Explore the vast range of titles available.

Tests for the DNA of high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV) have a higher sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) than does cytological testing, but the necessity of such testing in cervical screening has been debated. Our aim was to determine whether the effectiveness of cervical screening improves when HPV DNA testing is implemented. Women aged 29–56 years who were participating in the regular cervical screening programme in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to combined cytological and HPV DNA testing or to conventional cytological testing only. After 5 years, combined cytological and HPV DNA testing were done in both groups. The primary outcome measure was the number of CIN3+ lesions detected. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN20781131. 8575 women in the intervention group and 8580 in the control group were recruited, followed up for sufficient time (≥6·5 years), and met eligibility criteria for our analyses. More CIN3+ lesions were detected at baseline in the intervention group than in the control group (68/8575 vs 40/8580, 70% increase, 95% CI 15–151; p=0·007). The number of CIN3+ lesions detected in the subsequent round was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (24/8413 vs 54/8456, 55% decrease, 95% CI 28–72; p=0·001). The number of CIN3+ lesions over the two rounds did not differ between groups. The implementation of HPV DNA testing in cervical screening leads to earlier detection of CIN3+ lesions. Earlier detection of such lesions could permit an extension of 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.

Primary analyses of a study in young women aged 16–26 years showed efficacy of the nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) vaccine against infections and disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and non-inferior HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 antibody responses when compared with quadrivalent HPV (qHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine. We aimed to report efficacy of the 9vHPV vaccine for up to 6 years following first administration and antibody responses over 5 years. We undertook this randomised, double-blind, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety study of the 9vHPV vaccine study at 105 study sites in 18 countries. Women aged 16–26 years old who were healthy, with no history of abnormal cervical cytology, no previous abnormal cervical biopsy results, and no more than four lifetime sexual partners were randomly assigned (1:1) by central randomisation and block sizes of 2 and 2 to receive three intramuscular injections over 6 months of 9vHPV or qHPV (control) vaccine. All participants, study investigators, and study site personnel, laboratory staff, members of the sponsor's study team, and members of the adjudication pathology panel were masked to vaccination groups. The primary outcomes were incidence of high-grade cervical disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, invasive cervical carcinoma), vulvar disease (vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vulvar cancer), and vaginal disease (vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vaginal cancer) related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1·5 times) of anti-HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 geometric mean titres (GMT). Tissue samples were adjudicated for histopathology diagnosis and tested for HPV DNA. Serum antibody responses were assessed by competitive Luminex immunoassay. The primary evaluation of efficacy was a superiority analysis in the per-protocol efficacy population, supportive efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, and the primary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543543. Between Sept 26, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, we recruited and randomly assigned 14 215 participants to receive 9vHPV (n=7106) or qHPV (n=7109) vaccine. In the per-protocol population, the incidence of high-grade cervical, vulvar and vaginal disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 was 0·5 cases per 10 000 person-years in the 9vHPV and 19·0 cases per 10 000 person-years in the qHPV groups, representing 97·4% efficacy (95% CI 85·0–99·9). HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 GMTs were non-inferior in the 9vHPV versus qHPV group from month 1 to 3 years after vaccination. No clinically meaningful differences in serious adverse events were noted between the study groups. 11 participants died during the study follow-up period (six in the 9vHPV vaccine group and five in the qHPV vaccine group); none of the deaths were considered vaccine-related. The 9vHPV vaccine prevents infection, cytological abnormalities, high-grade lesions, and cervical procedures related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both the 9vHPV vaccine and qHPV vaccine had a similar immunogenicity profile with respect to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine efficacy was sustained for up to 6 years. The 9vHPV vaccine could potentially provide broader coverage and prevent 90% of cervical cancer cases worldwide. Merck & Co, Inc.

