Cargando…

The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping and cytology have been recommended for colposcopy triage, but it is unclear which combinations of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types and cytology with various thresholds provide clinically useful information for the triage after primary HPV screen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Song, Fangbin, Du, Hui, Wang, Chun, Huang, Xia, Wu, Ruifang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7289398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32525936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234518
_version_ 1783545454848376832
author Song, Fangbin
Du, Hui
Wang, Chun
Huang, Xia
Wu, Ruifang
author_facet Song, Fangbin
Du, Hui
Wang, Chun
Huang, Xia
Wu, Ruifang
author_sort Song, Fangbin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping and cytology have been recommended for colposcopy triage, but it is unclear which combinations of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types and cytology with various thresholds provide clinically useful information for the triage after primary HPV screening on self-collected samples. METHOD: Chinese Multi-site Screening Trial (CHIMUST) database focused on self-collected samples was reviewed using the results of Cobas4800 HPV assay. Absolute risks of each genotype for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse/ 3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+) were calculated. Triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or worse cytology was used as the comparator, and diagnostic accuracy for paired comparisons between algorithms was obtained using McNemar’s test. RESULTS: A total of 10, 498 women were included, the overall prevalence of hrHPV, HPV16, HPV18, and Other hrHPV genotypes were 13.7%, 2.4%, 0.8%, and 10.5%, respectively. HPV16-positive women had the highest absolute risk among various genotypes for CIN2+/CIN3+ whether in normal or abnormal cytology (ASCUS or worse) and among all age groups. When compared with the comparator, combining HPV16 positivity and/or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) or worse yielded higher specificity (97.7% vs. 97.0%, p<0.0001), similar sensitivity (90.7% vs. 96.3%, p = 0.256) for detection of CIN3+, and a decrease in colposcopy referral rate from 3.5% to 2.7%, similar results were found for CIN2+. Positivity for HPV16 and/or (ASCUS or worse), and positivity for (HPV16 and/or HPV18) and/or (ASCUS or worse) achieved favorable sensitivity compared with the comparator (80.6% and 81.3% vs. 70.1% respectively for CIN2+, p<0.0001; both 96.3% vs. 96.3% for CIN3+, p = 1.000), these algorithms would reduce the colposcopy referral rate to 5.0% and 5.6% respectively, compared with 13.7% of that for HPV alone. CONCLUSIONS: Triage of HPV-positive women on self-collected samples by combining HPV16 or HPV16/18 genotyping with different thresholds of cytology could provide tradeoffs in sensitivity for detecting cervical lesions and colposcopy referral rates, and tailor management in various circumstances of clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7289398
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72893982020-06-15 The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples Song, Fangbin Du, Hui Wang, Chun Huang, Xia Wu, Ruifang PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping and cytology have been recommended for colposcopy triage, but it is unclear which combinations of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types and cytology with various thresholds provide clinically useful information for the triage after primary HPV screening on self-collected samples. METHOD: Chinese Multi-site Screening Trial (CHIMUST) database focused on self-collected samples was reviewed using the results of Cobas4800 HPV assay. Absolute risks of each genotype for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse/ 3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+) were calculated. Triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or worse cytology was used as the comparator, and diagnostic accuracy for paired comparisons between algorithms was obtained using McNemar’s test. RESULTS: A total of 10, 498 women were included, the overall prevalence of hrHPV, HPV16, HPV18, and Other hrHPV genotypes were 13.7%, 2.4%, 0.8%, and 10.5%, respectively. HPV16-positive women had the highest absolute risk among various genotypes for CIN2+/CIN3+ whether in normal or abnormal cytology (ASCUS or worse) and among all age groups. When compared with the comparator, combining HPV16 positivity and/or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) or worse yielded higher specificity (97.7% vs. 97.0%, p<0.0001), similar sensitivity (90.7% vs. 96.3%, p = 0.256) for detection of CIN3+, and a decrease in colposcopy referral rate from 3.5% to 2.7%, similar results were found for CIN2+. Positivity for HPV16 and/or (ASCUS or worse), and positivity for (HPV16 and/or HPV18) and/or (ASCUS or worse) achieved favorable sensitivity compared with the comparator (80.6% and 81.3% vs. 70.1% respectively for CIN2+, p<0.0001; both 96.3% vs. 96.3% for CIN3+, p = 1.000), these algorithms would reduce the colposcopy referral rate to 5.0% and 5.6% respectively, compared with 13.7% of that for HPV alone. CONCLUSIONS: Triage of HPV-positive women on self-collected samples by combining HPV16 or HPV16/18 genotyping with different thresholds of cytology could provide tradeoffs in sensitivity for detecting cervical lesions and colposcopy referral rates, and tailor management in various circumstances of clinical practice. Public Library of Science 2020-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7289398/ /pubmed/32525936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234518 Text en © 2020 Song et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Song, Fangbin
Du, Hui
Wang, Chun
Huang, Xia
Wu, Ruifang
The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples
title The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples
title_full The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples
title_fullStr The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples
title_full_unstemmed The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples
title_short The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples
title_sort effectiveness of hpv16 and hpv18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7289398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32525936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234518
work_keys_str_mv AT songfangbin theeffectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT duhui theeffectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT wangchun theeffectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT huangxia theeffectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT wuruifang theeffectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT theeffectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT songfangbin effectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT duhui effectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT wangchun effectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT huangxia effectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT wuruifang effectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples
AT effectivenessofhpv16andhpv18genotypingandcytologywithdifferentthresholdsforthetriageofhumanpapillomavirusbasedscreeningonselfcollectedsamples