Investigator

Marie-Hélène Mayrand

Universit De Montral

MMMarie-Hélène Mayr…
Papers(3)
Modeling the Balance …CO …Clinical Performance …
Collaborators(6)
Eduardo L. FrancoSandra D. IsideanTalía MalagónCéline BouchardFrançois CoutléeKarena D. Volesky
Institutions(4)
Universit De MontralMcgill UniversityCentre Médical Santé …Université de Montréal

Papers

Modeling the Balance of Benefits and Harms of Cervical Cancer Screening with Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing

Abstract Background: Benefits of screening should outweigh its potential harms. We compared various metrics to assess the balance of benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening. Methods: We used a cervical cancer natural history Markov model calibrated to the Canadian context to simulate 100,000 unvaccinated women over a lifetime of screening with either cytology every 3 years or human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years. We estimated the balance of benefits and harms attributable to screening using various metrics, including colposcopies/life-year gained, and net lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, a measure integrating women's health preferences. We present the average (minimum–maximum) model predictions. Results: Cytology-based screening led to 1,319,854 screening tests, 30,395 colposcopies, 13,504 life-years gained over a lifetime, 98 screening tests/life-year gained, 2.3 (1.6–3.3) colposcopies/life-year gained, and a net lifetime gain of 10,735 QALY (5,040–17,797). HPV-based screening with cytology triage in the same population would lead to 698,250 screening tests, 73,296 colposcopies, 15,066 life-years gained over a lifetime, 46 screening tests/life-year gained, 4.9 colposcopies/life-year gained (2.9–11.1), and a net lifetime gain of 11,690 QALY (4,409–18,742). HPV-based screening was predicted to prevent more cancers, but also incur more screening harms than cytology-based screening. Conclusions: Metrics using colposcopies as the main harm outcome favored cytology-based screening, whereas metrics based on screening tests and health preferences tended to favor HPV-based screening strategies. Impact: Whether HPV-based screening will improve the balance between benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening depends on how the balance between benefits and harms is assessed.

CO 2 laser therapy versus topical imiquimod for the treatment of vulvar high‐grade intraepithelial lesions: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract Objectives To compare topical imiquimod with CO 2 laser therapy for the treatment of a first episode of vulvar high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (vHSIL), to identify serious adverse effects of both treatment modalities, and to examine risk factors for treatment failure. Methods This retrospective chart‐based cohort study included 47 patients initially treated with topical imiquimod or CO 2 laser therapy between 2017 and 2021. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for repeat treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were used to compare the probability of treatment failure over time by treatment group. Potential risk factors for treatment failure, including age, treatment type, lesion focality, and smoking, were examined using Cox proportional hazards models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results Sixty‐six percent (31/47) of patients were initially treated with topical imiquimod and 34% (16/47) with CO 2 laser. Both groups were similar in age, lesion focality, human papillomavirus vaccination, and smoking status. During a follow‐up of 62.3 person‐years, 52% (16/31) of patients treated with imiquimod and 56% (9/16) of patients treated with CO 2 laser experienced treatment failure. Age over 52 years was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (aHR 3.07, 95% CI 1.25–7.53). The association was positive but not significant for multifocal versus unifocal lesions and for smokers versus non‐smokers. No serious adverse effects were observed with either treatment modality. Conclusion Topical imiquimod has similar efficacy and safety to CO 2 laser therapy for initial the treatment of vHSIL. Older age is associated with an increased risk of treatment failure.

Clinical Performance of the BD Onclarity Extended Genotyping Assay for the Management of Women Positive for Human Papillomavirus in Cervical Cancer Screening

Abstract Background: Among women whose cervical specimens tested positive for high-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) via the Hybrid Capture 2 assay in the Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial (CCCaST), we assessed hrHPV genotype concordance between BD Onclarity HPV Assay and Roche's Linear Array, overall and stratified by hrHPV viral load. We also evaluated the performance of cytology, cytology combined with hrHPV genotyping (Onclarity assay) for HPV16/18 and non-HPV16/18 types, and hrHPV genotyping triage strategies for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 and worse (CIN2+/CIN3+). Methods: Standard measures (expected agreement, agreement, and κ values) were used to compare Onclarity to the reference test, Linear Array. Twenty-four triage strategies were evaluated by calculating their sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection. Results: Among 734 hrHPV+ samples tested, there was near perfect concordance irrespective of viral load between the Onclarity and Linear Array assays for the individual genotypes [human papillomaviruses (HPV) 16, 18, 31, 45, 51, 52] by Onclarity (κ values ranged from 0.92–0.98). Strategies with adequate specificity (>75%) and the highest sensitivities to detect CIN3+ among 617 women positive for hrHPV, were positivity to HPV16 and/or 31 (Sensitivity: 65.2%, Specificity: 76.9%) and HPV16 and/or 18 (Sensitivity: 58.7%, Specificity: 81.6%). Conclusions: While confirming the importance of HPV16, we found that HPV31 was comparable with HPV18 for the detection of CIN2/3+ in the triage of women positive for hrHPV. Impact: HPV31 may be an important genotype in the triage of women positive for hrHPV.

3Papers
6Collaborators