BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to triage women with minor cervical lesions generates many referrals. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of genotyping for HPV types 16 and 18 and its utility as a second triage step after hrHPV testing in women with minor cervical lesions. DATA SOURCES: Searches of 4 bibliographic databases, without language restrictions, from 1 January 1999 to 1 February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies involving women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) who were triaged with tests for hrHPV and HPV 16/18 to find cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade ≥2 [CIN2+] or grade ≥3 [CIN3+]). DATA EXTRACTION: Independent study selection, extraction of data, and quality assessment by 2 reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-four moderate- to good-quality studies involving 8587 women with ASC-US and 5284 with LSIL were found. The pooled sensitivity of HPV 16/18 genotyping for CIN3+ was about 70% for women with either ASC-US or LSIL. The pooled specificity (with a threshold of grade <2 CIN) was 83% (95% CI, 80% to 86%) for women with ASC-US and 76% (CI, 74% to 79%) for those with LSIL. The average risk for CIN3+ was 17% and 19% in HPV 16/18-positive women with ASC-US and LSIL, respectively, and was 5% in hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women with either ASC-US or LSIL. LIMITATION: Methodological and technical heterogeneity among studies; insufficient data to assess accuracy of separate assays. CONCLUSION: Testing for HPV 16/18 to triage women with minor abnormal cytology is poorly sensitive but may be useful as a second triage test after hrHPV testing, with direct referral if the woman is positive for HPV 16/18. Whether colposcopy or repeated testing is recommended for hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women depends on local decision thresholds that can be derived from pretest-posttest probability plots. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission.
BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to triage women with minor cervical lesions generates many referrals. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of genotyping for HPV types 16 and 18 and its utility as a second triage step after hrHPV testing in women with minor cervical lesions. DATA SOURCES: Searches of 4 bibliographic databases, without language restrictions, from 1 January 1999 to 1 February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies involving women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) who were triaged with tests for hrHPV and HPV 16/18 to find cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade ≥2 [CIN2+] or grade ≥3 [CIN3+]). DATA EXTRACTION: Independent study selection, extraction of data, and quality assessment by 2 reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-four moderate- to good-quality studies involving 8587 women with ASC-US and 5284 with LSIL were found. The pooled sensitivity of HPV 16/18 genotyping for CIN3+ was about 70% for women with either ASC-US or LSIL. The pooled specificity (with a threshold of grade <2 CIN) was 83% (95% CI, 80% to 86%) for women with ASC-US and 76% (CI, 74% to 79%) for those with LSIL. The average risk for CIN3+ was 17% and 19% in HPV 16/18-positive women with ASC-US and LSIL, respectively, and was 5% in hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women with either ASC-US or LSIL. LIMITATION: Methodological and technical heterogeneity among studies; insufficient data to assess accuracy of separate assays. CONCLUSION: Testing for HPV 16/18 to triage women with minor abnormal cytology is poorly sensitive but may be useful as a second triage test after hrHPV testing, with direct referral if the woman is positive for HPV 16/18. Whether colposcopy or repeated testing is recommended for hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women depends on local decision thresholds that can be derived from pretest-posttest probability plots. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission.
Authors: Megan A Clarke; Li C Cheung; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Diane Tokugawa; Nancy Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Walter Kinney; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Laura Gilbert; Sam Ratnam; Dan Jang; Reza Alaghehbandan; Miranda Schell; Rob Needle; Anne Ecobichon-Morris; Arnav Wadhawan; Dustin Costescu; Laurie Elit; Peter Wang; George Zahariadis; Max Chernesky Journal: Cancer Biomark Date: 2022 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Megan A Clarke; Beverly J Long; Arena Del Mar Morillo; Marc Arbyn; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Joan Walker; Katie Smith; Michael A Gold; Rosemary Zuna; L Stewart Massad; Angela Liu; Michelle I Silver; S Terence Dunn; Mark Schiffman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 8.661
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: Dana Hashim; Birgit Engesæter; Gry Baadstrand Skare; Philip E Castle; Tone Bjørge; Ameli Tropé; Mari Nygård Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 7.640
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