 [92·0%, 95% CI 88·1-94·6] vs 146/274 [53·3%, 95% CI 47·4-59·1]; difference 38·7%, 95% CI 31·9-45·5; p<0·0001). Addition of liquid-based cytology to HPV testing increased sensitivity for CIN3 or worse to 96·7% (265/274, 95% CI 93·9-98·3), but increased the number of screen positives by 35·2% (5783/40,901 vs 4275/40,901) compared with HPV testing alone. As a triage test to identify CIN3 or worse in HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both alone was equivalent to detection of ASC-US or worse alone in terms of sensitivity (150/252 [59·5%] vs 133/252 [52·8%]; p=0·11) and positive predictive value (PPV) (150/966 [15·5%] vs 133/940 [14·1%]; p=0·20). Among HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had better sensitivity (182/252 [72·2%]; p<0·0001) and similar PPV (182/1314 [13·9%]; p=0·70) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone. Furthermore, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had higher sensitivity (165/252 [65·5%]; p=0·0011) and PPV (165/1013 [16·3%]; p=0·031) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone. INTERPRETATION: HPV testing with separate HPV16 and HPV18 detection could provide an alternative, more sensitive, and efficient strategy for cervical cancer screening than do methods based solely on cytology. FUNDING: Roche Molecular Systems.

Performance of the cobas HPV Test for the Triage of Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance Cytology in Cervical Specimens Collected in SurePath.

OBJECTIVES: Determine performance of the cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test for triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) in SurePath. METHODS: Women presenting for routine screening had cervical specimens collected in SurePath and specimen transport medium (STM); those with ASC-US cytology underwent colposcopy. Performance of cobas HPV in SurePath specimens that had undergone a preanalytic procedure to reverse possible cross-linking of HPV DNA was compared with Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2) specimens in STM. RESULTS: Among 856 women, HPV prevalence was 45.8%; HPV 16 and HPV 18 prevalences were lower than expected in the 21- to 29-year-old group in this highly vaccinated population. cobas HPV performance in SurePath was comparable to hc2 in STM. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse were 87.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.9%-95.2%) and 55.5% (95% CI, 52.1%-58.9%) for cobas and 85.3% (95% CI, 69.9%-93.6%) and 54.7% (95% CI, 51.4%-57.9%) for hc2. Sensitivity was negatively affected by random biopsies performed at colposcopy; comparable sensitivities were achieved in the nonvaccinated and vaccinated populations with disease determined by directed biopsy only. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of cobas HPV for ASC-US triage in pretreated SurePath specimens meets criteria for validation. Preliminary data indicate reliable performance of HPV testing in a highly vaccinated population.

Development and Validation of a Preanalytic Procedure for Performing the cobas HPV Test in SurePath Preservative Fluid.

The formation of chemical cross-links between nucleic acids and proteins in formalin-containing media presents challenges for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing of cervical samples collected in SurePath Preservative Fluid. A preanalytic process involving addition of a nucleophilic buffer and heating the sample to 120°C was developed to reverse the effects of cross-linking and improve nucleic acid accessibility for the cobas HPV Test in SurePath. Cycle threshold (CT) values for cobas HPV detection were evaluated over time and various temperatures, and mean CT differences between pretreated and both untreated SurePath samples and those collected in PreservCyt were assessed. Without pretreatment, low viral levels (1 × limit of detection) of HPV were no longer detectable by 7 days. For prospectively collected specimens, mean (95% CI) CT differences between pretreated and untreated samples indicated enhanced HPV DNA recovery in all categories of treated samples: -2.58 (-3.16 to -2.01), -2.63 (-3.62 to -1.64), and -3.39 (-4.95 to -1.82), respectively, for other 12 high-risk HPV types, HPV16, and HPV18. Furthermore, mean (95% CI) CT differences of pretreated SurePath samples were comparable to simultaneously collected PreservCyt samples: -0.48 (-0.98 to 0.02) and -0.23 (-0.93 to 0.46), respectively, for HPV16 and HPV18; a borderline significant difference [-0.35 (-0.57 to -0.13)] was observed for other 12 high-risk HPV types. This preanalytic procedure therefore ensures a validated, safe, and accurate method for cobas HPV testing in SurePath.

