BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for cervical (pre)-cancerous lesions. Therefore, triage of hrHPV-positive women is needed in cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A cohort of 1,100 hrHPV-positive women, from a population-based screening trial (POBASCAM: n = 44,938; 29-61 years), was used to evaluate 10 triage strategies, involving testing at baseline and six months with combinations of cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat hrHPV testing. Clinical endpoint was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3(+)) detected within four years; results were adjusted for women not attending repeat testing. A triage strategy was considered acceptable, when the probability of no CIN3(+) after negative triage (negative predictive value, NPV) was at least 98%, and the CIN3(+) risk after positive triage (positive predictive value, PPV) was at least 20%. RESULTS: Triage at baseline with cytology only yielded an NPV of 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92.0-96.0] and a PPV of 39.7% (95% CI, 34.0-45.6). An increase in NPV, against a modest decrease in PPV, was obtained by triaging women with negative baseline cytology by repeat cytology (NPV 98.5% and PPV 34.0%) or by baseline HPV16/18 genotyping (NPV 98.8% and PPV 28.5%). The inclusion of both HPV16/18 genotyping at baseline and repeat cytology testing provided a high NPV (99.6%) and a moderately high PPV (25.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Triaging hrHPV-positive women by cytology at baseline and after 6 to 12 months, possibly in combination with baseline HPV16/18 genotyping, seems acceptable for cervical cancer screening. IMPACT: Implementable triage strategies are provided for primary hrHPV screening in an organized setting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for cervical (pre)-cancerous lesions. Therefore, triage of hrHPV-positive women is needed in cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A cohort of 1,100 hrHPV-positive women, from a population-based screening trial (POBASCAM: n = 44,938; 29-61 years), was used to evaluate 10 triage strategies, involving testing at baseline and six months with combinations of cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat hrHPV testing. Clinical endpoint was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3(+)) detected within four years; results were adjusted for women not attending repeat testing. A triage strategy was considered acceptable, when the probability of no CIN3(+) after negative triage (negative predictive value, NPV) was at least 98%, and the CIN3(+) risk after positive triage (positive predictive value, PPV) was at least 20%. RESULTS: Triage at baseline with cytology only yielded an NPV of 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92.0-96.0] and a PPV of 39.7% (95% CI, 34.0-45.6). An increase in NPV, against a modest decrease in PPV, was obtained by triaging women with negative baseline cytology by repeat cytology (NPV 98.5% and PPV 34.0%) or by baseline HPV16/18 genotyping (NPV 98.8% and PPV 28.5%). The inclusion of both HPV16/18 genotyping at baseline and repeat cytology testing provided a high NPV (99.6%) and a moderately high PPV (25.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Triaging hrHPV-positive women by cytology at baseline and after 6 to 12 months, possibly in combination with baseline HPV16/18 genotyping, seems acceptable for cervical cancer screening. IMPACT: Implementable triage strategies are provided for primary hrHPV screening in an organized setting.
Authors: Renske D M Steenbergen; Peter J F Snijders; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Roosmarijn Luttmer; Maaike G Dijkstra; Peter J F Snijders; Johannes Berkhof; Folkert J van Kemenade; Lawrence Rozendaal; Theo J M Helmerhorst; René H M Verheijen; W Abraham Ter Harmsel; W Marchien van Baal; Peppino G C M Graziosi; Wim G V Quint; Johan W M Spruijt; Dorenda K E van Dijken; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Renée Mf Ebisch; Judith van der Horst; Meyke Hermsen; L Lucia Rijstenberg; Judith Em Vedder; Johan Bulten; Remko P Bosgraaf; Viola Mj Verhoef; Daniëlle Am Heideman; Peter Jf Snijders; Chris Jlm Meijer; Folkert J van Kemenade; Leon Fag Massuger; Willem Jg Melchers; Ruud Lm Bekkers; Albert G Siebers Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Wina Verlaat; Barbara C Snoek; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Saskia M Wilting; Peter J F Snijders; Putri W Novianti; Annina P van Splunter; Carel F W Peeters; Nienke E van Trommel; Leon F A G Massuger; Ruud L M Bekkers; Willem J G Melchers; Folkert J van Kemenade; Johannes Berkhof; Mark A van de Wiel; Chris J L M Meijer; Renske D M Steenbergen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: S Gori; J Battagello; D Gustinucci; C Campari; M Zorzi; H Frayle; B Passamonti; G Sartori; S Bulletti; C Fodero; E Cesarini; R Faggiano; A Del Mistro Journal: BJOG Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Lise M A De Strooper; Viola M J Verhoef; Johannes Berkhof; Albertus T Hesselink; Helena M E de Bruin; Folkert J van Kemenade; Remko P Bosgraaf; Ruud L M Bekkers; Leon F A G Massuger; Willem J G Melchers; Renske D M Steenbergen; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer; Daniëlle A M Heideman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Roosmarijn Luttmer; Lise M A De Strooper; Maaike G Dijkstra; Johannes Berkhof; Peter J F Snijders; Renske D M Steenbergen; Folkert J van Kemenade; Lawrence Rozendaal; Theo J M Helmerhorst; René H M Verheijen; W Abraham Ter Harmsel; W Marchien van Baal; Peppino G C M Graziosi; Wim G V Quint; Johan W M Spruijt; Dorenda K E van Dijken; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: A Boers; R P Bosgraaf; R W van Leeuwen; E Schuuring; D A M Heideman; L F A G Massuger; V M J Verhoef; J Bulten; W J G Melchers; A G J van der Zee; R L M Bekkers; G B A Wisman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 7.640