Thomas C Wright1, Mark H Stoler2, Catherine M Behrens3, Abha Sharma4, Guili Zhang5, Teresa L Wright6. 1. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: tcw1@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. Electronic address: mhs2e@virginia.edu. 3. Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA. Electronic address: catherine_m.behrens@roche.com. 4. Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA. Electronic address: abha.sharma@roche.com. 5. Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA. Electronic address: guili.zhang@roche.com. 6. Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: wright.teresa@gene.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: ATHENA evaluated the cobas HPV Test as the primary screen for cervical cancer in women ≥25years. This reports the 3-year end-of-study results comparing the performance of HPV primary screening to different screening and triage combinations. METHODS: 42,209 women ≥25years were enrolled and had cytology and hrHPV testing. Women with abnormal cytology (≥atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) and those HPV positive were referred to colposcopy. Women not reaching the study endpoint of CIN2+ entered the 3-year follow-up phase. RESULTS: 3-year CIR of CIN3+ in cytology-negative women was 0.8% (95% CI; 0.5-1.1%), 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.7%) in HPV-negative women, and 0.3% (95% CI; 0.1-0.6%) in cytology and HPV negative women. The sensitivity for CIN3+ of cytology was 47.8% (95% CI; 41.6-54.1%) compared to 61.7% (95% CI; 56.0-67.5%) for the hybrid strategy (cytology if 25-29years and cotesting with cytology and HPV if ≥30years) and 76.1% (95% CI; 70.3-81.8%) for HPV primary. The specificity for CIN3+ was 97.1% (95% CI; 96.9-97.2%), 94.6% (95% CI; 94.4-94.8%), and 93.5% (95% CI; 93.3-93.8%) for cytology, hybrid strategy, and HPV primary, respectively. Although HPV primary detects significantly more cases of CIN3+ in women ≥25years than either cytology or hybrid strategy, it requires significantly more colposcopies. However, the number of colposcopies required to detect a single CIN3+ is the same as for the hybrid strategy. CONCLUSIONS: HPV primary screening in women ≥25years is as effective as a hybrid screening strategy that uses cytology if 25-29years and cotesting if ≥30years. However, HPV primary screening requires less screening tests.
OBJECTIVES: ATHENA evaluated the cobas HPV Test as the primary screen for cervical cancer in women ≥25years. This reports the 3-year end-of-study results comparing the performance of HPV primary screening to different screening and triage combinations. METHODS: 42,209 women ≥25years were enrolled and had cytology and hrHPV testing. Women with abnormal cytology (≥atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) and those HPV positive were referred to colposcopy. Women not reaching the study endpoint of CIN2+ entered the 3-year follow-up phase. RESULTS: 3-year CIR of CIN3+ in cytology-negative women was 0.8% (95% CI; 0.5-1.1%), 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.7%) in HPV-negative women, and 0.3% (95% CI; 0.1-0.6%) in cytology and HPV negative women. The sensitivity for CIN3+ of cytology was 47.8% (95% CI; 41.6-54.1%) compared to 61.7% (95% CI; 56.0-67.5%) for the hybrid strategy (cytology if 25-29years and cotesting with cytology and HPV if ≥30years) and 76.1% (95% CI; 70.3-81.8%) for HPV primary. The specificity for CIN3+ was 97.1% (95% CI; 96.9-97.2%), 94.6% (95% CI; 94.4-94.8%), and 93.5% (95% CI; 93.3-93.8%) for cytology, hybrid strategy, and HPV primary, respectively. Although HPV primary detects significantly more cases of CIN3+ in women ≥25years than either cytology or hybrid strategy, it requires significantly more colposcopies. However, the number of colposcopies required to detect a single CIN3+ is the same as for the hybrid strategy. CONCLUSIONS: HPV primary screening in women ≥25years is as effective as a hybrid screening strategy that uses cytology if 25-29years and cotesting if ≥30years. However, HPV primary screening requires less screening tests.
Authors: J Michael Miller; Matthew J Binnicker; Sheldon Campbell; Karen C Carroll; Kimberle C Chapin; Peter H Gilligan; Mark D Gonzalez; Robert C Jerris; Sue C Kehl; Robin Patel; Bobbi S Pritt; Sandra S Richter; Barbara Robinson-Dunn; Joseph D Schwartzman; James W Snyder; Sam Telford; Elitza S Theel; Richard B Thomson; Melvin P Weinstein; Joseph D Yao Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Marina Frimer; Chang Sun; Thomas McAndrew; Benjamin Smith; Ariana Harari; Zigui Chen; Lisa Mirabello; Nicolas Wentzensen; Gary L Goldberg; Ana C Rodriguez; Mark Schiffman; Robert D Burk Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Kai Yu; Rosemary Zuna; S Terence Dunn; Han Zhang; Joan Walker; Michael Gold; Noorie Hyun; Greg Rydzak; Hormuzd A Katki; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Lisa Beth Spiryda; Kara M Whitaker; Amy Messersmith; Carolyn E Banister; Kim E Creek; Lucia A Pirisi-Creek Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 1.925