Cervical Precancer and Cancer Risk by Human Papillomavirus Status and Cytologic Interpretation: Implications for Risk-Based Management.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer risks, estimated by using cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or more severe diagnoses (≥CIN3) endpoints, have not been quantified for different combinations of results from currently approved screening methods. Understanding these risks will guide optimal patient management. METHODS: Women aged ≥25 years (n = 7,823) underwent high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) testing. Women with hrHPV-positive results and/or abnormal LBC, plus a random subset of hrHPV and LBC negatives, underwent colposcopy; those without ≥CIN2 at baseline were screened annually by LBC and referred to colposcopy for an abnormal LBC (n = 7,392). One- and 3-year ≥CIN3 risks with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for paired hrHPV and LBC (hrHPV/LBC) results. RESULTS: One-year ≥CIN3 risks ranged from 81.27% (95% CI, 66.02%-90.65%) for HPV16 positive/high-grade to 0.33% (95% CI, 0.18%-0.62%) for hrHPV negative/negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM). One-year ≥CIN3 risk for HPV16/NILM (13.95%; 95% CI, 10.98%-17.58%) was greater than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL; 7.90%; 95% CI, 5.99%-10.37%; P = 0.002) and similar to hrHPV-positive/LSIL (11.45%; 95% CI, 8.61%-15.07%; P = 0.3). Three-year ≥CIN3 risks for HPV16 positive/LSIL and HPV16/atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance was 24.79% (95% CI, 16.44%-35.58%) and 24.36% (95% CI, 15.86%-35.50%), respectively, and 0.72% (95% CI, 0.45%-1.14%) for hrHPV negative/NILM. CONCLUSIONS: hrHPV and LBC results stratify cervical cancer risk by more than two orders of magnitude. HPV16-positive women, regardless of the LBC result, warrant immediate colposcopy. Women with concurrent HPV16 and high-grade LBC might consider treatment without a confirmatory biopsy with informed decision-making with their provider. IMPACT: These results provide relevant benchmarks for risk-based cervical cancer screening and management. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(12); 1595-9. ©2016 AACR.

Knowledge of Patients' Human Papillomavirus Status at the Time of Cytologic Review Significantly Affects the Performance of Cervical Cytology in the ATHENA Study.

OBJECTIVES: With human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, patients' HPV status may be known when reviewing cytology specimens. METHODS: 41,955 women 25 years or older had cytology and HPV screening. Originally, cytology was reviewed blinded to HPV status. We re-reviewed unblinded to HPV status a subset of 428 cytology slides from women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 + (CIN2+) and 1,287 from women without CIN2+. RESULTS: Of the original interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), 33.7% were downgraded to negative after unblinded review, and 8.7% were upgraded to atypical squamous cells, cannot rule out a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Of the original interpretations of ASC-US, 66.7% were downgraded on unblinded review in HPV-negative women and 30.2% were upgraded in HPV 16+/HPV 18+ women. Unblinding increases the sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3+ of cotesting from 54.1% to 62.4% (P = .0015) and the sensitivity of HPV primary screening from 72.2% to 77.1% (P = .0029). With cotesting, specificity with unblinding is improved, whereas with HPV primary screening, there would be a small decrease in specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Unblinded cytology increases overall sensitivity with either cotesting or HPV primary screening; specificity is either slightly improved or is not affected by unblinding.

Relevance of random biopsy at the transformation zone when colposcopy is negative.

OBJECTIVE: A post hoc analysis to determine the diagnostic yield of random biopsy in detecting high-grade cervical disease in women with negative colposcopy. METHODS: The ATHENA (Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics) trial screened more than 47,000 women with cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA genotyping. Colposcopy was performed in all women with abnormal cytology or positive HPV results. A single random biopsy was taken at the squamocolumnar junction if colposcopy was adequate and no lesions were identified. RESULTS: The random biopsy diagnosed 20.9% (81/388, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.9-25.3%) and 18.9% (45/238, 95% CI 14.1-24.5%) of the total cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse and grade 3 or worse, respectively. This additional disease was detected in both HPV 16 or 18+ and for 12 other high-risk HPV+ women. For HPV 16 or 18, the absolute risk for detection of CIN 2 or worse on random biopsy in the overall population was 13.1% (40/305, 95% CI 9.8-17.4%) and 8.2% (25/305, 95% CI 5.6-11.8%) for CIN 3 or worse. By contrast, the absolute risk for 12 other high-risk HPV+ women was 3.5% (29/820, 95% CI 2.5-5%) and 1.7% (14/820, 95% CI 1.0-2.8%) for CIN 2 or worse and CIN 3 or worse, respectively. CONCLUSION: A single random biopsy increased the detection of high-grade disease when no lesions were visualized at colposcopy. The absolute risks of disease associated with the random biopsy were highest for women positive for genotype 16 or 18. Our study supports performing a random biopsy in women undergoing colposcopy without visible lesions, particularly in those positive for HPV 16 or 18. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : II.

