Kate Cuschieri1, Ramya Bhatia2, Margaret Cruickshank3, Peter Hillemanns4, Marc Arbyn5. 1. Scottish HPV Reference Laboratory, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, NHS Lothian, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: Kate.Cuschieri@luht.scot.nhs.uk. 2. HPV Research Group, Division of Pathology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, NHS Grampian, Scotland, UK. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hannover Medical School, University of Hannover, Germany. 5. Unit of Cancer Epidemiology & Belgian Cancer Centre, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women treated for cervical lesions are at higher risk of subsequent disease compared to the general population. Consequently, post treatment surveillance strategies are required to ensure the success of treatment, so called "test of cure". The high sensitivity and negative predictive value of HPV assays can enhance post-treatment strategies. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the current data on test of cure strategies with a particular focus on HPV testing and to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research. RESULTS: HPV testing is sensitive for the detection of residual or recurrent disease post treatment for CIN2+ and is more sensitive than cytology alone. Co-testing increases sensitivity, marginally and there is a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency and safety to release negative women. Most test of cure studies have applied HPV DNA tests and post treatment positivity rates vary widely depending on assay and potentially, treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, an increasing number of test of cure algorithms now incorporate HPV testing although there is heterogeneity of practice with respect to assay, number of post treatment tests, testing intervals, follow up time. While type specific persistence identified through genotyping may identify those at greater risk of disease there is no consensus as to how this may be applied, clinically. Data on HPV testing in women treated for glandular lesions would be welcome as would the performance of different HPV assays and associated biomarkers in this context.
BACKGROUND:Women treated for cervical lesions are at higher risk of subsequent disease compared to the general population. Consequently, post treatment surveillance strategies are required to ensure the success of treatment, so called "test of cure". The high sensitivity and negative predictive value of HPV assays can enhance post-treatment strategies. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the current data on test of cure strategies with a particular focus on HPV testing and to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research. RESULTS: HPV testing is sensitive for the detection of residual or recurrent disease post treatment for CIN2+ and is more sensitive than cytology alone. Co-testing increases sensitivity, marginally and there is a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency and safety to release negative women. Most test of cure studies have applied HPV DNA tests and post treatment positivity rates vary widely depending on assay and potentially, treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, an increasing number of test of cure algorithms now incorporate HPV testing although there is heterogeneity of practice with respect to assay, number of post treatment tests, testing intervals, follow up time. While type specific persistence identified through genotyping may identify those at greater risk of disease there is no consensus as to how this may be applied, clinically. Data on HPV testing in women treated for glandular lesions would be welcome as would the performance of different HPV assays and associated biomarkers in this context.
Authors: Elkanah Omenge Orang'o; Tao Liu; Astrid Christoffersen-Deb; Peter Itsura; John Oguda; Sierra Washington; David Chumba; Latha Pisharodi; Susan Cu-Uvin; Anne F Rositch Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Sarah R Hoffman; Tam Le; Alexandre Lockhart; Ayodeji Sanusi; Leila Dal Santo; Meagan Davis; Dana A McKinney; Meagan Brown; Charles Poole; Corinne Willame; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Fabio Bottari; Anna D Iacobone; Rita Passerini; Eleonora P Preti; Maria T Sandri; Clementina E Cocuzza; Devin S Gary; Jeffrey C Andrews Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.623