Literature DB >> 27587789

Cervical Precancer and Cancer Risk by Human Papillomavirus Status and Cytologic Interpretation: Implications for Risk-Based Management.

Philip E Castle1,2, Shagufta Aslam3, Catherine Behrens3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer risks, estimated by using cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or more severe diagnoses (≥CIN3) endpoints, have not been quantified for different combinations of results from currently approved screening methods. Understanding these risks will guide optimal patient management.
METHODS: Women aged ≥25 years (n = 7,823) underwent high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) testing. Women with hrHPV-positive results and/or abnormal LBC, plus a random subset of hrHPV and LBC negatives, underwent colposcopy; those without ≥CIN2 at baseline were screened annually by LBC and referred to colposcopy for an abnormal LBC (n = 7,392). One- and 3-year ≥CIN3 risks with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for paired hrHPV and LBC (hrHPV/LBC) results.
RESULTS: One-year ≥CIN3 risks ranged from 81.27% (95% CI, 66.02%-90.65%) for HPV16 positive/high-grade to 0.33% (95% CI, 0.18%-0.62%) for hrHPV negative/negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM). One-year ≥CIN3 risk for HPV16/NILM (13.95%; 95% CI, 10.98%-17.58%) was greater than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL; 7.90%; 95% CI, 5.99%-10.37%; P = 0.002) and similar to hrHPV-positive/LSIL (11.45%; 95% CI, 8.61%-15.07%; P = 0.3). Three-year ≥CIN3 risks for HPV16 positive/LSIL and HPV16/atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance was 24.79% (95% CI, 16.44%-35.58%) and 24.36% (95% CI, 15.86%-35.50%), respectively, and 0.72% (95% CI, 0.45%-1.14%) for hrHPV negative/NILM.
CONCLUSIONS: hrHPV and LBC results stratify cervical cancer risk by more than two orders of magnitude. HPV16-positive women, regardless of the LBC result, warrant immediate colposcopy. Women with concurrent HPV16 and high-grade LBC might consider treatment without a confirmatory biopsy with informed decision-making with their provider. IMPACT: These results provide relevant benchmarks for risk-based cervical cancer screening and management. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(12); 1595-9. ©2016 AACR. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27587789     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0330

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  4 in total

1.  Prevalence of high-grade dysplasia in cytology-negative, HPV-positive cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Stephanie M Peace; Ashley J Jennings
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 2.493

2.  Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis of a Poorly Differentiated Cervical Carcinoma Caused by Human Papillomavirus Type 18.

Authors:  Pierpaolo Zorzato; Mattia Zambon; Silvia Gori; Helena Frayle; Maria Teresa Gervasi; Annarosa Del Mistro
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 5.048

3.  Human papilloma virus genotyping for the cross-sectional and longitudinal probability of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more.

Authors:  Annarosa Del Mistro; Rachael Adcock; Francesca Carozzi; Anna Gillio-Tos; Laura De Marco; Salvatore Girlando; Raffaella Rizzolo; Helena Frayle; Morena Trevisan; Cristina Sani; Elena Burroni; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Jack Cuzick; Guglielmo Ronco
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Clinical Utility of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jesper H Bonde; Maria-Teresa Sandri; Devin S Gary; Jeffrey C Andrews
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.842

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.