Explore the vast range of titles available.

Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians. We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models. We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69–82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72–92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83–89) and 87% (84–90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85–0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83–0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95–0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93–0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples. In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs. The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology.

The optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery for early stage cervical cancer is unknown. Tailored surveillance based on individual risks could contribute to improved efficiency and, subsequently, reduce costs in health care. The aim of this study was to establish the predictive value of cervical cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to detect recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+; including recurrent cervical cancer) after fertility-sparing surgery. In this nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank. All patients aged 18–40 years with cervical cancer of any histology who received fertility-sparing surgery (ie, large loop excision of the transformation zone, conisation, or trachelectomy) between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2020, were included. Pathology data from diagnosis, treatment, and during follow-up were analysed. The primary and secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of recurrent CIN2+ and recurrence-free survival, overall and stratified by results for cytology and high-risk HPV. 1548 patients were identified, of whom 1462 met the inclusion criteria. Of these included patients, 19 568 pathology reports were available. The median age at diagnosis was 31 years (IQR 30–35). After a median follow-up of 6·1 years (IQR 3·3–10·8), recurrent CIN2+ was diagnosed in 128 patients (cumulative incidence 15·0%, 95% CI 11·5–18·2), including 52 patients (cumulative incidence 5·4%, 95% CI 3·7–7·0) with recurrent cervical cancer. The overall 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89·3% (95% CI 87·4–91·3). By cytology at first follow-up visit within 12 months after fertility-sparing surgery, 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 92·1% (90·2–94·1) in patients with normal cytology, 84·6% (77·4–92·3) in those with low-grade cytology, and 43·1% (26·4–70·2) in those with high-grade cytology. By high-risk HPV status at first follow-up visit within 12 months after surgery, 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 91·1% (85·3–97·3) in patients who were negative for high-risk HPV and 73·6% (58·4–92·8) in those who were positive for high-risk HPV. Cumulative incidence of recurrent CIN2+ within 6 months after any follow-up visit (6–24 months) in patients negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology was 0·0–0·7% and with high-grade cytology was 0·0–33·3%. Cumulative incidence of recurrence in patients positive for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology were 0·0–15·4% and with high-grade cytology were 50·0–100·0%. None of the patients who were negative for high-risk HPV without high-grade cytology, at 6 months and 12 months, developed recurrence. Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6–24 months after fertility-sparing surgery, could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months. This group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery. An interval of 12 months seems to be safe after two consecutive negative tests for high-risk HPV with an absence of high-grade cytology, which accounts for nearly 75% of all patients who receive fertility-sparing surgery. KWF Dutch Cancer Society.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of p16/Ki-67 dual staining, for the identification of CIN in high-risk HPV-positive women from a non-responder screening cohort. P16/Ki-67 dual staining, Pap cytology, and HPV16/18 genotyping were performed on physician-taken liquid-based samples from 495 women who tested high-risk HPV positive on self-sampled material (PROHTECT-3B study). Different triage strategies involving p16/Ki-67 dual staining were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value for ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3, and compared to Pap cytology with a threshold of atypical cells of undetermined significance. Centrally revised histology or an adjusted endpoint with combined high-risk HPV negative and cytology negative follow-up at 6 months was used as gold standard. Pap cytology (threshold atypical cells of undetermined significance) triage of high-risk HPV-positive samples showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval: 85–98) with a specificity of 49% (95% confidence interval: 41–56) for ≥CIN3. Three triage strategies with p16/Ki-67 showed a significantly increased specificity with similar sensitivity. P16/Ki-67 triage of all high-risk HPV-positive samples had a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval: 84–97) and a specificity of 61% (95% confidence interval: 54–69) for ≥CIN3. Applying p16/Ki-67 triage to only high-risk HPV-positive women with low-grade Pap cytology showed a similar sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval: 84–97), with a specificity for ≥CIN3 of 64% (95% confidence interval: 56–71). For high-risk HPV-positive women with low-grade and normal Pap cytology, triage with p16/Ki-67 showed a sensitivity of 96% (95% confidence interval: 89–99), and a specificity of 58% (95% confidence interval: 50–65). HPV16/18 genotyping combined with Pap cytology showed a sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 similar to Pap cytology with an atypical cells of undetermined significance threshold. Because the quality of Pap cytology worldwide varies, and differences in sensitivity and specificity are limited between the three selected strategies, p16/Ki-67 triage of all high-risk HPV-positive samples would be the most reliable strategy in triage of high-risk HPV-positive women with an increased specificity and similar sensitivity compared with Pap cytology triage.

