Population-based age- and type-specific prevalence of human papillomavirus among non-vaccinated women aged 30 years and above in Germany.

BACKGROUND: A persisting high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is causal for cervical cancer; however, there is limited population-based data on the prevalence of HPV infections in Germany. We assessed the age and type-specific HPV prevalence, and associated risk factors in HPV unvaccinated women aged 30 and above. METHODS: The MARZY prospective population-based cohort study was conducted between 2005 and 2012 in Mainz and Mainz-Bingen, Germany. Eligible women were randomly recruited from population registries and invited for cervical cancer screening (n = 5,275). A study swab (liquid-based cytology) was taken and HPV testing was performed with GP5+/6 + polymerase chain reaction (PCR) followed by genotyping. We assessed HPV types as HR-HPV, 'moderate' risk and low-risk (LR-HPV). Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with HPV infection, stratified by HPV types. RESULTS: 2,520 women were screened with a valid PCR result. Overall HPV prevalence was 10.6% (n = 266), with 6.5% HR-HPV positive (n = 165), 1.5% 'moderate' risk type (n = 38) and 3.3% LR-HPV type (n = 84) positive. 8.9% had a single infection (n = 225) and 1.6% had multiple types (n = 41). The most common HR-HPV types were 16, 56, 52 and 31 and LR-HPV 90 and 42. Of 187 HR-HPV infections detected (among 165 women), 55.1% (n = 103) were with HPV types not covered by available bivalent or quadrivalent HPV vaccines. About 23% (n = 43) were of types not covered by the nonavalent vaccine (HPV 35, 39, 51, 56, 59). The HR and LR-HPV prevalence were highest in the age group 30-34 years (HR 9.8%, 'moderate' risk 3.0% and LR 5.6%), decreasing with increasing age. HR-HPV prevalence in women with normal cytology was 5.5%. In women with a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), prevalence was 66.7%. Women currently not living with a partner and current smokers had increased chances of an HR-HPV infection. CONCLUSION: The overall population-based HPV prevalence was relatively high. An important share of prevalent HR-HPV infections constituted types not covered by current HPV vaccines. With the advent of HPV screening and younger vaccinated cohorts joining screening, HPV types should be monitored closely, also in older women who were not eligible for HPV vaccination.

Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a prospective population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A considerable proportion of cervical cancer diagnoses in high-income countries are due to lack of timely follow-up of an abnormal screening result. We estimated colposcopy non-attendance, examined the potential factors associated and described non-attendance reasons in a population-based screening study. METHODS: Data from the MARZY prospective cohort study were analysed. Co-test screen-positive women (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse [ASC-US+] or high-risk human papillomavirus [hrHPV] positive) aged 30 to 65 years were referred to colposcopy within two screening rounds (3-year interval). Women were surveyed for sociodemographic, HPV-related and other data, and interviewed for non-attendance reasons. Logistic regression was used to examine potential associations with colposcopy attendance. RESULTS: At baseline, 2,627 women were screened (screen-positive = 8.7%), and 2,093 again at follow-up (screen-positive = 5.1%; median 2.7 years later). All screen-positives were referred to colposcopy, however 28.9% did not attend despite active recall. Among co-test positives (ASC-US+ and hrHPV) and only hrHPV positives, 19.6% were non-attendees. Half of only ASC-US+ screenees attended colposcopy. Middle age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.55, 95% CI 1.02, 4.96) and hrHPV positive result (aOR = 3.04, 95% CI 1.49, 7.22) were associated with attendance. Non-attendance was associated with having ≥ 3 children (aOR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.10, 0.86). Major reasons for non-attendance were lack of time, barriers such as travel time, need for childcare arrangements and the advice against colposcopy given by the gynaecologist who conducted screening. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up rates of abnormal screening results needs improvement. A systematic recall system integrating enhanced communication and addressing follow-up barriers may improve screening effectiveness.

Impact of opportunistic screening on squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix in Germany: A population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the uptake of opportunistic cervical cancer screening (CCS) and other risk factors and their association with cervical cancer in Germany in a case-control study. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We recruited incident cases of cervical cancer (ICD-10 C53) diagnosed between 2012 and 2016 and matched with three population-based controls, based on age and region of residence. Cases and controls reported their CCS participation during the past ten years (frequent: every three years; no or infrequent: less than every three years) and other relevant variables. We fitted conditional logistic regression models, reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We report overall and stratified analyses by histologic group (squamous cell-SCC, and adenocarcinoma-AC), T category (T1 and T2+), and age (<50 and ≥50 years). We analysed 217 cases and 652 matched controls. 53.0% of cases and 85.7% of controls attended CCS frequently. In the overall adjusted model, no or infrequent participation in CCS (OR 5.63; 95% CI 3.51 to 9.04), having had more than one sexual partner (OR 2.86; 95%CI 1.50 to 5.45) and obesity (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.83) were associated with cervical cancer. Twelve years of schooling (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60) and a net monthly income of €3000 or more (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82) were protective factors. In the stratified analyses, no or infrequent participation was associated with T1 (OR 4.37; 95% CI 2.48 to 7.71), T2+ (OR 10.67; 95% CI 3.83 to 29.74), SCC (OR 6.88; 95% CI 4.08 to 11.59) and AC (OR 3.95; 95% CI 1.47 to 10.63). CONCLUSION: Although women who frequently attended CCS were less likely to develop cervical cancer, especially larger tumours, the high proportion of cases who had been frequently screened prior to diagnosis underscores the need to investigate the quality of cytology and treatment of precancerous lesions in Germany.

