Triaging HPV‐positive women with normal cytology by p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology testing: Baseline and longitudinal data

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV)‐based screening results in a 2–5% lower specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared to Pap cytology. To identify HPV‐positive women with CIN2+, we retrospectively evaluated the cross‐sectional and longitudinal performance of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology participating in population‐based cervical screening. Conventional Pap cytology specimens of 847 of these women derived from the VUSA‐Screen study were dual‐stained for p16/Ki‐67. Cross‐sectional clinical performance in detecting CIN3 or worse (CIN3+), and CIN2+ was compared to that of baseline HPV genotyping. Moreover, 5‐year cumulative incidence risks (CIR) for CIN3+ (CIN2+) were determined. The sensitivity of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology for CIN3+ (CIN2+) was 73.3% (68.8%) with a specificity of 70.0% (72.8%). HPV16/18 genotyping showed a sensitivity for CIN3+ (CIN2+) of 46.7% (43.8%), with a specificity of 78.3% (79.4%). The 5‐year CIR for CIN3+ in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology was 6.9%. Testing these women with p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology resulted in a significantly lower CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% (p = 0.017) in case of a negative test result. A negative HPV16/18 genotyping test result also led to a lower 5‐year CIN3+ CIR of 3.6%. p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology detects more than 70% of underlying CIN3+ lesions in HPV‐positive women with normal cytology at baseline and is therefore suitable for triaging these women to colposcopy. Furthermore, the CIN3+ 5‐year CIR of 3.3% after a negative dual‐stain result is significantly lower compared to the 5‐year CIR of 6.9% in women without p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology triage.

[1]  M. von Knebel Doeberitz,et al.  Screening for Cervical Cancer Precursors With p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stained Cytology: Results of the PALMS Study , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Primary hrHPV DNA Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening: How to Manage Screen-Positive Women? A POBASCAM Trial Substudy , 2013, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[3]  S. Rosso,et al.  Risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during follow-up in HPV-positive women according to baseline p16-INK4A results: a prospective analysis of a nested substudy of the NTCC randomised controlled trial. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[4]  Julian Peto,et al.  Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. , 2012, Vaccine.

[5]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Long-term CIN3+ risk in women with abnormal cytology; role of hrHPV testing , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[6]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Evaluation of 14 triage strategies for HPV DNA‐positive women in population‐based cervical screening , 2012, International journal of cancer.

[7]  J. Berkhof,et al.  HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  J. Ordi,et al.  Triaging Pap cytology negative, HPV positive cervical cancer screening results with p16/Ki-67 Dual-stained cytology. , 2011, Gynecologic oncology.

[9]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Comparison of HPV and cytology triage algorithms for women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis in population‐based cervical screening (VUSA‐screen study) , 2009, International journal of cancer.

[10]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Diane Solomon,et al.  Risk assessment to guide the prevention of cervical cancer. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  M. Casparie,et al.  Pathology Databanking and Biobanking in The Netherlands, a Central Role for PALGA, the Nationwide Histopathology and Cytopathology Data Network and Archive , 2007, Cellular oncology : the official journal of the International Society for Cellular Oncology.

[13]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[14]  P. Snijders,et al.  POBASCAM, a population‐based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high‐risk HPV testing in cervical screening: Design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women , 2004, International journal of cancer.

[15]  L. Rozendaal,et al.  The Dutch CISOE-A framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996 , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[16]  U Menon,et al.  Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study , 2003, The Lancet.

[17]  A. Hanselaar Criteria for Organized Cervical Screening Programs , 2002, Acta Cytologica.

[18]  R. Moseley,et al.  Liquid‐based cytology: is this the way forward for cervical screening? , 2002, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[19]  P. Snijders,et al.  GP5+/6+ PCR followed by Reverse Line Blot Analysis Enables Rapid and High-Throughput Identification of Human Papillomavirus Genotypes , 2002, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[20]  P. Snijders,et al.  High‐risk HPV testing in women with borderline and mild dyskaryosis: long‐term follow‐up data and clinical relevance , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[21]  M. Pepe,et al.  Comparisons of Predictive Values of Binary Medical Diagnostic Tests for Paired Designs , 2000, Biometrics.

[22]  J. Walboomers,et al.  High risk human papillomavirus in women with normal cervical cytology prior to the development of abnormal cytology and colposcopy , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[23]  B. C. Choi,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[26]  M. Wells,et al.  Premalignant and malignant squamous lesions of the cervix , 2003 .