Joanna Streb

Should we use risk selection tests for HPV 16 and/or 18 positive cases: Comparison of p16/Ki67 and cytology

AbstractMajor screening abnormalities in precolposcopic stage are tests results that imply direct referral to colposcopy (and/or expedited treatment) without performing additional high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+) risk selection testing. Currently, both clinically validated HSIL+ risk selection tests, reflex cytology and reflex p16/Ki67 dual staining (DS), are being compared for use in primary human papillomavirus (HPV)‐based screening to avoid possible overtreatment, but there is still no sufficient data available for their performance. Among 30 066 liquid‐based cervical cancer screening tests results, a group of 332 women was selected with available high‐risk types of HPV tests results with 16/18 limited genotyping, liquid‐based cytology, DS, and histology results from standardized colposcopy with biopsy. In HPV 16/18+ cases, three triage approaches were retrospectively analyzed. Predictive values for detection of HSIL+ were calculated and number of colposcopies required in each strategy. Both triage models with DS used (reflex cytology followed by DS, and reflex DS alone in all cases) had significantly higher positive predictive value for HSIL+ than strategy with reflex cytology alone (44.2%/45.7% vs. 28.3%; p < 0.0001). In models with DS, less colposcopies were required (95/92 vs. 152) and less colposcopies were needed per HSIL+ detection (2.26/2.19 vs. 3.54). Only one HSIL+ case was missed in both triage models with DS incorporation. p16/Ki67 dual‐stain may be an effective, alone or combined with cytology, triage test to detect HSIL+ in patients with major screening abnormalities in primary HPV‐based cervical cancer screening. Performing cytology as the first triage test improves the strategy by enabling referrals to expedited treatment in selected cases.

p16/Ki67 dual stain triage versus cytology in primary human papillomavirus‐based cervical cancer screening with limited genotyping

AbstractThe introduction of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening requires the implementation of an appropriate triage strategy that will be effective in detecting high‐grade cervical disease without losing diagnostic specificity. From the 30.066 screening tests results, a total of 1086 with available high‐risk human papillomavirus (HRHPV) with limited genotyping, cytology, and p16/Ki67 dual‐stain were selected. Two triage strategies for primary HPV screening were analyzed retrospectively based on the study group. Performance characteristics for p16/Ki67 and cytology triage in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) were calculated, detected in colposcopic biopsy. In HPV16/18‐positive cases, primary HPV with p16/Ki67 triage was significantly more specific than cytology (53.1%/16.8% for CIN2+; p < 0.0001; 45.9%/17.0% for CIN3+; p < 0.0001), with yielded sensitivity (95.7%/84.8% for CIN2+; p = 0.0955; 100.0%/87.5% for CIN3+; p = 0.0832). In other HRHPV‐positive cases (N16/N18), p16/Ki67 triage was also significantly higher specific (51.3%/15.3% for CIN2+; p < 0.0001; 44.5%/16.5% for CIN3+; p < 0.0001), with sensitivity (92.3%/74.4% for CIN2+; p = 0.0522; 90.9%/81.8% for CIN3+; p = 0.5637). Diagnostic predictive values were significantly higher for p16/Ki67 triage with the highest PPV in HPV16/18‐positive cases for CIN2+ (45.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.2–55.8; p < 0.0001) and very high NPV in all HPV‐positive cases regardless of detected genotype (96.3%–100.0%). The risk (1‐NPV) for CIN3+ in HRHPV16/18‐positive/p16/Ki67‐negative women was 0.0%. Superior diagnostic performance compared to cytology for detecting cervical cancer precursors indicates that p16/Ki67 dual‐immunostain may be a highly effective tool of triage in primary HPV screening with limited HPV 16/18 genotyping in secondary cervical cancer prevention.