Explore the vast range of titles available.

Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is reportedly more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The effectiveness of HPV testing in primary cervical screening was assessed in the ARTISTIC trial, which was done over two screening rounds approximately 3 years apart (2001–03 and 2004–07) by comparing liquid-based cytology (LBC) combined with HPV testing against LBC alone. Women aged 20–64 years who were undergoing routine screening as part of the English National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme in Greater Manchester were randomly assigned (between July, 2001, and September, 2003) in a ratio of 3:1 to either combined LBC and HPV testing in which the results were revealed and acted on, or to combined LBC and HPV testing where the HPV result was concealed from the patient and investigator. The primary outcome was the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in the second screening round, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN25417821. There were 24 510 eligible women at entry (18 386 in the revealed group, 6124 in the concealed group). In the first round of screening 233 women (1·27%) in the revealed group had CIN3+, compared with 80 (1·31%) women in the concealed group (odds ratio [OR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·75–1·25; p>0·2). There was an unexpectedly large drop in the proportion of women with CIN3+ between the first and second rounds of screening in both groups, at 0·25% (29 of 11 676) in the revealed group and 0·47% (18 of 3866 women) in the concealed group (OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·30–0·96; p=0·042). For both rounds combined, the proportion of women with CIN3+ were 1·51% (revealed) and 1·77% (concealed) (OR 0·85, 95% CI 0·67–1·08; p>0·2). LBC combined with HPV testing resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of CIN3+ in the second round of screening compared with LBC screening alone, but the effect was small. Over the two screening rounds combined, co-testing did not detect a higher rate of CIN3+ or CIN2+ than LBC alone. Potential changes in screening methodology should be assessed over at least two screening rounds. National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Aberrant DNA methylation is an important cancer hallmark, yet the dynamics of DNA methylation changes in human carcinogenesis remain largely unexplored. Moreover, the role of DNA methylation for prediction of clinical outcome is still uncertain and confined to specific cancers. Here we perform the most comprehensive study of DNA methylation changes throughout human carcinogenesis, analysing 27,578 CpGs in each of 1,475 samples, ranging from normal cells in advance of non-invasive neoplastic transformation to non-invasive and invasive cancers and metastatic tissue. We demonstrate that hypermethylation at stem cell PolyComb Group Target genes (PCGTs) occurs in cytologically normal cells three years in advance of the first morphological neoplastic changes, while hypomethylation occurs preferentially at CpGs which are heavily Methylated in Embryonic Stem Cells (MESCs) and increases significantly with cancer invasion in both the epithelial and stromal tumour compartments. In contrast to PCGT hypermethylation, MESC hypomethylation progresses significantly from primary to metastatic cancer and defines a poor prognostic signature in four different gynaecological cancers. Finally, we associate expression of TET enzymes, which are involved in active DNA demethylation, to MESC hypomethylation in cancer. These findings have major implications for cancer and embryonic stem cell biology and establish the importance of systemic DNA hypomethylation for predicting prognosis in a wide range of different cancers.

To ensure that the emerging methods for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples in cervical screening are evaluated robustly. We assess paired study designs for relative sensitivity of self-collected vs. traditional clinician-collected samples in detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Designs considered are (D1) both samples at screening, with clinical actions triggered by HPV positivity; (D2) offering a self-sample test to clinician-collected HPV-positive women; (D3) as D2 but using a repeat clinician-sample as comparator; (D4) offering a choice of self- vs. clinician-sampling, and the alternative test in HPV-positive women; (D5) paired samples at referral appointment. D1 is simple to analyze but requires the largest sample size and referral of self-sample positive, clinician-sample negative women. D2 requires a much smaller sample size, and no change to clinical practice, and could be used to rule-in a test because estimates are conservative (against self-sampling). D3 mitigates this bias but requires a second clinician sample. D4 is only manageable where self-sampling already occurs. The liberal D5 might be used to rule-out a self-sampling test. A universal recommendation for an optimal study design is challenging. Staged validation might be useful with D5 as a gatekeeper for D1-D4. •It is important to understand self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) test sensitivity.•Most studies done previously in the field are at risk of spectrum bias.•Currently no consensus study design guidelines, unlike for clinician-collected HPV assays.•Paired designs to estimate relative sensitivity of self-collection tests are reviewed.•A flexible, staged, adaptive design for evaluation is recommended.

BackgroundLong-term follow-up of large cohorts is needed to determine the effects of HPV and screening on CIN3 (grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) and ICC (invasive cervical cancer).MethodsWomen were recruited when attending for routine cervical screening in Greater Manchester, UK: 1987–93 for the Manchester Cohort (MC: 47,625 women) and 2001–03 for the ARTISTIC Cohort (AC: 24,496 women). Both were followed through national registration for cancer incidence and mortality to 2020.ResultsRisk patterns following HPV infection differed for CIN3 and ICC. Risk of ICC in the MC rises for 30 years following a single positive HPV test, reaching 2.5% (95% CI: 1.3–4.5%). A similar pattern was seen in the AC, but the risks of cancer were approximately halved. CIN3 was diagnosed much sooner in the AC due to more efficient cytology. More sensitive HPV testing was able to better predict future risk.ConclusionThe sensitivity of HPV testing and cytology influences the CIN3 detection rate. Sensitive HPV testing enables effective risk stratification. Increased risk of ICC is observed 15–30 years after HPV infection. Women testing HPV + should be followed until their infection clears. Discharging women from screening programmes whilst they remain HPV + may not be safe, even if cytology and colposcopy tests are normal.

