Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Hypothesis/Commentary

HPV Genotyping in the Prevention of Cervical Cancer—How and When Can It Be a Useful Marker?

Annarosa Del Mistro
Annarosa Del Mistro
1Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV IRCCS, Padua, Italy.
2Immunologia Diagnostica Molecolare Oncologica Unit, Padova, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: annarosa.delmistro@ioveneto.it
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0591 Published September 2015
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

See related article by Schiffman et al., p. 1304

Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types is the known cause of cervical cancer (1), a neoplasia suitable to effective primary and secondary prevention. For many decades, cervical cancer screening has been performed by cytology as the primary test, with significant reductions in cancer incidence (2), and, more recently, the use of hrHPV testing with cytology triage in large randomized controlled trials (RCT) has been demonstrated more effective than cytology in preventing invasive cervical cancer (3). The aim of screening is the prevention of cervical cancer through detection and excision of precursor lesions (namely, CIN2 and worse), and its effectiveness, besides primary test performance, depends on target population coverage and adherence to quality-controlled protocols; organized population-based screening is more cost-effective than opportunistic testing.

HPV-based screening is more sensitive than cytology-based screening given the use of clinically validated tests for hrHPV types (4), in women 30 years and older, and triage of HPV-positive cases to counterbalance the 2.5% to 4% lower specificity (3). HPV infection is transient in the vast majority of the women (and particularly in those younger than 30–35 years of age) and only a minority harbor a persistent infection and have or are at risk of having a high-grade lesion (5). Spontaneous regression of CIN2 and, to a lesser extent, CIN3 lesions also occurs in a proportion of women and is more frequent in the youngest. Therefore, triage is necessary to select the women at higher risk of precancer who need immediate colposcopy, thus limiting excessive referral and overdiagnosis in women with transient and not (or less) clinically relevant HPV infections. Cytology is actually the most widely used test to triage hrHPV-positive women attending organized screening (6), but search for alternative (and less subjective) tests is advocated. Several studies, investigating p16 expression, HPV genotyping, HPV mRNA expression, and methylation of cellular and/or viral sequences as triage markers (used alone or in combination) have been published so far (7–12). These markers have been analyzed in terms of immediate or subsequent risk of CIN2+ or CIN3+, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and cost-effectiveness (colposcopy referrals, overdiagnosis, and harms). These analyses have been performed on different populations (clinical settings or population-based screening), of different ages, cross-sectionally only or longitudinally. Overall, HPV16 has always been associated with the highest risk of CIN2+ and CIN3+, with a three-tier ranking of the other hrHPV types; risks were highest in the first screening round, gradually decreasing over time but still persisting after more than 9 years (12). Moreover, an inverse relationship between sensitivity and specificity of the triage tests was always registered, and different combinations have been proposed. Indeed, the ideal triage test/strategy should allow selection of women at highest risk to be immediately referred to colposcopy, while referring the other hrHPV-positives to a follow-up step that will later allow additional risk stratification. Subsequent controls entail the risk of loss to follow-up of women at risk of high-grade lesions in the medium- to long-term period; thus, reflex tests feasible on the baseline cervical sample have the potential to increase compliance.

Schiffman and colleagues (13) present in this issue a large evaluation on the use of HPV genotyping in three clinical settings: (i) women 21 years and older with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) cytology and positive hrHPV test; (ii) women 30 years and older with positive hrHPV test and negative cytology; and (iii) women 25 years and older with positive hrHPV test. In all three scenarios, infection by HPV16 was associated with a higher 3-year risk of CIN3+ than by infection with the other hrHPV types. This strong association however does not automatically translate into effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and utility of partial genotyping as triage marker in all scenarios. In particular, triage of women with ASC-US by hrHPV testing is effective and common practice in many countries; specific detection of HPV16 by HPV-DNA (14) or HPV-mRNA (15) tests allows stratification of hrHPV-positive women, and could eventually be implemented. On the other hand, management of hrHPV-positive/cytology-negative women older than 30 years is indeed the main challenge of HPV-based screening programs, recently implemented in some European countries; actually, in Italy, these women are referred to hrHPV retesting at 1-year interval. Partial genotyping (alone or in combination with cytology) would further stratify hrHPV-positive women, at the cost of increasing the complexity of the protocol. Indeed, within population-based organized screening programs, it is of utmost importance to use simple and widely accepted (by health-care providers within and outside the screening setting) protocols to ensure compliance and screening effectiveness. Longitudinal data from RCTs on persistently HPV16-positive women with no lesions detected should also be evaluated to define their long-term risk and best follow-up strategy before implementation of triage by partial genotyping. Finally, in the screening context, two additional caveats must be kept into consideration in the near future; namely, the different risk of precursor lesions in the first versus the subsequent hrHPV-based rounds, much lower in the second (16), and the screening strategy for vaccinated women, in whom lesions caused by types 16 and 18 will gradually disappear, and specific protocols will have to be designed.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

