Comparison of vaginal self-sampling and cervical sampling by medical professionals for the detection of HPV and CIN2+: A randomized study.

Primary screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) test is more effective in reducing cervical cancer incidence than cytology and it also offers the opportunity to self-sample. We conducted a randomized study to compare vaginal self-sampling with cervical sampling by medical professionals for HPV testing concerning prevalence of HPV and detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in primary screening. In total, 11 951 women aged 30-60 years were randomized into two groups, 5961 for self-sampling (SS arm) and 5990 for sampling by medical professionals (SMP arm). Sampling was performed with a RoversViba-brush in the SS arm and a cytobrush in the SMP arm. All samples were applied to an indicating FTA elute card and analyzed for HPV using a clinically validated real-time PCR test (hpVIR). All HPV-positive women performed repeated sampling about 6 months later using the same procedure as used initially. All HPV-positive women in the second sampling were referred to colposcopy. The prevalence of HPV in the first test did not differ between the SS arm (6.8%, 167/2466) and the SMP arm (7.8%, 118/1519) (P = .255). The prevalence of CIN2+ per 1000 screened women was 17 (43/2466 × 1000) (95%CI 13-24) in the SS arm and 21 (32/1519 × 1000) (95%CI 15-30) in the SMP arm. For CIN3+, the prevalence per 1000 screened women was 14 (35/2466 × 1000) (95%CI 10-20) in the SS arm and 15 (23/1519 × 1000) (95%CI 10-23) in the SMP arm. In conclusion, self-sampling and sampling by medical professionals showed the same prevalence of HPV and detection rate of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in histology.

Temporal changes in the vaginal microbiota in self-samples and its association with persistent HPV16 infection and CIN2.

BACKGROUND: The vaginal microbiota has been reported to be associated with HPV infection and cervical cancer. This study was performed to compare the vaginal microbiota at two timepoints in women performing self-sampling and had a persistent or transient HPV16 infection. The women were tested for 12 high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types but only women with single type (HPV16) were included to reduce confounding variables. METHODS: In total 96 women were included in this study. Of these, 26 were single positive for HPV16 in the baseline test and HPV negative in the follow-up test and 38 were single positive for HPV16 in both tests and diagnosed with CIN2+ in histology. In addition, 32 women that were negative for all 12 HPV tested were included. The samples of vaginal fluid were analyzed with the Ion 16S™ Metagenomics Kit and Ion 16S™ metagenomics module within the Ion Reporter™ software. RESULTS: K-means clustering resulted in two Lactobacillus-dominated groups, one with Lactobacillus sp. and the other specifically with Lactobacillus iners. The two remaining clusters were dominated by a mixed non-Lactobacillus microbiota. HPV negative women had lower prevalence (28%) of the non-Lactobacill dominant cluster in the baseline test, as compared to women with HPV16 infection (42%) (p value = 0.0173). Transition between clusters were more frequent in women with persistent HPV16 infection (34%) as compared in women who cleared the HPV16 infection (19%) (p value = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: The vaginal microbiota showed a higher rate of transitioning between bacterial profiles in women with persistent HPV16 infection as compared to women with transient infection. This indicate an instability in the microenvironment in women with persistent HPV infection and development of CIN2+.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of repeated self-sampling for HPV testing in primary cervical screening: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended in primary cervical screening to improve cancer prevention. An advantage of HPV testing is that it can be performed on self-samples, which could increase population coverage and result in a more efficient strategy to identify women at risk of developing cervical cancer. Our objective was to assess whether repeated self-sampling for HPV testing is cost-effective in comparison with Pap smear cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in increasing participation rate in primary cervical screening. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed on data from a previously published randomized clinical study including 36,390 women aged 30-49 years. Participants were randomized either to perform repeated self-sampling of vaginal fluid for HPV testing (n = 17,997, HPV self-sampling arm) or to midwife-collected Pap smears for cytological analysis (n = 18,393, Pap smear arm). RESULTS: Self-sampling for HPV testing led to 1633 more screened women and 107 more histologically diagnosed CIN2+ at a lower cost vs. midwife-collected Pap smears (€ 229,446 vs. € 782,772). CONCLUSIONS: This study resulted in that repeated self-sampling for HPV testing increased participation and detection of CIN2+ at a lower cost than midwife-collected Pap smears in primary cervical screening. Offering women a home-based self-sampling may therefore be a more cost-effective alternative than clinic-based screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not registered since this trial is a secondary analysis of an earlier published study (Gustavsson et al., British journal of cancer. 118:896-904, 2018).

HPV viral load in self-collected vaginal fluid samples as predictor for presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the use of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) viral load in screening tests for cervical cancer to predict persistent infection and presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). METHODS: We followed women between 30 and 60 years of age who performed self-sampling of vaginal fluid and subsequently a hrHPV test. Women who were hrHPV positive in their screening test repeated the hrHPV test 3-6 months later and were included in the present study. RESULTS: Our results show that women with a persistent HPV16 infection had higher HPV viral load in their primary screening test than women with transient infections (p = 5.33e-03). This was also true for sum of viral load for all hrHPV types in the primary screening test (p = 3.88e-07). 48% of women with persistent HPV16 infection and CIN2+ had an increase in HPV16 titer in the follow-up test, as compared to only 20% of women with persistent infection but without CIN2+ lesions. For the sum of all hrHPV types, 41% of women with persistent infection and CIN2+ had an increase in titer as compared to 26% of women without CIN2 + . CONCLUSIONS: The results show that hrHPV viral load in the primary screening HPV test is associated with the presence of CIN2+ and could be used in triaging hrHPV positive women for different follow-up strategies or recall times. Serial testing of hrHPV viral load has the potential to distinguish women with CIN2+ lesions from women with persistent infection but without CIN2+ lesions.

