Clinical evaluation of modifications to a human papillomavirus assay to optimise its utility for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: a diagnostic accuracy study.
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
25
07
2019
revised:
07
11
2019
accepted:
02
12
2019
entrez:
26
1
2020
pubmed:
26
1
2020
medline:
4
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
HPV-based screen and treat is the recommended approach for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings, but quite low specificity of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, particularly in women living with HIV, leads to overtreatment. We evaluated whether HPV type restriction and more stringent cutoffs on Xpert HPV optimise performance characteristics of this assay for screen and treat. We recruited HIV-negative and HIV-positive women aged 30-65 years from a primary care facility and a referral colposcopy clinic in Cape Town, South Africa. Women included had no history of any anogenital cancer or treatment for cervical dysplasia, had no hysterectomy, and were not pregnancy at the time of recruitment. All women had cervical samples collected for Xpert HPV (an assay that detects high-risk HPV types in five channels: HPV type 16; HPV types 18 or 45, or both; HPV types 31, 33, 35, 52, or 58, or more than one of these types; HPV types 51 or 59, or both; and HPV types 39, 56, 66, or 68, or more than one of these types) and underwent colposcopy and histological sampling with consensus pathology review. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate improvements in specificity attained by modifying cycle threshold cutoffs to define screen-positive results. We recruited 1121 women aged 30-65 years, 586 of whom were HIV-negative and 535 HIV-positive. Sensitivity of detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater in HIV-negative women using manufacturer-defined cycle threshold cutoffs for all channels was 88·7% (95% CI 83·1-94·3), and specificity was 86·9% (83·4-90·4). Sensitivity was 93·6% (90·0-97·3) and specificity 59·9% (54·1-65·7) in HIV-positive women. Cycle threshold values from channels detecting HPV type 16, HPV types 18 or 45 (or both), and HPV types 31, 33, 35, 52, or 58 (or more than one of these types) were informative to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater. Shifting cycle threshold cutoffs on these three channels allowing sensitivity to decline to 75-85%, led to specificities of 91·3-95·3% in HIV-negative women and 77·0-85·8% in HIV-positive women. More stringent cycle threshold cutoffs on selected channels in Xpert HPV improve specificity with only modest losses in sensitivity, making this assay an optimal choice for HPV-based screen and treat in settings with a high prevalence of HIV. These modifications can be made from standard output with no need for new engineering. Decision making about performance characteristics of HPV testing can be shifted to programme implementers and cutoffs selected according to resource availability and community preferences. Supported by the National Cancer Institute UH2/3 CA189908.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
HPV-based screen and treat is the recommended approach for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings, but quite low specificity of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, particularly in women living with HIV, leads to overtreatment. We evaluated whether HPV type restriction and more stringent cutoffs on Xpert HPV optimise performance characteristics of this assay for screen and treat.
METHODS
We recruited HIV-negative and HIV-positive women aged 30-65 years from a primary care facility and a referral colposcopy clinic in Cape Town, South Africa. Women included had no history of any anogenital cancer or treatment for cervical dysplasia, had no hysterectomy, and were not pregnancy at the time of recruitment. All women had cervical samples collected for Xpert HPV (an assay that detects high-risk HPV types in five channels: HPV type 16; HPV types 18 or 45, or both; HPV types 31, 33, 35, 52, or 58, or more than one of these types; HPV types 51 or 59, or both; and HPV types 39, 56, 66, or 68, or more than one of these types) and underwent colposcopy and histological sampling with consensus pathology review. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate improvements in specificity attained by modifying cycle threshold cutoffs to define screen-positive results.
RESULTS
We recruited 1121 women aged 30-65 years, 586 of whom were HIV-negative and 535 HIV-positive. Sensitivity of detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater in HIV-negative women using manufacturer-defined cycle threshold cutoffs for all channels was 88·7% (95% CI 83·1-94·3), and specificity was 86·9% (83·4-90·4). Sensitivity was 93·6% (90·0-97·3) and specificity 59·9% (54·1-65·7) in HIV-positive women. Cycle threshold values from channels detecting HPV type 16, HPV types 18 or 45 (or both), and HPV types 31, 33, 35, 52, or 58 (or more than one of these types) were informative to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater. Shifting cycle threshold cutoffs on these three channels allowing sensitivity to decline to 75-85%, led to specificities of 91·3-95·3% in HIV-negative women and 77·0-85·8% in HIV-positive women.
INTERPRETATION
More stringent cycle threshold cutoffs on selected channels in Xpert HPV improve specificity with only modest losses in sensitivity, making this assay an optimal choice for HPV-based screen and treat in settings with a high prevalence of HIV. These modifications can be made from standard output with no need for new engineering. Decision making about performance characteristics of HPV testing can be shifted to programme implementers and cutoffs selected according to resource availability and community preferences.
FUNDING
Supported by the National Cancer Institute UH2/3 CA189908.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31981559
pii: S2214-109X(19)30527-3
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30527-3
pmc: PMC8720235
mid: NIHMS1766548
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e296-e304Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UH2 CA189908
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UH3 CA189908
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UH2 3 CA189908
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-ND-NC 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3 Suppl 1):S12
pubmed: 16450428
J Clin Virol. 2009 Nov;46 Suppl 3:S1-4
pubmed: 20129067
Oncologist. 2013;18 Suppl:6-12
pubmed: 24334477
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 17;10(4):e0122169
pubmed: 25885821
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Oct 20;102(20):1557-67
pubmed: 20884893
Vaccine. 2006 Aug 31;24 Suppl 3:S3/71-7
pubmed: 16950020
J Med Microbiol. 2018 May;67(5):676-680
pubmed: 29580367
Int J Cancer. 2016 Aug 15;139(4):908-15
pubmed: 27006131
Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 17;7(1):198
pubmed: 30447695
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2005 Nov 15;3:11
pubmed: 16288646
JAMA. 2001 Jun 27;285(24):3107-15
pubmed: 11427139
Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2009 Jan;4(1):68-73
pubmed: 19339941
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1385-94
pubmed: 19339719
J Clin Virol. 2017 Feb;87:1-4
pubmed: 27984765
JAMA. 2005 Nov 2;294(17):2173-81
pubmed: 16264158
Virol J. 2018 Oct 29;15(1):166
pubmed: 30373616
Lancet. 1987 May 30;1(8544):1247-9
pubmed: 2884378
J Clin Virol. 2016 Mar;76 Suppl 1:S14-S21
pubmed: 26522865
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018 Oct 1;79(2):195-205
pubmed: 29916959
Papillomavirus Res. 2016 Dec;2:56-60
pubmed: 29074186
Int J Cancer. 2009 Feb 1;124(3):516-20
pubmed: 18973271
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jun;52(6):2089-95
pubmed: 24719440
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Sep;21(9):817-26
pubmed: 25936581
Papillomavirus Res. 2018 Dec;6:70-76
pubmed: 30391365
Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):524-32
pubmed: 24192252
Vaccine. 2012 Nov 20;30 Suppl 5:F88-99
pubmed: 23199969
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Sep;12(9):880-90
pubmed: 21865084
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):861-870
pubmed: 27814963