A positive HPV test with positive p16/Ki-67 double staining in self-sampled vaginal material is an accurate tool to detect women at risk for cervical cancer.
biomarkers
cervical cancer screening
human papillomavirus (HPV)
p16/Ki-67
superoxide dismutase 2
vaginal self-collection
α-mannosidase
Journal
Cancer cytopathology
ISSN: 1934-6638
Titre abrégé: Cancer Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101499453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
revised:
13
07
2021
received:
31
05
2021
accepted:
15
07
2021
pubmed:
11
8
2021
medline:
19
4
2022
entrez:
10
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The development of efficient strategies for managing high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV)-positive women is a major challenge when human papillomavirus-based primary screening is being performed. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of HR-HPV testing based on self-collection (SC) and HR-HPV testing based on collection by a health professional (HP) and to assess the potential usefulness of HR-HPV testing combined with testing with the biomarkers p16/Ki-67, α-mannosidase, and superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2). This was a cross-sectional study of 232 women admitted for colposcopy because of an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. The collected material underwent liquid-based cytology, HR-HPV detection, and immunocytochemical testing (p16/Ki-67, α-mannosidase, and SOD2). The gold standard was the histopathological result; the positive reference was CIN2+. The overall accuracy of HR-HPV testing was 76.6%; the results for the SC group (78.1%) and the HP group (75.2%) were similar. The positive predictive values (HP, 76.5%; SC, 80.0%), the negative predictive values (HP, 66.7%; SC, 64.3%), the positive likelihood values (HP, 1.35; SC, 1.36), and the negative likelihood values (HP, 0.21; SC, 0.19) were also similar. p16/Ki-67 showed higher sensitivity than the other 2 biomarkers: 78.1% versus 45.8% for α-mannosidase and 44.5% for SOD2. The specificities of the biomarkers were equivalent: 71.4% for p16/Ki-67, 77.8% for α-mannosidase, and 71.2% for SOD2. In the HP group, accuracy also leaned more heavily toward the final score (using α-mannosidase and SOD2) without statistical significance (80.8% vs 77.9%). The contrast with the SC group yielded the same level of accuracy. SC, when associated with testing with biomarkers, is as accurate as collection by HPs in the detection of women at risk for cervical cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The development of efficient strategies for managing high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV)-positive women is a major challenge when human papillomavirus-based primary screening is being performed. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of HR-HPV testing based on self-collection (SC) and HR-HPV testing based on collection by a health professional (HP) and to assess the potential usefulness of HR-HPV testing combined with testing with the biomarkers p16/Ki-67, α-mannosidase, and superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2).
METHODS
This was a cross-sectional study of 232 women admitted for colposcopy because of an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. The collected material underwent liquid-based cytology, HR-HPV detection, and immunocytochemical testing (p16/Ki-67, α-mannosidase, and SOD2). The gold standard was the histopathological result; the positive reference was CIN2+.
RESULTS
The overall accuracy of HR-HPV testing was 76.6%; the results for the SC group (78.1%) and the HP group (75.2%) were similar. The positive predictive values (HP, 76.5%; SC, 80.0%), the negative predictive values (HP, 66.7%; SC, 64.3%), the positive likelihood values (HP, 1.35; SC, 1.36), and the negative likelihood values (HP, 0.21; SC, 0.19) were also similar. p16/Ki-67 showed higher sensitivity than the other 2 biomarkers: 78.1% versus 45.8% for α-mannosidase and 44.5% for SOD2. The specificities of the biomarkers were equivalent: 71.4% for p16/Ki-67, 77.8% for α-mannosidase, and 71.2% for SOD2. In the HP group, accuracy also leaned more heavily toward the final score (using α-mannosidase and SOD2) without statistical significance (80.8% vs 77.9%). The contrast with the SC group yielded the same level of accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
SC, when associated with testing with biomarkers, is as accurate as collection by HPs in the detection of women at risk for cervical cancer.