Diagnostic excision of the cervix in women over 40 years with human papilloma virus persistency and normal cytology.

OBJECTIVE: Persistent infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is recognized as the main risk factor of cervical cancer. Investigation via cytology and colposcopy have lower sensitivity than HPV testing in the diagnosis of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). Despite normal cytology and colposcopy findings women with persistent HPV infection have an increased risk of CIN2+. The aim of the study was to evaluate the proportion of histologically confirmed CIN2+ in women with persistent HPV infection and normal Pap smears. STUDY DESIGN: From April 2013 until March 2016 we prospectively recruited 91 women over 40 years with persistent HPV infection without any abnormalities in cytology. Of these, 40 women attended a gynecological examination including an HPV test, Pap smear, endocervical cytology, colposcopy with biopsies and diagnostic loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). Biopsy and LEEP samples were subjected to histological examination. RESULTS: CIN2+ was verified by histological examination of the LEEP sample in 6/40 (15%) of the women. All the cytological samples were normal and none of the biopsies confirmed CIN2+. Only 19/40 women still had a persistent HPV infection at the study visit. None of the 21/40 women who had cleared their HPV infection at the study visit had CIN2+ in histology of the LEEP sample. CONCLUSIONS: A persistent HPV infection needs to be monitored despite normal Pap smears, since 6/40 (15%) women older than 40 years, was revealed to have an undiagnosed CIN2+ when LEEP was performed. Counseling women regarding the risk of cervical cancer and the expected effect of an eventual LEEP can help them to make an optimal informed choice.

Clinical validation of the HPVIR high-risk HPV test on cervical samples according to the international guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for cervical cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The indicating FTA card is a dry medium used for collection of cervical samples. HPVIR is a multiplex real-time PCR test that detects 12 high-risk human papillomavirus types (hrHPV) and provides single genotype information for HPV16, - 31, - 35, - 39, - 51, - 56, and - 59 and pooled type information for HPV18/45 and HPV33/52/58. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a strategy with cervical samples collected on the FTA card and subsequently analysed with the HPVIR test complies with the criteria of the international guidelines for a clinically validated method for cervical screening. METHODS: We performed a non-inferiority test comparing the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the candidate test (FTA card and HPVIR) with a clinically validated reference test (Cobas® HPV test) based on liquid-based cytology (LBC) samples. Two clinical samples (LBC and FTA) were collected from 896 participants in population-based screening. For evaluation of the specificity we used 799 women without ≥ CIN2, and for clinical sensitivity we used 67 women with histologically confirmed ≥ CIN2. The reproducibility was studied by performing inter- and intra-laboratory tests of 558 additional clinical samples. RESULTS: The clinical sensitivity and specificity for samples collected on the FTA card and analysed using the HPVIR test were non-inferior to samples analysed with the Cobas® HPV test based on LBC samples (non-inferiority test score, p = 1.0 × 10- 2 and p = 1.89 × 10- 9, respectively). Adequate agreement of > 87% was seen in both the intra- and inter-laboratory comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Samples collected on the indicating FTA card and analysed with HPVIR test fulfil the requirements of the international guidelines and can therefore be used in primary cervical cancer screening.

Randomised study of HPV prevalence and detection of CIN2+ in vaginal self-sampling compared to cervical specimens collected by medical personnel.

We conducted a randomised study to compare vaginal self-sampling with assisted sampling by medical personnel on the cervix for HPV testing in primary screening. The first aim was to determine if the HPV prevalence is independent of sampling location (vagina versus cervix) and the person performing the sampling. The second aim was to evaluate if the two sampling strategies differed in the detection rate of CIN2+. In total, 19,523 women were randomised into two groups, with 9926 invited to perform self-sampling (SS arm) using the Rover VIBA-brush and 9597 offered assisted sampling using the cytobrush (AS arm). All samples were applied to the indicating FTA elute card and analysed for high-risk HPV using the hpVIR real-time PCR assay. The outcome for the first aim was HPV prevalence and for the second aim the number of CIN2+ based on histology. In the SS arm, 52.7% of invited women participated in the study, as compared to 34.2% in the AS arm. All samples contained sufficient amount of nuclear DNA for a valid HPV result, with vaginal samples having a higher DNA amount than cervical samples (p < 4.62 × 10-11 ). HPV prevalence was 4.6% in the SS arm and 4.1% in the AS arm (p = 5.5 × 10-2 ), and the distribution of HPV types similar between arms. There was no difference in the prevalence of CIN2+ per 1000 women screened between arms (p = 0.86). The results show that vaginal self-sampling is an equivalent alternative to sampling by medical personnel for HPV typing and identification of CIN2+.

Randomised study shows that repeated self-sampling and HPV test has more than two-fold higher detection rate of women with CIN2+ histology than Pap smear cytology.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.85.