Several studies have shown that the human papilloma virus (HPV) test is a more sensitive and objective primary cervical cancer screening tool than cytology. Therefore, conversion of cytology into HPV screening (as is planned in The Netherlands and some other European regions) will result in a better protection against cervical cancer and high-grade precursor lesions. Moreover, offering self-sampling for HPV testing will increase screening attendance by re-attracting former non-attendees. However, triage of HPV positive women is necessary because the specificity of HPV testing is 2-4% lower than of cytology. Several triage strategies have been evaluated, of which two, with cytology testing included, are feasible and were recently recommended. As an alternative for cytology triage, objective, non-morphological disease markers are upcoming and so far have shown promising results. Finally, HPV testing can also contribute to a more efficient monitoring of women treated for high-grade cervical precursor lesions, permitting fewer follow-up visits.

Background Attendance rates of cervical screening programs can be increased by offering HPV self-sampling to non-attendees. Acceptability, DNA yield, lavage volumes and choice of hrHPV test can influence effectiveness of the self-sampling procedures and could therefore play a role in recruiting non-attendees. To increase user-friendliness, a frequently used lavage sampler was modified. In this study, we compared this second generation lavage device with the first generation device within similar birth cohorts. Methods Within a large self-sampling cohort-study among non-responders of the Dutch cervical screening program, a subset of 2,644 women received a second generation self-sampling lavage device, while 11,977 women, matched for age and ZIP-code, received the first generation model. The second generation device was different in shape, color, lavage volume, and packaging, in comparison to its first generation model. The Cochran’s test was used to compare both devices for hrHPV positivity rate and response rate. To correct for possible heterogeneity between age and ZIP codes in both groups the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity was used. A T-test was utilized to compare DNA yields of the obtained material in both groups. Results Median DNA yields were 90.4 μg/ml (95% CI 83.2-97.5) and 91.1 μg/ml (95% CI 77.8-104.4, p= 0.726) and hrHPV positivity rates were 8.2% and 6.9% (p= 0.419) per sample self-collected by the second - and the first generation of the device (p= 0.726), respectively. In addition, response rates were comparable for the two models (35.4% versus 34.4%, p= 0.654). Conclusions Replacing the first generation self-sampling device by an ergonomically improved, second generation device resulted in equal DNA yields, comparable hrHPV positivity rates and similar response rates. Therefore, it can be concluded that the clinical performance of the first and second generation models are similar. Moreover, participation of non-attendees in cervical cancer screening is probably not predominantly determined by the type of self-collection device.

Cytology is a widely used method of triaging women who test positive for human papillomavirus (HPV). However, self-sampled specimens, which can substantially increase participation in screening programmes, are not suitable for accurate cytological assessment. We investigated whether direct DNA methylation-based molecular triage on self-sampled cervicovaginal specimens was non-inferior to cytology triage on additional physician-collected cervical samples in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse in women who did not attend cervical screening programmes. In this randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, we invited women (aged 33–63 years) registered as non-attendees of cervical screening in the Netherlands in 2007 to submit a self-collected cervicovaginal sample for HPV testing. Using a computer-generated sequence, we randomly allocated women who tested positive for high-risk hrHPV on a self-sample to either triage by cytology on an additional physician-taken smear or direct triage on the self-sample by methylation analysis of MAL and miR-124-2 genes (1:1; stratified by age and region, with block sizes by age group). Triage-positive women in either group were referred for colposcopy. The primary endpoint was detection of CIN2 or worse, analysed by intention to treat. The non-inferiority margin was 0·80. This study is registered in the Primary Trial Register of the Netherlands, number NTR6026. We invited 46 001 women to participate, 12 819 of whom returned self-sampled material; 1038 samples tested positive for high-risk HPV. Between Nov 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2011, after exclusion of women who were ineligible, we enrolled and randomly allocated 515 women to methylation triage and 509 to cytology triage. The detection of CIN2 or worse with methylation triage was non-inferior to that with cytology triage (90 [17%] of 515 women vs 75 [15%] of 509 women; relative risk 1·19, 95% CI 0·90–1·57). Referral for colposcopy was more common in the molecular group (284 [55%] women) than in the cytology group (149 [29%] women; p<0·0001). Mean time to CIN2 or worse diagnosis was shorter in the molecular triage group (96 days, range 44–101) than in the cytology triage group (158 days, 71–222; p=0·00084). DNA methylation analysis of MAL and miR-124-2 genes on HPV-test-positive self-samples is non-inferior to cytology triage in the detection of CIN2 or worse, opening the way to full molecular screening. Midden-West and Oost Screening Organisations and Stichting Achmea Gezondheidszorg.