Thomas C Wright1, Catherine M Behrens2, James Ranger-Moore3, Susanne Rehm4, Abha Sharma2, Mark H Stoler5, Ruediger Ridder4. 1. Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA. Electronic address: tcw1@columbia.edu. 2. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA. 3. Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., Tucson, AZ, USA; Roche mtm laboratories AG, Mannheim, Germany. 5. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In addition to genotyping for HPV16/18, dual-immunostaining for p16/Ki-67 has shown promise as a triage of HPV-positive women. We assessed the performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for triaging HPV-positive women undergoing primary HPV screening. METHODS: All women ≥25years with valid cervical biopsy and cobas® HPV Test results from the cross-sectional phase of ATHENA who were referred to colposcopy (n=7727) were eligible for enrolment. p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology was retrospectively performed on residual cytologic material collected into a second liquid-based cytology vial during the ATHENA enrolment visit. The diagnostic performance of dual-stained cytology, with or without HPV16/18 genotyping, for the detection of biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) was determined and compared to Pap cytology. Furthermore, the number of colposcopies required per CIN3+ detected was determined. RESULTS: Dual-stained cytology was significantly more sensitive than Pap cytology (74.9% vs. 51.9%; p<0.0001) for triaging HPV-positive women, whereas specificity was comparable (74.1% vs. 75.0%; p=0.3198). Referral of all HPV16/18 positive women combined with dual-stained cytology triage of women positive for 12 "other" HPV genotypes provided the highest sensitivity for CIN3+ (86.8%; 95% CI: 81.9-90.8). A similar strategy but using Pap cytology for the triage of women positive for 12 "other" HPV genotypes was less sensitive (78.2%; 95% CI: 72.5-83.2; p=0.0003), but required a similar number of colposcopies per CIN3+ detected. CONCLUSIONS: p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology, either alone or combined with HPV16/18 genotyping, represents a promising approach as a sensitive and efficient triage for colposcopy of HPV-positive women when primary HPV screening is utilized.
OBJECTIVES: In addition to genotyping for HPV16/18, dual-immunostaining for p16/Ki-67 has shown promise as a triage of HPV-positive women. We assessed the performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for triaging HPV-positive women undergoing primary HPV screening. METHODS: All women ≥25years with valid cervical biopsy and cobas® HPV Test results from the cross-sectional phase of ATHENA who were referred to colposcopy (n=7727) were eligible for enrolment. p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology was retrospectively performed on residual cytologic material collected into a second liquid-based cytology vial during the ATHENA enrolment visit. The diagnostic performance of dual-stained cytology, with or without HPV16/18 genotyping, for the detection of biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) was determined and compared to Pap cytology. Furthermore, the number of colposcopies required per CIN3+ detected was determined. RESULTS: Dual-stained cytology was significantly more sensitive than Pap cytology (74.9% vs. 51.9%; p<0.0001) for triaging HPV-positive women, whereas specificity was comparable (74.1% vs. 75.0%; p=0.3198). Referral of all HPV16/18 positive women combined with dual-stained cytology triage of women positive for 12 "other" HPV genotypes provided the highest sensitivity for CIN3+ (86.8%; 95% CI: 81.9-90.8). A similar strategy but using Pap cytology for the triage of women positive for 12 "other" HPV genotypes was less sensitive (78.2%; 95% CI: 72.5-83.2; p=0.0003), but required a similar number of colposcopies per CIN3+ detected. CONCLUSIONS:p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology, either alone or combined with HPV16/18 genotyping, represents a promising approach as a sensitive and efficient triage for colposcopy of HPV-positive women when primary HPV screening is utilized.
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: Karen Canfell; Michael Caruana; Val Gebski; Jessica Darlington-Brown; Stella Heley; Julia Brotherton; Dorota Gertig; Chloe J Jennett; Annabelle Farnsworth; Jeffrey Tan; C David Wrede; Philip E Castle; Marion Saville Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Felix Jede; Theresa Brandt; Molla Gedefaw; Solomon Berhe Wubneh; Tamrat Abebe; Brhanu Teka; Kassahun Alemu; Binyam Tilahun; Temesgen Azemeraw; Abebaw Gebeyehu; Dietmar Schmidt; Aleksandra Pesic; Andreas M Kaufmann; Bewketu Abebe; Zelalem Ayichew; Michael Byczkowski; Timoté Vaucher; Heike Sartor; Gashaw Andargie; Till Bärnighausen; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz; Hermann Bussmann Journal: Papillomavirus Res Date: 2020-05-08