Triage performance and predictive value of the human gene methylation panel among women positive on self-collected HPV test: Results from a prospective cohort study.

Triaging of women positive for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) on self-collected samples requires a molecular reflex test to avoid recall for cytology or visual tests. We assessed triage performance and predictive value of human gene methylation panel (ZNF671/ASTN1/ITGA4/RXFP3/SOX17/DLX1) alone and with combination of HPV16/18 genotyping in a longitudinal screening study. Out of 9526 women at baseline, 1758 women positive for hrHPV on self-collected samples followed up yearly were included in the current analysis. Satisfactory risk stratification to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was demonstrated by the methylation panel with an odds ratio (OR) of 11.3 among methylation-positive women compared to methylation-negative counterparts. Triaging with methylation panel reduced colposcopy referral rate by 67.2% with sensitivity and specificity of 83.0% and 69.9% to detect CIN2+. The corresponding values for the combining methylation and HPV 16/18 were 96.6% and 58.3%. The cumulative 3-year incident CIN2+ risk was 6.8% (95% CI: 4.9%-8.6%) for hrHPV positive women, which was reduced to 4.5% (95% CI: 2.7%-6.3%) and 2.9% (95% CI: 1.2%-4.5%) for women negative on methylation triaging alone and negative on the combined strategy. The corresponding risk for women positive for both methylation and HPV 16/18 reached 33.7% (95% CI: 19.0%-45.8%). Our study demonstrated the satisfactory triage performance and predictive value of the methylation panel, especially in combination with HPV 16/18 genotyping. The substantially lower risk of CIN2+ among the triage negative women over the next 3 years suggests that the interval for repeat HPV test can be safely extended to at least 2 years.

Durability of clinical performance afforded by self-collected HPV testing: A 15-year cohort study in China.

OBJECTIVE: Self-collected HPV testing could substantially reduce disparities in cervical cancer screening, with slightly lower sensitivity compared to physician-collected specimens cross-sectionally. We aimed to evaluate the comprehensive long-term performance of self-collected HPV testing prospectively. METHODS: In 1999, 1997 women were screened by HPV testing on self-collected and physician-collected samples, cytology and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and followed up in 2005, 2010 and 2014, respectively. HPV testing was performed with Hybrid Capture II. Prospective performance, baseline clinical efficiency, and 15-year cumulative risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) were analyzed. RESULTS: Self-collected HPV testing prospectively detected 83.3% (95% CI:74.9%,89.3%), 70.3% (95% CI:62.5%,77.2%) and 63.3% (95% CI:55.7%, 70.2%) of cumulative CIN2+ at 6-year, 11-year and 15-year follow-up, respectively. Relative cumulative sensitivity of physician-collected HPV testing versus self-collected HPV testing was stable over 15 years at about 1.16. Cumulative sensitivity of self-collected HPV testing was comparable to cytology and significantly higher than VIA. Among women positive by self-collected HPV testing at baseline, 26.2% (95% CI:21.5%, 30.9%) developed CIN2+ during 6-year follow-up and no difference was observed with physician-collected HPV testing even 15 years after baseline. Negative self-collected HPV results provided greater protection against CIN2+ than VIA and ascertained CIN2+ cumulative incident rates as low as 1.1% at the 6-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collected HPV testing demonstrates lower sensitivity than physician-collected HPV testing but performs comparably to cytology prospectively and provides satisfactory assurance against CIN2+, indicating an alternative role in cervical cancer primary screening with five-year interval as an option especially in low-resource settings.

Community-based HPV self-collection versus visual inspection with acetic acid in Uganda: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ASPIRE trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women in Uganda, despite the potential for prevention through organised screening. Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been proposed to reduce barriers to screening. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Advances in Screening and Prevention of Reproductive Cancers (ASPIRE) trial, conducted in Kisenyi, Uganda in April 2014 (n=500). The trial compared screening uptake and compliance with follow-up in two arms: (1) community-based (ie, home or workplace) self-collected HPV testing (facilitated by community health workers) with clinic-based visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) triage of HPV-positive women ('HPV-VIA') and (2) clinic-based VIA ('VIA'). In both arms, VIA was performed at the local health unit by midwives with VIA-positive women receiving immediate treatment with cryotherapy. DESIGN: We informed a Monte Carlo simulation model of HPV infection and cervical cancer with screening uptake, compliance and retrospective cost data from the ASPIRE trial; additional cost, test performance and treatment effectiveness data were drawn from observational studies. The model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each arm of ASPIRE, as well as an HPV screen-and-treat strategy ('HPV-ST') involving community-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for all HPV-positive women at the clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were reductions in cervical cancer risk and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed in dollars per year of life saved (YLS). RESULTS: HPV-ST was the most effective and cost-effective screening strategy, reducing the lifetime absolute risk of cervical cancer from 4.2% (range: 3.8%-4.7%) to 3.5% (range: 3.2%-4%), 2.8% (range: 2.4%-3.1%) and 2.4% (range: 2.1%-2.7%) with ICERs of US$130 (US$110-US$150) per YLS, US$240 (US$210-US$280) per YLS, and US$470 (US$410-US$550) per YLS when performed one, three and five times per lifetime, respectively. Findings were robust across sensitivity analyses, unless HPV costs were more than quadrupled. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for HPV-positive women has the potential to be an effective and cost-effective screening strategy.