HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica.

CONTEXT Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are known to cause most cervical cancer worldwide, but the utility of HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer prevention has not been determined. OBJECTIVE To provide comprehensive data on the screening performance of HPV testing for the most common carcinogenic types, at different levels of analytic sensitivity. DESIGN Laboratory analysis conducted during 1993-1995, using 3 cytologic techniques and cervicography, followed by colposcopic examination of women with any abnormal cervical finding, to detect all high-grade intraepithelial lesions and cancer (reference standard of clinically significant disease). The HPV testing was performed subsequently with masking regarding clinical findings. SETTING Guanacaste Province, Costa Rica, a region with a high age-adjusted incidence of cervical cancer. PARTICIPANTS Of 11742 randomly selected women, 8554 nonpregnant, sexually active women without hysterectomies underwent initial HPV DNA testing using the original Hybrid Capture Tube test; a stratified subsample of 1119 specimens was retested using the more analytically sensitive second generation assay, the Hybrid Capture II test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Receiver operating characteristic analysis of detection of cervical high-grade intraepithelial lesions and cancer by HPV DNA testing based on different cut points of positivity. RESULTS An analytic sensitivity of 1.0 pg/mL using the second generation assay would have permitted detection of 88.4% of 138 high-grade lesions and cancers (all 12 cancers were HPV-positive), with colposcopic referral of 12.3% of women. Papanicolaou testing using atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance as a cut point for referral resulted in 77.7% sensitivity and 94.2% specificity, with 6.9% referred. Specificity of the second generation assay for positivity for high-grade lesions and cancer was 89.0%, with 33.8% of remaining HPV DNA-positive subjects having low-grade or equivocal microscopically evident lesions. The higher detection threshold of 10 pg/mL used with the original assay had a sensitivity of 74.8% and a specificity of 93.4%. Lower levels of detection with the second generation assay (<1 pg/mL) proved clinically nonspecific without gains in diagnostic sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS In this study population, a cut point of 1.0 pg/mL using the second generation assay permitted sensitive detection of cervical high-grade lesions and cancer, yielding an apparently optimal trade-off between high sensitivity and reasonable specificity for this test. The test will perform best in settings in which sensitive detection of high-grade lesions and cancer is paramount. Because HPV prevalence varies by population, HPV testing positive predictive value for detection of high-grade lesions and cancer will vary accordingly, with implications for utility relative to other cervical cancer screening methods.

[1]  M. Zweig,et al.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[2]  A. Lorincz Hybrid Capture™ Method for Detection of Human Papillomavirus DNA in Clinical Specimens: A Tool for Clinical Management of Equivocal Pap Smears and for Population Screening , 1996 .

[3]  L Irwig,et al.  Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. , 1995, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  Daniel S. Miller,et al.  Cancer incidence and mortality, 1973‐1995 , 1998 .

[5]  Julian Peto,et al.  Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus in Cervical Cancer: a Worldwide Perspective , 1995 .

[6]  C. Meijer,et al.  Relation of human papilloma virus status to cervical lesions and consequences for cervical-cancer screening: a prospective study , 1999, The Lancet.

[7]  W. Reeves,et al.  Human papillomavirus testing as triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: sensitivity, specificity, and cost-effectiveness. , 1997, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  C. Woodman,et al.  Analysis of human papillomavirus type 16 E6-E7 transcription in cervical carcinomas and normal cervical epithelium using the polymerase chain reaction. , 1990, The Journal of general virology.

[9]  R. Burk,et al.  PCR detection of human papillomavirus: comparison between MY09/MY11 and GP5+/GP6+ primer systems , 1997, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[10]  L. Mango,et al.  Cervicography Screening for Cervical Cancer Among 8,460 Women in a High-Risk Population , 1999 .

[11]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA in abnormal smears as a predictor of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 1994, British Journal of Cancer.

[12]  Human papillomavirus testing by hybrid capture appears to be useful in triaging women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. , 1995, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  L. Brinton,et al.  The ma le factor in the etiology of cervical cancer among sexually monogamous women , 1989, International journal of cancer.

[14]  A. Schneider,et al.  Screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3: validity of cytologic study, cervicography, and human papillomavirus detection. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  K. Holmes,et al.  Comparison of Southern transfer hybridization and dot filter hybridization for detection of cervical human papillomavirus infection with types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 35. , 1990, American journal of clinical pathology.

[16]  David R. Scott,et al.  Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. , 1994, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[17]  L. Mango,et al.  Performance of a semiautomated papanicolaou smear screening system , 1998 .

[18]  L. Mango,et al.  Cervicography screening for cervical cancer among 8460 women in a high-risk population. , 1999, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  Schiffman Mh Validation of hybridization assays: correlation of filter in situ, dot blot and PCR with Southern blot. , 1992 .

[20]  L. Mango,et al.  Design and methods of a population-based natural history study of cervical neoplasia in a rural province of Costa Rica: the Guanacaste Project. , 1997, Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health.

[21]  C. Crum,et al.  Commentary Detecting Every Genital Papilloma Virus Infection What Does It Mean , 1998 .

[22]  C. Peyton,et al.  Comparison of PCR- and Hybrid Capture-Based Human Papillomavirus Detection Systems Using Multiple Cervical Specimen Collection Strategies , 1998, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[23]  N. Kiviat,et al.  The natural history of human papillomavirus type 16 capsid antibodies among a cohort of university women. , 1996, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[24]  J. Peto,et al.  Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide , 1999, The Journal of pathology.

[25]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[26]  Utility of liquid‐based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening , 2000, Cancer.

[27]  Determinants of the geographic variation of invasive cervical cancer in Costa Rica. , 1993, Bulletin of the Pan American Health Organization.

[28]  M. Schiffman,et al.  Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. , 1994, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[29]  S. Srivastava Early Detection of Cancer: Molecular Markers , 1994 .