Screening for cervical cancer is not a component of health care in rural India. This article reports on a trial of cervical-cancer screening by human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, cytologic analysis, or visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid in rural villages. The results, as compared with those in a group that received no screening, showed that a single round of HPV testing significantly reduced the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and mortality in rural Indian villages. A trial in rural Indian villages of cervical-cancer screening by human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, cytologic analysis, or visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid showed that a single round of HPV testing significantly reduced the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and mortality. In developing countries, there is a lack of effective screening programs for cervical cancer. In these countries, no clinically significant reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer has occurred during the past three decades. 1 – 4 In developed countries, by contrast, there has been a major decline in cervical-cancer mortality after the introduction of large-scale cytologic testing. The limited success of such screening in developing countries has stimulated evaluation of testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) and visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA). In October 1999, we initiated a cluster-randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a single . . .

Objectives To provide an early risk assessment of extending screening intervals beyond five years for a human papillomavirus (HPV) based cervical screening programme in the Netherlands.Design 14 year follow-up of a population based randomised cohort from the POBASCAM randomised trial. Setting Organised cervical screening in the Netherlands, based on a programme of three screening rounds (each round done every five years).Participants 43 339 women aged 29-61 years with a negative HPV and/or negative cytology test participating in the POBASCAM trial. Interventions Women randomly assigned to HPV and cytology co-testing (intervention) or cytology testing only (control), and managed accordingly.Main outcome measures Cumulative incidence of cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). Associations with age were expressed as incidence rate ratios. In HPV positive women, reductions in CIN3+ incidence after negative cytology, HPV type 16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat cytology were estimated.Results The cumulative incidence of cervical cancer (0.09%) and CIN3+ (0.56%) among HPV negative women in the intervention group after three rounds of screening were similar to the cumulative among women with negative cytology in the control group after two rounds (0.09% and 0.69%, respectively). Cervical cancer and CIN3+ risk ratios were 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 2.31, P=0.95) and 0.82 (0.62 to 1.09, P=0.17), respectively. CIN3+ incidence was 72.2% (95% confidence interval 61.6% to 79.9%, P<0.001) lower among HPV negative women aged at least 40 years than among younger women. No significant association between cervical cancer incidence and age could be demonstrated. CIN3+ incidence among HPV positive women with negative cytology, HPV 16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat cytology was 10.4 (95% confidence interval 5.9 to 18.4) times higher than among HPV negative women.Conclusions Long term incidences of cervical cancer and CIN3+ were low among HPV negative women in this study cohort, and supports an extension of the cervical screening interval beyond five years for women aged 40 years and older. HPV positive women with subsequent negative cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat cytology have at least a fivefold higher risk of CIN3+ than HPV negative women, indicating that HPV based programmes with long intervals (>five years) should be implemented with risk stratification.Trial registration POBASCAM trial number ISRCTN20781131.

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).

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.

Evidence on invasive cervical cancer prevention among older women is limited, especially with the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening and longer interval. We conducted a long-term follow-up of the first phase of a randomized healthcare policy trial in cervical screening, targeting women aged 56 to 61 years old, to investigate the effectiveness of primary HPV-based screening in preventing invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and the safety of extending screening interval. The randomized healthcare policy trial of primary HPV-based cervical screening targeted women residing in Stockholm-Gotland region during 2012 to 2016, aged 30 to 64 years. The trial aimed to investigate the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) within 24 months and long-term protection against invasive cervical cancer, comparing primary HPV-based screening to primary cytology-based screening. The initial phase of the trial, which was the focus of this study, targeted women aged 56 to 61 years old in 2012 to 2014 who were randomized to primary cytology arm (n = 7,401) or primary HPV arm (n = 7,318). We used national registries to identify the subsequent cervical tests and all histopathological diagnoses including ICC before December 31, 2022. We calculated cumulative incidence, incidence rate (IR) and IR ratio (IRR) of ICC, by baseline test result. Furthermore, we calculated longitudinal sensitivity and specificity for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by receipt of primary cytology or primary HPV test for the recommended screening intervals in this age group. We found that the IR of ICC among women in the primary HPV arm was 7.2/100,000 person-years (py) and 3.0 for women who tested HPV negative, compared to 18.4/100,000 py among women in the primary cytology arm and 18.8 for women who tested cytology negative. We further found that the overall point estimate for the risk of ICC over 10 years of follow-up among women in the primary HPV arm was 0.39 compared to women in the primary cytology arm, but this was not statistically significant (IRR: 0.39; 95% confidence interval, CI [0.14, 1.09]; p = 0.0726). However, among women with a negative test result at baseline, women in the primary HPV arm had an 84% lower risk of ICC compared to women in the primary cytology arm (IRR: 0.16; 95% CI [0.04, 0.72]; p = 0.0163). Moreover, primary HPV testing had a higher sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ within a 7-year interval than primary cytology testing within a 5-year interval (89.6% versus 50.9%, p < 0.0001). We were limited by a partial imbalance of invitations during the follow-up between the 2 arms which may have led to an underestimation of the effectiveness of primary HPV-based screening. In this study, we observed that women over 55 years of age who received a primary negative HPV test result had substantially lower risk of CIN2+, and ICC, compared to women who received a primary negative cytology result. This should apply even if the screening interval were prolonged to 7 years. NCT01511328.

The Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT), a phase III randomized clinical trial, provided the initial data that one dose of the HPV vaccine could provide durable protection against HPV infection. Although the study design was to administer all participants three doses of HPV or control vaccine, 20% of women did not receive the three-dose regimens, mostly due to involuntary reasons unrelated to vaccination. In 2011, we reported that a single dose of the bivalent HPV vaccine could be as efficacious as three doses of the vaccine using the endpoint of persistent HPV infection accumulated over the first four years of the trial; findings independently confirmed in the GSK-sponsored PATRICIA trial. Antibody levels after one dose, although lower than levels elicited by three doses, were 9-times higher than levels elicited by natural infection. Importantly, levels remained essentially constant over at least seven years, suggesting that the observed protection provided by a single dose might be durable. Much work has been done to assure these non-randomized findings are valid. Yet, the group of recipients who received one dose of the bivalent HPV vaccine in the CVT and PATRICIA trials was small and not randomly selected nor blinded to the number of doses received. The next phase of research is to conduct a formal randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the protection afforded by a single dose of HPV vaccine. Complementary studies are in progress to bridge our findings to other populations, and to further document the long-term durability of antibody response following a single dose.

ObjectiveDue to long lag time between infection/cancer diagnoses human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs will deliver vaccine efficacy (VE) estimates against cancer end-points late. Cancer registry follow-up of population-based, randomised trial cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated women was undertaken for the estimation of VE against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade three and invasive cancer (CIN3+).MethodsWe report interim results with 98 561 person years of Finnish Cancer Registry -based follow-up of individually and/or cluster randomised cohorts of HPV-16/18 vaccinated and unvaccinated adolescent women enrolled in June 2003/2005, and between May 2004 and April 2005, respectively. The cohorts comprised 15 627 18- to 19-year-old unvaccinated women (NCT01393470), and 2 401 and 64 16- to 17-year-old HPV-16/18 vaccinated women participating the PATRICIA (NCT00122681) and HPV-012 (NCT00169494) trials, respectively. The age-aligned passive follow-up started 6 months after the clinical trials’ end.ResultsDuring the follow-up of 4.5 to 10 years post enrolment we identified 75 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) and 4 cases of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) in the unvaccinated cohort, and 4 CIN3 cases in the HPV-16/18 vaccinated women. Diagnostic blocks were available for HPV typing from 87% of the cases. CIN3+ lesions were detectable in 54 cases. HPV16 was found in 26 of 50 unvaccinated CIN3+ cases, and in 3 CIN3+ cases in the HPV-16/18 vaccinated women. The latter were all baseline positive for cervical HPV16 DNA. Baseline data was not available for the unvaccinated women. Intention-to-treat VE against any CIN3+ was 66% (95% CI 8, 88).ConclusionsTen years post vaccination the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 vaccine shows continued efficacy against CIN3+ irrespectively of HPV type. Vaccine efficacy was not observed in baseline HPV16 DNA positive subjects.Trial registration numberNCT01393470.