Hui Yang

HPV testing with 16/18 genotyping for risk stratification among women with normal cytology: a multicenter prospective cohort study from China

ABSTRACT To evaluate the clinical performance of Hybribio’s 14-type HPV real-time PCR with 16/18 genotyping (HBRT-H14) and its risk stratification utility among women with normal cytology (NILM). From 2017 to 2020, a multicenter cohort enrolled 8,401 women aged 30–64 years with NILM cytology. Baseline HPV testing used HBRT-H14. Women positive for HPV 16/18 were referred for colposcopy; follow-up was annual for 3 years or until the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). Analyses included 6,679 women who completed follow-up. Overall HPV positivity was 11.4%, including 2.3% HPV 16/18. Over 3 years, sensitivity and specificity of HPV positivity for CIN2+ were 92.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84.2–96.4) and 89.6% (88.8–90.3). For HPV 16/18 positivity, sensitivity and specificity were 41.0% (30.8–52.1) and 98.2% (97.8–98.5). Three-year cumulative CIN2+ risk was 20.9% (15.2–28.1) for HPV 16/18-positive women, 6.6% (4.9–8.9) for other types, and 0.1% (0.04–0.2) for HPV-negative women. HBRT-H14 shows strong clinical performance for detecting CIN2+, and HPV 16/18 genotyping provides effective risk stratification among women with NILM cytology. Findings support integration of HBRT-H14 into HPV-based screening pathways with HPV 16/18 genotyping and cytology triage of other types. IMPORTANCE This multicenter prospective study evaluated the Hybribio 14 high-risk HPV real-time PCR assay (HBRT-H14) in 8,401 women with normal (NILM) cytology under guideline-based follow-up. The assay showed high clinical sensitivity and a very low risk among HPV-negative women, and HPV 16/18 genotyping provided clear risk stratification. These findings deliver large-scale, practice-oriented evidence supporting integration of HBRT-H14 into HPV-based screening pathways that use HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage of other types.

A Retrospective Cohort Study Evaluates Clinical Value of Anlotinib in Persistent, Metastatic, or Recurrent Cervical Cancer After Failure of First-Line Therapy

Anlotinib is an oral anti-angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs), platelet-derived growth factor receptors, fibroblast growth factor receptors, etc., and its clinical value in cervical cancer is rarely reported. We designed a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in patients with persistent, metastatic, or recurrent cervical cancer who have failed first-line therapy, and compare the efficacy of anlotinib with that of apatinib which targets only VEGFR2 and has shown efficacy in recent studies. Fifty-two patients with persistent, metastatic, or recurrent cervical cancer who failed first-line therapy and administrated anlotinib or apatinib as monotherapy or combination with chemo-, radio- or immunotherapy were included in this study. Among the 52 patients, 20 patients who received anlotinib from January 2019 to August 2020 were defined as anlotinib group, whereas 32 patients who received apatinib from our previous study were selected as apatinib group. The safety, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were reviewed and recorded. The ORR and DCR in patients receiving anlotinib were 25% and 80%, respectively. The median PFS and OS in anlotinib group were significantly longer than those in apatinib group, respectively (PFS: 5 months vs 3 months, p=0.015; OS: 10 months vs 5 months, p=0.008). Moreover, the patients treated with anlotinib had better survival with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of cancer-related death than those treated with apatinib (HR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.77, p=0.012). The most common adverse effects in the patients treated with anlotinib were hypertension (20%), fatigue (20%), and nausea (15%). No drug-related death occurred. Anlotinib showed beneficial efficacy and safety and can be a treatment option for patients with persistent, metastatic, or recurrent cervical cancer who have failed the first-line therapy.

Effectiveness and prognostic factors of apatinib treatment in patients with recurrent or advanced cervical carcinoma: A retrospective study

AbstractBackgroundApatinib is an oral anti‐angiogenic drug, its efficacy and prognosis in cervical carcinoma are unclear. This study evaluates the effectiveness and prognostic factors of apatinib in the treatment of recurrent or advanced cervical carcinoma.MethodsPatients with recurrent or advanced cervical cancer, who agreed to take apatinib, were recruited into this single‐center and retrospective study, and administrated apatinib with or without combination of chemo‐ or radio‐therapy until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity.ResultsFrom March 2017 to February 2019, 53 patients were reviewed. Among them, 2 (3.77%) patients occurred complete response, 16 (30.19%) patients showed partial response, 27 (50.95%) patients had stable disease, and 8 (15.09%) patients had PD. The objective response rate and disease control rate (DCR) of these patients were 33.96% and 84.91%, respectively. The DCR of patients younger than 50, nonsquamous carcinoma, first‐line apatinib therapy, combined radiotherapy, lesions within radiation field, surgical history, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0 or 1 were significantly higher than other patients (p < 0.05). The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.0 months (95% CI: 4.43–7.57) and 8.0 months (95% CI: 6.52–9.48), respectively. The univariable and multivariable analysis showed that the patients with an ECOG performance status score of 2 and further line therapy were associated with poor prognosis in both PFS and OS (PFS: HR =8.35, p = 0.000; HR =6.66, p = 0.001; OS: HR = 7.40, p = 0.000; HR = 3.24, p = 0.039), respectively. The most common adverse effects (AEs) were hand‐foot syndrome (35.58%), hypertension (18.87%) and fatigue (15.09%). No grade 3 AEs and drug‐related death occurred.ConclusionThe efficacy and prognosis of patients who are in good general condition and first‐line apatinib combination therapy may be better than other patients. But further phase III clinical trials should be taken to prove this hypothesis.