Lily Proctor

HPV Extended Genotyping to Triage Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screens—Balancing the Harms and Benefits of an Additional Triage Test before Direct Colposcopy Referral

Abstract The Netherlands’ cervical cancer screening program transitioned to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening in 2017. After the introduction of HPV-based screening, the country saw increases in colposcopy referral rates and detections of low-grade lesions. In July 2022, genotyping was introduced, and those with borderline or mild dyskaryotic (BMD) cytologic abnormalities were only referred to colposcopy if positive for HPV type 16 or 18, and repeat screening otherwise. In this article, various strategies using extended genotyping (HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58) as a triage test after an abnormal screen were explored using data from HPV-positive participants with normal or BMD cytology in the Population-Based Screening Study Amsterdam (POBASCAM) trial. The authors assessed positive and negative predictive values and colposcopy referral rates for each strategy using extended genotyping to triage women to either direct referral to colposcopy or repeat screening. Direct referral did not meet positive and negative predictive value thresholds for efficiency for any strategies. However, the authors note that direct referral may nonetheless be useful among those with BMD due to minimal increases in colposcopy referrals and concerns of loss to follow-up at repeat screening. These findings demonstrate the potential utility of extended genotyping as a triage test in primary HPV screening programs. The results should be considered alongside the fact that referral to repeat screening may result in loss of engagement of women who need treatment to prevent invasive cancer. See related article by Kroon et al., p. 1037

Evidence of Decreased Long-term Risk of Cervical Precancer after Negative Primary HPV Screens Compared with Negative Cytology Screens in a Longitudinal Cohort Study

Abstract Background: The growing use of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening requires determining appropriate screening intervals to avoid overtreatment of transient disease. This study examined the long-term risk of cervical precancer after HPV screening to inform screening interval recommendations. Methods: This longitudinal cohort study (British Columbia, Canada, 2008 to 2022) recruited women and individuals with a cervix who received 1 to 2 negative HPV screens (HPV1 cohort, N = 5,546; HPV2 cohort, N = 6,624) during a randomized trial and women and individuals with a cervix with 1 to 2 normal cytology results (BCS1 cohort, N = 782,297; BCS2 cohort, N = 673,778) extracted from the provincial screening registry. All participants were followed through the registry for 14 years. Long-term risk of cervical precancer or worse [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+)] was compared between HPV and cytology cohorts. Results: Cumulative risks of CIN2+ were 3.2/1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6–4.7] in HPV1 and 2.7/1,000 (95% CI, 1.2–4.2) in HPV2 after 8 years. This was comparable with the risk in the cytology cohorts after 3 years [BCS1: 3.3/1,000 (95% CI, 3.1–3.4); BCS2: 2.5/1,000 (95% CI, 2.4–2.6)]. The cumulative risk of CIN2+ after 10 years was low in the HPV cohorts [HPV1: 4.7/1,000 (95% CI, 2.6–6.7); HPV2: 3.9 (95% CI, 1.1–6.6)]. Conclusions: Risk of CIN2+ 8 years after a negative screen in the HPV cohorts was comparable with risk after 3 years in the cytology cohorts (the benchmark for acceptable risk). Impact: These findings suggest that primary HPV screening intervals could be extended beyond the current 5-year recommendation, potentially reducing barriers to screening.