OBJECTIVE: Following guidelines, women evaluated by colposcopy, but not found to have a precancerous lesion, could be tested again at 12 months for carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV). Compared with pooled-probe testing, measuring HPV genotype-specific persistence might better predict subsequent grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3). METHODS:For women enrolled in the immediate colposcopy arm of the Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) Triage Study (ALTS), who underwent enrollment colposcopy but were without prevalently detected CIN2 or worse (CIN2+; n = 671), we compared 1-year HPV persistence, as measured by a pooled HPV genotype test (hybrid capture 2; hc2) versus a research PCR HPV genotyping test (line blot assay; LBA) as predictors of "missed prevalent" or possibly incident CIN3 diagnosed between 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Thirty-two (4.8%) women were diagnosed with subsequent CIN3. Testing repeatedly hc2-positive (hc2+) was more common (49.0%) than genotype-specific persistence as detected by LBA (30.3%, P < 0.01). Although absolute risks of CIN3 following repeat hc2+ or genotype-specific persistence were similar (8.8% versus 8.4%, P = 0.86), repeat hc2+ was more sensitive for identifying CIN3 than genotype-specific persistence (90.6% versus 53.1%, P < 0.01). Among 329 women repeatedly hc2+, women with persistent HPV16 were at higher risk of CIN3 than non-HPV16-persistent women (23.1% versus 7.0%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For postcolposcopy management, 1-year HPV persistence as measured by hc2 would recall more women but was more sensitive and similarly predictive for CIN3 in the following year than detection of genotype-specific persistence by LBA. IMPACT: Although find little utility for measuring type-specific persistence, testing for persistent HPV16 might be clinically useful.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Following guidelines, women evaluated by colposcopy, but not found to have a precancerous lesion, could be tested again at 12 months for carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV). Compared with pooled-probe testing, measuring HPV genotype-specific persistence might better predict subsequent grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3). METHODS: For women enrolled in the immediate colposcopy arm of the Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) Triage Study (ALTS), who underwent enrollment colposcopy but were without prevalently detected CIN2 or worse (CIN2+; n = 671), we compared 1-year HPV persistence, as measured by a pooled HPV genotype test (hybrid capture 2; hc2) versus a research PCR HPV genotyping test (line blot assay; LBA) as predictors of "missed prevalent" or possibly incident CIN3 diagnosed between 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Thirty-two (4.8%) women were diagnosed with subsequent CIN3. Testing repeatedly hc2-positive (hc2+) was more common (49.0%) than genotype-specific persistence as detected by LBA (30.3%, P < 0.01). Although absolute risks of CIN3 following repeat hc2+ or genotype-specific persistence were similar (8.8% versus 8.4%, P = 0.86), repeat hc2+ was more sensitive for identifying CIN3 than genotype-specific persistence (90.6% versus 53.1%, P < 0.01). Among 329 women repeatedly hc2+, women with persistent HPV16 were at higher risk of CIN3 than non-HPV16-persistent women (23.1% versus 7.0%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For postcolposcopy management, 1-year HPV persistence as measured by hc2 would recall more women but was more sensitive and similarly predictive for CIN3 in the following year than detection of genotype-specific persistence by LBA. IMPACT: Although find little utility for measuring type-specific persistence, testing for persistent HPV16 might be clinically useful.
Authors: P E Gravitt; C L Peyton; T Q Alessi; C M Wheeler; F Coutlée; A Hildesheim; M H Schiffman; D R Scott; R J Apple Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Diane Solomon; Diane Davey; Robert Kurman; Ann Moriarty; Dennis O'Connor; Marianne Prey; Stephen Raab; Mark Sherman; David Wilbur; Thomas Wright; Nancy Young Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-04-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nubia Muñoz; F Xavier Bosch; Silvia de Sanjosé; Rolando Herrero; Xavier Castellsagué; Keerti V Shah; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Susanne K Kjaer; Adriaan J C van den Brule; Gerson Paull; Edith I Svare; Mark E Sherman; Birthe L Thomsen; Mette Suntum; Johannes E Bock; Paul A Poll; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: BMJ Date: 2002-09-14
Authors: Marc Arbyn; Frank Buntinx; Marc Van Ranst; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Joakim Dillner Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Eileen O Dareng; Bing Ma; Sally N Adebamowo; Ayotunde Famooto; Jacques Ravel; Paul P Pharoah; Clement A Adebamowo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 4.379