Substances chimiques
Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16
0
Ki-67 Antigen
0
alpha-Mannosidase
EC 3.2.1.24
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
41-54Subventions
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
ID : 2005/57274-5
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
ID : 2008/57889-1
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
ID : 2015/26327-1
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
ID : 2015/26573-2
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
ID : 2016/16847-0
Organisme : Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
ID : 305378/2020-1
Organisme : Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
ID : 306326/2015-9
Organisme : Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
ID : 573799/2008-3
Organisme : Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Informations de copyright
© 2021 American Cancer Society.
Références
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394-424.
Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Estimativa 2020: Incidência de Câncer no Brasil. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva; 2019.
Sawaya GF, Smith-McCune K. Cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:459-467.
Filho AL, Schmitt FC. Cytology education in the 21st century: living in the past or crossing the Rubicon? Acta Cytol. 2010;54:654-656.
Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Wacholder S, Kinney W, Gage JC, Castle PE. Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:368-383.
Arbyn M, Ronco G, Meijer CJ, Naucler P. Trials comparing cytology with human papillomavirus screening. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:935-936.
Naucler P, Ryd W, Törnberg S, et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1589-1597.
van Rosmalen J, de Kok IMCM, van Ballegooijen M. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing. BJOG. 2012;119:699-709.
Franco EL. A new generation of studies of human papillomavirus DNA testing in cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1600-1601.
Polman NJ, Snijders PJF, Kenter GG, Berkhof J, Meijer CJLM. HPV-based cervical screening: rationale, expectations and future perspectives of the new Dutch screening programme. Prev Med. 2019;119:108-117.
Rama C, Roteli-Martins C, Derchain S, et al. Previous screening for cervical cancer among women with cytological and histological abnormalities. Article in Portuguese. Rev Saude Publica. 2008;42:411-419.
Gravitt PE, Paul P, Katki HA, et al. Effectiveness of VIA, Pap, and HPV DNA testing in a cervical cancer screening program in a peri-urban community in Andhra Pradesh, India. PLoS One. 2010;5:e13711.
Isidean SD, Coutlée F, Franco EL. Cobas 4800 HPV test, a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of human papillomavirus in cervical specimens. Exp Rev Mol Diagn. 2014;14:5-16.
Cerigo H, Macdonald ME, Franco EL, Brassard P. Awareness and knowledge about human papillomavirus among Inuit women in Nunavik, Quebec. J Commun Health. 2011;36:56-62.
Cerigo H, Coutlée F, Franco EL, Brassard P. Dry self-sampling versus provider-sampling of cervicovaginal specimens for human papillomavirus detection in the Inuit population of Nunavik, Quebec. J Med Screen. 2012;19:42-48.
Braz NSDF, Lorenzi NPC, Sorpreso ICE, de Aguiar LM, Baracat EC, Soares-Júnior JM. The acceptability of vaginal smear self-collection for screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2017;72:183-187.
Lorenzi NPC, Termini L, Longatto Filho A, et al. Age-related acceptability of vaginal self-sampling in cervical cancer screening at two university hospitals: a pilot cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:963.
Khleif SN, DeGregori J, Yee CL, et al. Inhibition of cyclin D-CDK4/CDK6 activity is associated with an E2F-mediated induction of cyclin kinase inhibitor activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93:4350-4354.
Bergeron C, Ronco G, Reuschenbach M, et al. The clinical impact of using p16(INK4a) immunochemistry in cervical histopathology and cytology: an update of recent developments. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:2741-2751.
Termini L, Boccardo E, Esteves GH, et al. Characterization of global transcription profile of normal and HPV-immortalized keratinocytes and their response to TNF treatment. BMC Med Genomics. 2008;1:29.
Termini L, Filho AL, Maciag PC, et al. Deregulated expression of superoxide dismutase-2 correlates with different stages of cervical neoplasia. Dis Markers. 2011;30:275-281.
