Nicolas Wentzensen1, Barbara Fetterman2, Philip E Castle2, Mark Schiffman2, Shannon N Wood2, Eric Stiemerling2, Diane Tokugawa2, Clara Bodelon2, Nancy Poitras2, Thomas Lorey2, Walter Kinney2. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (NW, MS, SNW, CB); Kaiser Permanente TPMG Regional Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (BF, ES, DT, NP, TL); Global Coalition Against Cervical Cancer, Arlington, VA (PEC); Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (PEC); Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, CA (WK). wentzenn@mail.nih.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (NW, MS, SNW, CB); Kaiser Permanente TPMG Regional Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (BF, ES, DT, NP, TL); Global Coalition Against Cervical Cancer, Arlington, VA (PEC); Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (PEC); Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, CA (WK).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening requires triage markers to decide who should be referred to colposcopy. p16/Ki-67 dual stain cytology has been proposed as a biomarker for cervical precancers. We evaluated the dual stain in a large population of HPV-positive women. METHODS: One thousand five hundred and nine HPV-positive women screened with HPV/cytology cotesting at Kaiser Permanente California were enrolled into a prospective observational study in 2012. Dual stain cytology was performed on residual Surepath material, and slides were evaluated for dual stain-positive cells. Disease endpoints were ascertained from the clinical database at KPNC. We evaluated the clinical performance of the assay among all HPV-positive women and among HPV-positive, cytology-negative women. We used internal benchmarks for clinical management to evaluate the clinical relevance of the dual stain assay. We evaluated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the dual stain compared with Pap cytology. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The dual stain had lower positivity (45.9%) compared with cytology at an ASC-US threshold (53.4%). For detection of CIN2+, the dual stain had similar sensitivity (83.4% vs 76.6%, P = .1), and statistically higher specificity (58.9% vs 49.6%, P < .001), PPV (21.0% vs 16.6%, P < .001), and NPV (96.4% vs 94.2%, P = .01) compared with cytology. Similar patterns were observed for CIN3+. Women with a positive test had high enough risk for referral to colposcopy, while the risk for women with negative tests was below a one-year return threshold based on current US management guidelines. CONCLUSION: Dual stain cytology showed good risk stratification for all HPV-positive women and for HPV-positive women with normal cytology. Additional follow-up is needed to determine how long dual stain negative women remain at low risk of precancer. Published by Oxford University Press 2015. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening requires triage markers to decide who should be referred to colposcopy. p16/Ki-67 dual stain cytology has been proposed as a biomarker for cervical precancers. We evaluated the dual stain in a large population of HPV-positive women. METHODS: One thousand five hundred and nine HPV-positive women screened with HPV/cytology cotesting at Kaiser Permanente California were enrolled into a prospective observational study in 2012. Dual stain cytology was performed on residual Surepath material, and slides were evaluated for dual stain-positive cells. Disease endpoints were ascertained from the clinical database at KPNC. We evaluated the clinical performance of the assay among all HPV-positive women and among HPV-positive, cytology-negative women. We used internal benchmarks for clinical management to evaluate the clinical relevance of the dual stain assay. We evaluated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the dual stain compared with Pap cytology. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The dual stain had lower positivity (45.9%) compared with cytology at an ASC-US threshold (53.4%). For detection of CIN2+, the dual stain had similar sensitivity (83.4% vs 76.6%, P = .1), and statistically higher specificity (58.9% vs 49.6%, P < .001), PPV (21.0% vs 16.6%, P < .001), and NPV (96.4% vs 94.2%, P = .01) compared with cytology. Similar patterns were observed for CIN3+. Women with a positive test had high enough risk for referral to colposcopy, while the risk for women with negative tests was below a one-year return threshold based on current US management guidelines. CONCLUSION: Dual stain cytology showed good risk stratification for all HPV-positive women and for HPV-positive women with normal cytology. Additional follow-up is needed to determine how long dual stain negative women remain at low risk of precancer. Published by Oxford University Press 2015. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Christine Clavel; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Chris J L M Meijer; Heike Hoyer; Samuel Ratnam; Anne Szarewski; Philippe Birembaut; Shalini Kulasingam; Peter Sasieni; Thomas Iftner Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Francesca Carozzi; Massimo Confortini; Paolo Dalla Palma; Annarosa Del Mistro; Anna Gillio-Tos; Laura De Marco; Paolo Giorgi-Rossi; Giovanni Pontenani; Stefano Rosso; Cristina Sani; Catia Sintoni; Nereo Segnan; Manuel Zorzi; Jack Cuzick; Raffaella Rizzolo; Guglielmo Ronco Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: N W J Bulkmans; J Berkhof; L Rozendaal; F J van Kemenade; A J P Boeke; S Bulk; F J Voorhorst; R H M Verheijen; K van Groningen; M E Boon; W Ruitinga; M van Ballegooijen; P J F Snijders; C J L M Meijer Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marie-Hélène Mayrand; Eliane Duarte-Franco; Isabel Rodrigues; Stephen D Walter; James Hanley; Alex Ferenczy; Sam Ratnam; François Coutlée; Eduardo L Franco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Ruth Shaber; Walter Kinney Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Joakim Dillner; Matejka Rebolj; Philippe Birembaut; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Anne Szarewski; Christian Munk; Silvia de Sanjose; Pontus Naucler; Belen Lloveras; Susanne Kjaer; Jack Cuzick; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Christine Clavel; Thomas Iftner Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-10-13
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Barbara Fetterman; Philip Castle; Mark Schiffman; Shannon Wood; Diane Tokugawa; Clara Bodelon; Nancy Poitras; Tom Lorey; Walter Kinney Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kai Yu; Noorie Hyun; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Han Zhang; Robin E Stamps; Nancy E Poitras; William Wheeler; Brian Befano; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Megan A Clarke; Patricia Luhn; Julia C Gage; Clara Bodelon; S Terence Dunn; Joan Walker; Rosemary Zuna; Stephen Hewitt; J Keith Killian; Liying Yan; Andrew Miller; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Megan A Clarke; Ana Gradissimo; Nicolas Wentzensen; Robert D Burk; Mark Schiffman; Jessica Lam; Christopher C Sollecito; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Nancy Poitras; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Philip E Castle Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 12.531
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