Cervical Cancer Screening: Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear Test, Liquid-Based Cytology, and Human Papillomavirus Testing as Stand-alone or Cotesting Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Some countries have implemented stand-alone human papillomavirus (HPV) testing while others consider cotesting for cervical cancer screening. We compared both strategies within a population-based study. METHODS: The MARZY cohort study was conducted in Germany. Randomly selected women from population registries aged ≥30 years (n = 5,275) were invited to screening with Pap smear, liquid-based cytology (LBC, ThinPrep), and HPV testing (Hybrid Capture2, HC2). Screen-positive participants [ASC-US+ or high-risk HC2 (hrHC2)] and a random 5% sample of screen-negatives were referred to colposcopy. Post hoc HPV genotyping was conducted by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA with reverse line blotting. Sensitivity, specificity (adjusted for verification bias), and potential harms, including number of colposcopies needed to detect 1 precancerous lesion (NNC), were calculated. RESULTS: In 2,627 screened women, cytological sensitivities (Pap, LBC: 47%) were lower than HC2 (95%) and PCR (79%) for CIN2+. Cotesting demonstrated higher sensitivities (HC2 cotesting: 99%; PCR cotesting: 84%), but at the cost of lower specificities (92%-95%) compared with HPV stand-alone (HC2: 95%; PCR: 94%) and cytology (97% or 99%). Cotesting versus HPV stand-alone showed equivalent relative sensitivity [HC2: 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.21; PCR: 1.07, 95% CI, 1.00-1.27]. Relative specificity of Pap cotesting with either HPV test was inferior to stand-alone HPV. LBC cotesting demonstrated equivalent specificity (both tests: 0.99, 95% CI, 0.99-1.00). NNC was highest for Pap cotesting. CONCLUSIONS: Cotesting offers no benefit in detection over stand-alone HPV testing, resulting in more false positive results and colposcopy referrals. IMPACT: HPV stand-alone screening offers a better balance of benefits and harms than cotesting.See related commentary by Wentzensen and Clarke, p. 432.

Invitation to cervical cancer screening does increase participation in Germany: Results from the MARZY study.

The effect of different invitation models on participation in cervical cancer screening (CCS) was investigated in a randomized population-based cohort study in Germany. Participants were randomly selected via population registries and randomized into intervention Arm A (invitation letter) and Arm B (invitation letter and information brochure) or control Arm C (no invitation). The intervention and control arms were compared with regard to 3-year participation and the two invitation models were compared between intervention arms. Of the 7,758 eligible women aged 30-65 years, living in the city of Mainz and in the rural region of Mainz-Bingen, 5,265 were included in the analysis. Differences in proportions of women attending CCS were investigated and logistic regression was performed to analyze various factors influencing participation. In the intervention group, 91.8% participated in CCS compared to 85.3% in the control group (p < 0.0001), with a 6.6 percentage point increase in participation [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.6-8.6] and an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 2.69 (95% CI 2.15-3.37). Effect estimators increased to 21.9 percentage points (95% CI 16.7-27.1) and an OR of 3.64 (95% CI 2.74-4.82), respectively, when women who participated in screening annually were excluded from the analysis. The invitation letter was particularly effective among women with lower school education, migrant women and older women. No difference in participation was found between the intervention Arm A and Arm B. An accompanying information brochure did not motivate more women to undergo CCS. However, a written invitation statistically significantly increased participation in CCS in Germany.

[Quality assurance in an epidemiological cohort study: on-site monitoring in gynaecological practices]. / Qualitätssicherung in einer epidemiologischen Kohortenstudie: Durchführung von on-site Monitoring in gynäkologischen Arztpraxen.

Quality assurance is required for all relevant instruments and procedures in epidemiological studies just like for clinical trials. The structure and complexity of the monitoring was developed based on the monitoring in clinical trials and applied to an epidemiological cohort study on early detection of cervical cancer (MARZY Study). Analyses of the on-site monitoring in participating gynaecological practices during the baseline investigation of the MARZY cohort were presented. The baseline investigation of the MARZY study was conducted between 2005 and 2007 in the city of Mainz, the rural district of Mainz-Bingen and surrounding areas. Women, who were randomly selected via population registries, were invited to attend cervical cancer screening at a gynaecologist's office of their choice. All study participants received a study swab in addition to their routine Pap smear. The on-site monitoring included equipment and support of all participating gynaecological practices during study recruitment. Each participant and physician signed an informed consent form. In addition, the participant completed an epidemiological questionnaire. The gynaecologist took the study swab and completed the study documentation form. Prior to recruitment, standardised processes and documentation forms were developed for the monitoring process. The monitoring visits were carried out every six to eight weeks. During the baseline investigation, participants were included in the study among 121 gynaecological practices. In total, 2,892 monitoring documentation forms from 390 on-site monitoring visits in 96 gynaecological practices from the study region and surrounding areas were analysed. On-site monitoring visits were more frequently conducted during the first year of the study. The average time needed for an on-site visit was 107 minutes (minimum 73 minutes, maximum 200 minutes). Problems such as incomplete study documentation forms or erroneous inclusion into the study occurred among 975 study participants (33.7%). 664 study participants (68.1%) did not fully complete the study forms, and 89 (9.1%) were included in the study despite the fact that they met the exclusion criteria such as hysterectomy or pregnancy. Most of these problems could be sufficiently corrected during the on-site monitoring. Monitoring in epidemiological studies performed at physicians' offices should be carried out in accordance with the monitoring in clinical trials. On-site monitoring helped to avoid missing data and to ensure adherence to exclusion criteria. On-site monitoring considerably contributed to the correct and complete study inclusion of all eligible participants and a high quality of study data.