Rabelo-Santos SH, Termini L, Boccardo E, et al. Strong SOD2 expression and HPV-16/18 positivity are independent events in cervical cancer. Oncotarget. 2018;9:21630-21640.
Huang L, Zheng M, Zhou Q-M, et al. Identification of a gene-expression signature for predicting lymph node metastasis in patients with early stage cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 2011;117:3363-3373.
Silveira CRF, Cipelli M, Manzine C, et al. Swainsonine, an alpha-mannosidase inhibitor, may worsen cervical cancer progression through the increase in myeloid derived suppressor cells population. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0213184.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Pap test and Bethesda 2014. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:271-281.
Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. 4th ed. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.
Castellsagué X. Natural history and epidemiology of HPV infection and cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(suppl 2):S4-S7.
Wright TCJ, Stoler MH, Agreda PM, et al. Clinical performance of the BD Onclarity HPV assay using an adjudicated cohort of BD SurePath liquid-based cytology specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;142:43-50.
Gustavsson I, Aarnio R, Berggrund M, et al. Randomised study of HPV prevalence and detection of CIN2+ in vaginal self-sampling compared to cervical specimens collected by medical personnel. Int J Cancer. 2019;144:89-97.
Louvanto K, Franco EL, Ramanakumar AV, et al. Methylation of viral and host genes and severity of cervical lesions associated with human papillomavirus type 16. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E638-E645.
Verhoef VMJ, Bosgraaf RP, van Kemenade FJ, et al. Triage by methylation-marker testing versus cytology in women who test HPV-positive on self-collected cervicovaginal specimens (PROHTECT-3): a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:315-322.
Wentzensen N, Fetterman B, Castle PE, et al. p16/Ki-67 dual stain cytology for detection of cervical precancer in HPV-positive women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv257.
Luttmer R, Dijkstra MG, Snijders PJF, et al. p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in a HPV-positive gynecologic outpatient population. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:870-878.
Gustinucci D, Giorgi Rossi P, Cesarini E, et al. Use of cytology, E6/E7 mRNA, and p16INK4a-Ki-67 to define the management of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;145:35-45.
Wright TCJ, Behrens CM, Ranger-Moore J, et al. Triaging HPV-positive women with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: results from a sub-study nested into the ATHENA trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:51-56.
Ovestad IT, Dalen I, Hansen E, et al. Clinical value of fully automated p16/Ki-67 dual staining in the triage of HPV-positive women in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125:283-291.
Clarke MA, Cheung LC, Castle PE, et al. Five-year risk of cervical precancer following p16/Ki-67 dual-stain triage of HPV-positive women. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:181-186.
Wentzensen N, Clarke MA, Bremer R, et al. Clinical evaluation of human papillomavirus screening with p16/Ki-67 dual stain triage in a large organized cervical cancer screening program. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:881-888.
Toliman PJ, Phillips S, de Jong S, et al. Evaluation of p16/Ki-67 dual-stain cytology performed on self-collected vaginal and clinician-collected cervical specimens for the detection of cervical pre-cancer. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26:748-752.
Areán-Cuns C, Mercado-Gutiérrez M, Paniello-Alastruey I, et al. Dual staining for p16/Ki67 is a more specific test than cytology for triage of HPV-positive women. Virchows Arch. 2018;473:599-606.
Talarico MCR, Nunes RAL, Silva GÁF, et al. High expression of SOD2 protein is a strong prognostic factor for stage IIIb squamous cell cervical carcinoma. Antioxidants (Basel). 2021;10:724.
Tota JE, Bentley J, Blake J, et al. Approaches for triaging women who test positive for human papillomavirus in cervical cancer screening. Prev Med. 2017;98:15-20.
Bosgraaf RP, Verhoef VMJ, Massuger LFAG, et al. Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:646-655.
Wentzensen N, Lahrmann B, Clarke MA, et al. Accuracy and efficiency of deep-learning-based automation of dual stain cytology in cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:72-79.