OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate human papillomavirus (HPV) viral loads as a biomarker for triage into colposcopy and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) therapy to reduce the colposcopy referral rate and CIN2 overtreatment in low-resource settings. METHODS: In 1999, 1997 women aged 35 to 45 years in Shanxi, China, received 6 cervical screenings with pathological confirmation. In 2005, 1461 histologically normal women, 99 with CIN grade 1 (CIN1), and 30 with CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) were rescreened in a follow-up study. Human papillomavirus was detected by Hybrid Capture 2. Viral load, estimated by the ratio of relative light units to standard positive control (RLU/PC), was categorized into 4 groups: negative (<1.0), low (≥1.0, <10.0), moderate (≥10.0, <100.0), and high (≥100.0). We estimated the cumulative incidence of CIN2+ by viral load subgroups and calculated adjusted hazard ratios for CIN2+ using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of CIN2+ increased with baseline HPV viral loads among normal women and women with CIN1 at baseline (P(-trend) < 0.001). Repeat moderate-high viral load was associated with the highest risk for CIN2+ (adjusted hazard ratio, 188.8; 95% confidence interval, 41.2-864.1). Raising the ratio of relative light units to standard positive control cutoff from 1.0 to 10.0 for colposcopy greatly reduced the referral rate from 18.1% to 12.9%. It also increased the specificity (84.8% vs 90.4%), the positive predictive value (22.5% vs 28.9%), and the positive likelihood ratio (6.4 vs 8.9), yet with loss of sensitivity by 12% (97.6% vs 85.7%). Among women with CIN2 at baseline, 56% regressed to normal, 24% regressed to CIN1, 4% remained CIN2, and 16% progressed to CIN grade 3 or worse. CONCLUSIONS: Locales using HPV testing as the primary screening method and lacking high-quality cytology-based screening should consider viral load as an alternative to colposcopy triage for women older than 35 years. Viral loads may also predict CIN2 progression until additional biomarkers become available.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate human papillomavirus (HPV) viral loads as a biomarker for triage into colposcopy and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) therapy to reduce the colposcopy referral rate and CIN2 overtreatment in low-resource settings. METHODS: In 1999, 1997 women aged 35 to 45 years in Shanxi, China, received 6 cervical screenings with pathological confirmation. In 2005, 1461 histologically normal women, 99 with CIN grade 1 (CIN1), and 30 with CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) were rescreened in a follow-up study. Human papillomavirus was detected by Hybrid Capture 2. Viral load, estimated by the ratio of relative light units to standard positive control (RLU/PC), was categorized into 4 groups: negative (<1.0), low (≥1.0, <10.0), moderate (≥10.0, <100.0), and high (≥100.0). We estimated the cumulative incidence of CIN2+ by viral load subgroups and calculated adjusted hazard ratios for CIN2+ using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of CIN2+ increased with baseline HPV viral loads among normal women and women with CIN1 at baseline (P(-trend) < 0.001). Repeat moderate-high viral load was associated with the highest risk for CIN2+ (adjusted hazard ratio, 188.8; 95% confidence interval, 41.2-864.1). Raising the ratio of relative light units to standard positive control cutoff from 1.0 to 10.0 for colposcopy greatly reduced the referral rate from 18.1% to 12.9%. It also increased the specificity (84.8% vs 90.4%), the positive predictive value (22.5% vs 28.9%), and the positive likelihood ratio (6.4 vs 8.9), yet with loss of sensitivity by 12% (97.6% vs 85.7%). Among women with CIN2 at baseline, 56% regressed to normal, 24% regressed to CIN1, 4% remained CIN2, and 16% progressed to CIN grade 3 or worse. CONCLUSIONS: Locales using HPV testing as the primary screening method and lacking high-quality cytology-based screening should consider viral load as an alternative to colposcopy triage for women older than 35 years. Viral loads may also predict CIN2 progression until additional biomarkers become available.
Authors: Fang-Hui Zhao; Margaret Jane Lin; Feng Chen; Shang-Ying Hu; Rong Zhang; Jerome L Belinson; John W Sellors; Silvia Franceschi; You-Lin Qiao; Philip E Castle Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Irene Tveiterås Ovestad; Einar Gudlaugsson; Ivar Skaland; Anais Malpica; Ane Cecilie Munk; Emiel A M Janssen; Jan P Baak Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Marc Arbyn; Silvia de Sanjosé; Mona Saraiya; Mario Sideri; Joel Palefsky; Charles Lacey; Maura Gillison; Laia Bruni; Guglielmo Ronco; Nicolas Wentzensen; Julia Brotherton; You-Lin Qiao; Lynnette Denny; Jacob Bornstein; Laurent Abramowitz; Anna Giuliano; Massimo Tommasino; Joseph Monsonego Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Teresa M Darragh; Terence J Colgan; J Thomas Cox; Debra S Heller; Michael R Henry; Ronald D Luff; Timothy McCalmont; Ritu Nayar; Joel M Palefsky; Mark H Stoler; Edward J Wilkinson; Richard J Zaino; David C Wilbur Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.925
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: J Belinson; Y L Qiao; R Pretorius; W H Zhang; P Elson; L Li; Q J Pan; C Fischer; A Lorincz; D Zahniser Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Guglielmo Ronco; Paolo Giorgi-Rossi; Francesca Carozzi; Massimo Confortini; Paolo Dalla Palma; Annarosa Del Mistro; Bruno Ghiringhello; Salvatore Girlando; Anna Gillio-Tos; Laura De Marco; Carlo Naldoni; Paola Pierotti; Raffaella Rizzolo; Patrizia Schincaglia; Manuel Zorzi; Marco Zappa; Nereo Segnan; Jack Cuzick Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christothea Constandinou-Williams; Stuart I Collins; Sally Roberts; Lawrence S Young; Ciaran B J Woodman; Paul G Murray Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Long Fu Xi; Mark Schiffman; James P Hughes; Denise A Galloway; Laura A Koutsky; Nancy B Kiviat Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Margaret Z Wang; Rui-Mei Feng; Shaoming Wang; Xian-Zhi Duan; Dong Li; Xun Zhang; Rong Mu; Youlin Qiao; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Christophe E Depuydt; Jef Jonckheere; Mario Berth; Geert M Salembier; Annie J Vereecken; Johannes J Bogers Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Wieke W Kremer; Johannes Berkhof; Maaike Cg Bleeker; Daniëlle Am Heideman; Nienke E van Trommel; Marchien W van Baal; Harold R Verhoeve; Chris Jlm Meijer; Gemma G Kenter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Karoliina Tainio; Antonios Athanasiou; Kari A O Tikkinen; Riikka Aaltonen; Jovita Cárdenas; Sivan Glazer-Livson; Maija Jakobsson; Kirsi Joronen; Mari Kiviharju; Karolina Louvanto; Sanna Oksjoki; Riikka Tähtinen; Seppo Virtanen; Pekka Nieminen; Maria Kyrgiou; Ilkka Kalliala Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-02-27