Cervical cancer screening: on the way to a shift from cytology to full molecular screening.

Cytology-based nation-wide cervical screening has led to a substantial reduction of the incidence of cervical cancer in western countries. However, the sensitivity of cytology for the detection of high-grade precursor lesions or cervical cancer is limited; therefore, repeated testing is necessary to achieve program effectiveness. Additionally, adenocarcinomas and its precursors are often missed by cytology. Consequently, there is a need for a better screening test. The insight that infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is the causal agent of cervical cancer and its precursors has led to the development of molecular tests for the detection of hrHPV. Strong evidence now supports the use of hrHPV testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. In this review, we will discuss the arguments in favor of, and concerns on aspects of implementation of hrHPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening, such as the age to start hrHPV-based screening, ways to increase screening attendance, requirements for candidate hrHPV tests to be used, and triage algorithms for screen-positive women.

HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We evaluated the performance of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing in routine screening. METHODS: In all, 25,871 women (29-61) enrolled in our population-based cohort study were offered both cytology and hrHPV testing. High-risk HPV-positive women with normal cytology and an age-matched subcohort of hrHPV-negative women with normal cytology were invited for repeat testing after 1 and/or 2 years and were referred for colposcopy if they presented with abnormal cytology and/or a positive hrHPV test. The hrHPV-positive women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) and all women with moderate dyskaryosis or worse (>BMD) were directly referred for colposcopy. Women with BMD and an hrHPV-negative test were advised to repeat cytology at 6 and 18 months and were referred for colposcopy if the repeat cytology test was abnormal. The main outcome measure was CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). Results were adjusted for non-attendance at repeat testing. RESULTS: The hrHPV-positive women with abnormal cytology had a CIN3+ risk of 42.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 36.4-48.2), whereas the hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology had a much lower risk of 5.22% (95% CI: 3.72-7.91). In hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology, an additional cytology step after 1 year reduced the CIN3+ risk to only 1.6% (95% CI: 0.6-4.9) if the repeat test was normal. The CIN3+ risk in women with hrHPV-positive normal cytology was higher among women invited for the first time (29-33 years of age) (9.1%; 95% CI: 5.6-14.3) than among older women (3.0%; 95% CI: 1.5-5.5). CONCLUSION: Primary hrHPV screening with cytology triage in women aged 30 years is an effective way to stratify women on CIN3+ risk and seems a feasible alternative to cytological screening. Repeat cytology after 1 year for hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology is however necessary before returning women to routine screening.

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) E6/E7 mRNA testing by PreTect HPV-Proofer for detection of cervical high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer among hrHPV DNA-positive women with normal cytology.

Our aim was to investigate whether high-risk HPV (hrHPV) mRNA detection by PreTect HPV-Proofer can be used to stratify hrHPV DNA-positive women of different cytology classes for risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (cervical precancer or cancer, i.e., cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher [≥ CIN2]). A total of 375 women participating in population-based screening, with a GP5+/6+-PCR hrHPV DNA-positive cervical scrape with normal cytology (n = 202), borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) (n = 88), or moderate dyskaryosis or worse (>BMD) (n = 85), were enrolled. Cervical scrapes were additionally subjected to HPV16/18/31/33/45 E6/E7 mRNA analysis by PreTect HPV-Proofer (mRNA test). Referral and follow-up policies were based on cytology, hrHPV DNA, and mRNA testing. The primary study endpoint was the number of ≥CIN2 detected within 3 years of follow-up. The mRNA positivity increased with the severity of cytological abnormality, ranging from 32% (64/202) in hrHPV DNA-positive women with normal cytology to 47% (41/88) in BMD and 68% (58/85) in >BMD groups (P < 0.01). Women with ≥ CIN2 were more likely to test positive by mRNA test (63%) than women without evidence of ≥ CIN2 (32%; P < 0.01). A positive mRNA test result conferred an increased ≥ CIN2 risk in hrHPV DNA-positive women with normal cytology, i.e., 0.55 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.34 to 0.76) in mRNA-positive versus 0.20 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.33) in mRNA-negative women. In hrHPV DNA-positive women with BMD or >BMD, the result of the mRNA test did not influence the ≥ CIN2 risk. In conclusion, mRNA testing by PreTect HPV-Proofer might be of value to select hrHPV DNA-positive women with normal cytology in need of immediate referral for colposcopy.

Comparison of Hybrid capture 2 testing at different thresholds with cytology as primary cervical screening test.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the performance of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing by hybrid capture 2 (HC2) with different thresholds for positivity, in comparison with conventional cytology. METHODS: We used data of 25,871 women (aged 30-60 years) from the intervention group of the VUSA-Screen study (VU University Medical Center and Saltro laboratory population-based cervical screening study), who were screened by cytology and hrHPV. Primary outcome measure was the number of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), detected within 3 years. We compared baseline cytology testing with three possible hrHPV screening strategies at different relative light unit/cutoff (RLU/CO) thresholds. RESULTS: Compared with baseline cytology testing, hrHPV DNA testing as a sole primary screening instrument did not yield a superior sensitivity, as well as lower colposcopy referral rate and lower false positivity rate at any RLU/CO threshold. The hrHPV screening at 1 RLU/CO threshold with cytology triage at baseline and at 12 months revealed the highest sensitivity for CIN3+ (relative sensitivity of 1.32), although still displaying a lower colposcopy referral rate than cytology testing (relative colposcopy rate of 0.94). Higher thresholds (>1 RLU/CO) yielded lower colposcopy rates, but resulted in substantial loss in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The hrHPV testing at the commonly used threshold of 1 RLU/CO with cytology triage at baseline and at 12 months showed a much higher sensitivity with a lower colposcopy referral rate compared with cytology testing.

Short-term adaptation of the cervico-ocular reflex.

The cervico-ocular reflex (COR) works in conjunction with the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) and the optokinetic reflex (OKR) in order to prevent visual slip over the retina during head movement. The COR induces eye movements in response to proprioceptive signals from the neck. We investigated whether the COR gain can be adapted by inducing a mismatch between vision and neck proprioception, in analogy to VOR adaptation. Thirteen healthy subjects were rotated in the dark in a trunk-to-head manner (the head fixed in space while the body passively rotated sinusoidally with a peak velocity of 1.25 degrees /s). Eye movements were recorded with infrared video-oculography under various adaptive conditions. Analysis showed a small but significant reduction in COR gain in the suppression conditions. This means that the cervico-ocular reflex can be modified after only 10 min of concurrent visual and cervical stimulation.