The low risk of precancer after a screening result of human papillomavirus-negative/atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance papanicolaou and implications for clinical management.

BACKGROUND: Different US practice guidelines have conflicting recommendations for when women should return after a screening result of human papillomavirus (HPV)-negative with an equivocal Papanicolaou (Pap) result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) (ie, return in either 3 or 5 years). One way to determine management is to compare the risk of precancer/cancer after an HPV-negative/ASC-US result with the risks after other negative screening results. For example, if the risk after an HPV-negative/ASC-US result was similar to the risk after a negative Pap test, a 3-year return would be preferred because guidelines agree that women with negative Pap test results should return in 3 years. Alternatively, if the risk after an HPV-negative/ASC-US result is similar to that after a cotest-negative result (HPV negative/Pap test negative), a 5-year return would be preferred because guidelines agree that women testing cotest negative should return in 5 years. METHODS: The authors compared risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer among women aged 30 years to 64 years at Kaiser Permanente Northern California with the following test results from 2003 through 2012: 17,191 women testing HPV negative/ASC-US; 980,268 women testing Pap test negative (regardless of HPV result); and 892,882 women testing cotest negative. RESULTS: The 5-year CIN3+ and cancer risks after an HPV-negative/ASC-US result were closer to the risks after a negative Pap test result (CIN3+: 0.48% vs 0.31% [P =.0019]; and cancer: 0.043% vs 0.031% [P =.4]) than after a negative cotest (CIN3+: 0.48% vs 0.11% [P<.0001]; and cancer: 0.043% vs 0.014% [P =.016]). CONCLUSIONS: Women testing HPV negative/ASC-US were found to have precancer/cancer risks that were more closely aligned with women with negative Pap test results, suggesting that women testing HPV negative/ASC-US should be managed similarly to women testing negative on Pap tests with a 3-year return for screening.

Comparison of hybrid capture 2 High-Risk HPV results in the low positive range with cobas® HPV Test results from the ATHENA study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing importance of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in cervical cancer screening warrants evaluation of HPV DNA tests with an equivocal zone requiring retesting of samples in the low positive range. OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of the digene hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test (hc2), which has a manufacturer's recommended retesting zone with the cobas HPV Test, a real-time polymerase chain reaction amplification test without an equivocal range. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective subanalysis of the ATHENA study comparing results for hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test and the cobas HPV Test using the LINEAR ARRAY HPV Genotyping Test (LA) and Sanger sequencing as comparators was performed. The ability of each test to detect high-grade cervical disease in the equivocal range was also evaluated. RESULTS: 5.2% of samples fell within the equivocal zone (RLU/CO 1.0-2.5) and required retesting with the hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test. In this low-positive range the cobas HPV Test showed better positive percent agreement (PPA) than hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test for LA and sequencing (84.2% vs.70.9% and 92.1% vs.82.5%, respectively). hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test and the cobas HPV Test demonstrated comparable sensitivity for detection of high-grade disease in the equivocal range. In the low cobas HPV Test range (cycle threshold [Ct] 40-35), the cobas HPV test again demonstrated a better PPA than hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test with LA and sequencing as comparators and more high-grade disease was detected by the cobas HPV Test than hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test. CONCLUSION: The cobas HPV Test demonstrates reliable performance in the hc2 High Risk HPV DNA Test equivocal zone, thus supporting it as an option for HPV testing that avoids the need for retesting.

The interplay of age stratification and HPV testing on the predictive value of ASC-US cytology. Results from the ATHENA HPV study.

We have previously shown that human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping, using the cobas HPV Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA), can be used to identify women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) at the highest risk for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse. We investigated the impact of age stratification on the risk of CIN 2 or worse in women with ASC-US and the performance of HPV genotyping in different age strata. The sensitivity of the cobas HPV Test was 93.3% in the 21- to 29-year-old age group and 67.7% in the 40 years or older group, most likely owing to pathologic misclassification of CIN 2 or worse in older women. The prevalence of CIN 2 or worse in younger women was nearly 4-fold that detected in older women and was predominantly HPV-16-related. Age-specific evaluation of ASC-US cytology in conjunction with HPV genotype status enables more effective risk assessment and could be used in clinical management.