To provide the first report on the main outcomes from the prevalence and incidence rounds of a large pilot of routine primary high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in England, compared with contemporaneous primary liquid based cytology screening. Observational study. The English Cervical Screening Programme. 578 547 women undergoing cervical screening in primary care between May 2013 and December 2014, with follow-up until May 2017; 183 970 (32%) were screened with hrHPV testing. Routine cervical screening with hrHPV testing with liquid based cytology triage and two early recalls for women who were hrHPV positive and cytology negative, following the national screening age and interval recommendations. Frequency of referral for a colposcopy; adherence to early recall; and relative detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse from hrHPV testing compared with liquid based cytology in two consecutive screening rounds. Baseline hrHPV testing and early recall required approximately 80% more colposcopies, (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 1.82), but detected substantially more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than liquid based cytology (1.49 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 1.43 to 1.55; 1.44 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, 1.36 to 1.51) and for cervical cancer (1.27, 0.99 to 1.63). Attendance at early recall and colposcopy referral were 80% and 95%, respectively. At the incidence screen, the 33 506 women screened with hrHPV testing had substantially less cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse than the 77 017 women screened with liquid based cytology (0.14, 0.09 to 0.23). In England, routine primary hrHPV screening increased the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer by approximately 40% and 30%, respectively, compared with liquid based cytology. The very low incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse after three years supports extending the screening interval.

In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. 176 464 women aged 20–64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1 214 415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40–0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46–1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25–0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15–0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 105 (1·1–12·1) and 8·7 per 105 (3·3–18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 105 (7·9–27·0) and 36·0 per 105 (23·2–53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14–0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49–1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30–34 years (0·36, 0·14–0·94). HPV-based screening provides 60–70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health.

AbstractObjectivesTo provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay.DesignObservational study.SettingReal world data from the English HPV screening pilot’s first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019).Participants1 341 584 women.InterventionsCervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities.Main outcome measuresDetection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test.ResultsFor women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50).ConclusionsThese data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.

Introduction/BackgroundUrine human papillomavirus (HPV) testing shows promise for cervical screening and may improve uptake. Our aim was to (1) determine the clinical performance of urine HPV for CIN2+ detection in colposcopy and general screening populations; and (2) ascertain its acceptability to regular and poor attenders of cervical screening, including people from LGBTQIA+ and ethnically diverse backgrounds.MethodologyWe tested matched cervical and urine samples for high-risk HPV using Roche cobas-8800 at cervical thresholds. Colposcopy clinic attendees were randomised to provide a first-void urine sample using the Colli-Pee® device (Novosanis, 10mls+preservative) or a standard pot. Primary care attendees collected their urine using the Colli-Pee device. The acceptability of urine HPV testing was assessed in trial participants and people from LGBTQIA+ and ethnically-diverse backgrounds using a co-created national survey.Results465 colposcopy and 1059 primary care attendees provided matched samples (total n=1517). Their median age was 35.0 years (IQR 29–44) and 77.5% were White British. Urine HPV sensitivity for CIN2+ detection was higher with Colli-Pee (90.3%, 95%CI=83.7–94.9) than standard pot-collected urine (73.4%, 95%CI=64.7–80.9, p=0.0005). Urine sensitivity for CIN2+ detection was 91.2% (95%CI=85.2–95.4) vs 98.5% (95%CI=94.8–99.8, relative sensitivity 0.93) in cervical samples and specificity was 78.5% (95%CI=76.0–80.9) vs 80.5% (95%CI=78.1–82.8, relative specificity 0.98). Acceptability for urine-based cervical screening was good with 62.4% preferring urine/having no preference. Acceptability of urine sampling was further assessed in LGBTQIA+ and ethnically-diverse communities, with 47% of 211 transgender and 22% of 233 non-White individuals choosing urine as their preferred future screening method.ConclusionHPV tested Colli-Pee-collected urine shows similar test accuracy for CIN2+ detection compared to routine cervical screening. Improved test accuracy could be achieved with urine-specific thresholds for HPV positivity. Urine is broadly acceptable to attenders and some groups of non-attenders (eg LGBTQIA+) but others (eg ethnically diverse) may prefer clinician sampling, making choice important.DisclosuresRoche provided this study with the testing kits to undergo the testing with the Roche Cobas 8800 hr-HPV assay. Novosanis provided the Colli-pee urine collection devices for the study. There are no other conflicts of interests.

Background In the English pilot of primary cervical screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV), we exploited natural viral clearance over 24 months to minimise unnecessary referral of HR-HPV+ women with negative cytology. Three laboratories were permitted to use 16/18 genotyping to select women for referral at 12-month recall. We estimated the clinical impact of this early genotyping referral. Methods The observed numbers of women referred to colposcopy and with detected high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+), and of women who did not attend early recall in the three laboratories were compared with those estimated to represent a situation without an early genotyping referral. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the differences between the protocols were calculated by using a parametric bootstrap. Results Amongst 127,238 screened women, 16,097 (13%) had HR-HPV infections. The genotyping protocol required 5.9% (95% CI: 4.4–7.7) additional colposcopies and led to a detection of 1.2% additional CIN2+ (95% CI: 0.6–2.0), while 2.3% (95% CI: 2.1–2.5) fewer HR-HPV+/cytology− women did not attend the early recall compared with the non-genotyping protocol. Conclusions In a screening programme with high quality of triage cytology and high adherence to early recall,16/18 genotyping of persistent HPV infections does not substantially increase CIN2+ detection.