Literature DB >> 21865084

Performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25 years and older: a subanalysis of the ATHENA study.

Philip E Castle1, Mark H Stoler, Thomas C Wright, Abha Sharma, Teresa L Wright, Catherine M Behrens.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ATHENA study was designed to assess the performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping compared with liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening in a large US population aged 21 years and older. We did a subanalysis of this population to compare the screening performance of the cobas HPV test versus liquid-based cytology in women aged 25 years and older, and assess management strategies for HPV-positive women.
METHODS: Women aged 25 years or older who were attending routine cervical screening were enrolled from 61 clinical centres in 23 US states. Cervical specimens were obtained for liquid-based cytology and HPV DNA testing with two first-generation assays (Amplicor HPV test and Linear Array HPV genotyping test) and the second-generation cobas HPV test (with individual HPV16 and HPV18 detection). Colposcopy and diagnostic biopsies were done on women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse cytology, those who tested positive with either first-generation HPV test, and a random sample of women who tested negative for HPV and cytology. All women not selected for colposcopy received their results and exited the study. Participants and colposcopists were masked to cytology and HPV test results until the colposcopy visit was completed. The primary endpoint for this substudy was histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or worse. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00709891; the study is in the follow-up phase, which is due to be completed in December, 2012.
FINDINGS: From May 27, 2008, to Aug 27, 2009, 47,208 women were enrolled, of whom 41,955 met our eligibility criteria. Valid cobas HPV and liquid-based cytology test results were available for 40,901 women (97%), who were included in this analysis. Of these, 4275 women (10%) tested cobas HPV positive and 2617 (6%) had abnormal cytology. 431 women were diagnosed with CIN2 or worse and 274 with CIN3 or worse. In women who had colposcopy, the cobas HPV test was more sensitive than liquid-based cytology for detection of CIN3 or worse (252/274 [92·0%, 95% CI 88·1-94·6] vs 146/274 [53·3%, 95% CI 47·4-59·1]; difference 38·7%, 95% CI 31·9-45·5; p<0·0001). Addition of liquid-based cytology to HPV testing increased sensitivity for CIN3 or worse to 96·7% (265/274, 95% CI 93·9-98·3), but increased the number of screen positives by 35·2% (5783/40,901 vs 4275/40,901) compared with HPV testing alone. As a triage test to identify CIN3 or worse in HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both alone was equivalent to detection of ASC-US or worse alone in terms of sensitivity (150/252 [59·5%] vs 133/252 [52·8%]; p=0·11) and positive predictive value (PPV) (150/966 [15·5%] vs 133/940 [14·1%]; p=0·20). Among HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had better sensitivity (182/252 [72·2%]; p<0·0001) and similar PPV (182/1314 [13·9%]; p=0·70) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone. Furthermore, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had higher sensitivity (165/252 [65·5%]; p=0·0011) and PPV (165/1013 [16·3%]; p=0·031) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone.
INTERPRETATION: HPV testing with separate HPV16 and HPV18 detection could provide an alternative, more sensitive, and efficient strategy for cervical cancer screening than do methods based solely on cytology. FUNDING: Roche Molecular Systems.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21865084     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70188-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  146 in total

1.  Comparison of the cobas Human Papillomavirus (HPV) test with the hybrid capture 2 and linear array HPV DNA tests.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; Mark Sadorra; Brandon J Lamere; Randi Kail; Carrie Aldrich; Walter Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Gynecological cancer: More evidence supporting human papillomavirus testing.

Authors:  Philip E Castle
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA triage of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with cobas 4800 HPV and Hybrid Capture 2 tests for detection of high-grade lesions of the uterine cervix.

Authors:  Simon Grandjean Lapierre; Philippe Sauthier; Marie-Hélène Mayrand; Simon Dufresne; Patrick Petignat; Diane Provencher; Pierre Drouin; Philippe Gauthier; Marie-Josée Dupuis; Bertrand Michon; Stéphan Ouellet; Rachid Hadjeres; Alex Ferenczy; Eduardo L Franco; François Coutlée
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Human Papillomavirus Laboratory Testing: the Changing Paradigm.

Authors:  Eileen M Burd
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 26.132

5.  Evaluating the Utility and Prevalence of HPV Biomarkers in Oral Rinses and Serology for HPV-related Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Authors:  Gypsyamber D'Souza; Gwendolyn Clemens; Tanya Troy; Rachel G Castillo; Linda Struijk; Tim Waterboer; Noemi Bender; Phillip M Pierorazio; Simon R Best; Howard Strickler; Dorothy J Wiley; Robert I Haddad; Marshall Posner; Carole Fakhry
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-08-16

Review 6.  Advances in technologies for cervical cancer detection in low-resource settings.

Authors:  Kathryn A Kundrod; Chelsey A Smith; Brady Hunt; Richard A Schwarz; Kathleen Schmeler; Rebecca Richards-Kortum
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 5.225

7.  Self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for cervical cancer screening: an exploratory study of acceptability among medically underserved women in rural Appalachia.

Authors:  Robin C Vanderpool; Maudella G Jones; Lindsay R Stradtman; Jennifer S Smith; Richard A Crosby
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 8.  Clinical application of DNA ploidy to cervical cancer screening: A review.

Authors:  David Garner
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-10

9.  Response.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; Mark Schiffman; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 508.702

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.