  • Received June 1, 2015.
  • Accepted June 9, 2015.
  • ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bouvard V,
    2. Baan R,
    3. Straif K,
    4. Grosse Y,
    5. Secretan B,
    6. El Ghissassi F,
    7. et al.
    A review of human carcinogens – Part B: biological agents. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:321–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bray F,
    2. Loos AH,
    3. McCarron P,
    4. Weiderpass E,
    5. Arbyn M,
    6. Moller H,
    7. et al.
    Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:677–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ronco G,
    2. Dillner J,
    3. Elfstrom KM,
    4. Tunesi S,
    5. Snijders PJF,
    6. Arbyn M,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014;383:524–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Mejier CJLM,
    2. Castle PE,
    3. Hesselink AT,
    4. Franco EL,
    5. Ronco G,
    6. Arbyn M,
    7. et al.
    Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older. Int J Cancer 2009;124:516–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Steenbergen RD,
    2. Snijders PJ,
    3. Heideman DA,
    4. Meijer CJ
    . Clinical implications of (epi)genetic changes in HPV-induced cervical precancerous lesions. Nat Rev Cancer 2014;14:395–405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bergeron C,
    2. Giorgi-Rossi P,
    3. Cas F,
    4. Schiboni ML,
    5. Ghiringhello B,
    6. Dalla Palma P,
    7. et al.
    Informed cytology for triaging HPV-positive women: substudy nested in the NTCC randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju423.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Carozzi F,
    2. Confortini M,
    3. Dalla Palma P,
    4. Del Mistro A,
    5. Gillio-Tos A,
    6. De Marco L,
    7. et al.
    Use of p16(INK4A) overexpression to increase the specificity of human papillomavirus testing: a study nested in the NTCC randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:937–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Dijkstra MG,
    2. van Niekerk D,
    3. Rijkaart DC,
    4. van Kemenade FJ,
    5. Heideman DAM,
    6. Snijders PJF,
    7. et al.
    Primary hrHPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: how to manage screen-positive women? A POBASCAM trial substudy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:55–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Luttmer R,
    2. Berkhof J,
    3. Dijkstra MG,
    4. van Kemenade FJ,
    5. Snijders PJF,
    6. Heideman DAM
    . Comparing triage algorithms using HPV DNA genotyping, HPV E7 mRNA detection and cytology in high-risk HPV DNA-positive women. J Clin Virol 2015;67:59–66.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hesselink AT,
    2. Heideman DA,
    3. Steenbergen RD,
    4. Coupe VM,
    5. Overmeer RM,
    6. Rijkaart DC,
    7. et al.
    Combined promoter methylation analysis of CADM1 and MAL: an objective triage tool for high-risk human papillomavirus DNA-positive women. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:2459–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Cox JT,
    2. Castle PE,
    3. Behrens CM,
    4. Sharma A,
    5. Wright TC,
    6. Cuzick J,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of cervical cancer screening strategies incorporating different combinations of cytology, HPV testing, and genotyping for HPV 16/18: results from the ATHENA HPV study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:184.e11.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Smelov V,
    2. Elfstrom KM,
    3. Johansson ALV,
    4. Eklund K,
    5. Naucler P,
    6. Arnheim-Dahlstrom L,
    7. Dillner J
    . Long-term HPV type-specific risks of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions: a 14-year follow-up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial. Int J Cancer 2015;136:1171–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Schiffman M,
    2. Boyle S,
    3. Raine-Bennett T,
    4. Katki HA,
    5. Gage JC,
    6. Wentzensen N,
    7. et al.
    The role of human papillomavirus genotyping in cervical cancer screening: a large-scale evaluation of the cobas HPV test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:1304–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Stoler MH,
    2. Wright TC Jr.,
    3. Sharma A,
    4. Apple R,
    5. Gutekunst K,
    6. Wright TL,
    7. et al.
    High-risk human papillomavirus testing in women with ASC-US cytology: results from the ATHENA HPV study. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;135:468–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Cuzick J,
    3. Stoler MH,
    4. Wright TC Jr.,
    5. Reid JL,
    6. Dockter J,
    7. et al.
    Detection of human papillomavirus 16, 18, and 45 in women with ASC-US cytology and the risk of cervical precancer. Results from the CLEAR HPV study. Am J Clin Pathol 2015;143:160–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Pasquale L,
    2. Giorgi Rossi P,
    3. Carozzi F,
    4. Pedretti C,
    5. Ruggeri C,
    6. Scalvinoni V,
    7. et al.
    Cervical cancer screening with HPV testing in the Valcamonica (Italy) screening programme. J Med Screen 2015;22:38–48.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 24 (9)
September 2015
Volume 24, Issue 9
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
HPV Genotyping in the Prevention of Cervical Cancer—How and When Can It Be a Useful Marker?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
HPV Genotyping in the Prevention of Cervical Cancer—How and When Can It Be a Useful Marker?
Annarosa Del Mistro
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev September 1 2015 (24) (9) 1302-1303; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0591

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
HPV Genotyping in the Prevention of Cervical Cancer—How and When Can It Be a Useful Marker?
Annarosa Del Mistro
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev September 1 2015 (24) (9) 1302-1303; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0591
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Evolving Scale and Profile of Cancer
  • Physicians and HPV Vaccination
Show more Hypothesis/Commentary
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement