Search

Objectives To assess whether human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is a safe enough approach to warrant extension of the screening intervals of baseline Papanicolaou (Pap)-/HPV- women in low-income settings. Methods Of the >1000 women prospectively followed up as part of the Latin American Screening (LAMS) Study in São Paulo, Campinas, Porto Alegre) and Buenos Aires, 470 women with both baseline cytology and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) results available were included in this analysis. These baseline Pap-negative and HC2- or HC2+ women were controlled at six-month intervals with colposcopy, HC2 and Pap to assess the cumulative risk of incident Pap smear abnormalities and their predictive factors. Results Of the 470 women, 324 (68.9%) were high-risk HPV (hrHPV) positive and 146 (31.1%) were negative. Having two or more lifetime sex partners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.63; 95% CI 1.70-3.51) and women using hormonal contraception (OR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.40-3.51) were at increased risk for baseline hrHPV infection. Baseline hrHPV+ women had a significantly increased risk of incident abnormal Pap smears during the follow-up. Survival curves deviate from each other starting at month 24 onwards, when hrHPV+ women start rapidly accumulating incident Pap smear abnormalities, including atypical squamous cells (ASC) or worse (log-rank; P < 0.001), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) or worse (P < 0.001) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) (P = 0.03). Among the baseline hrHPV- women, the acquisition of incident hrHPV during the follow-up period significantly increased the risk of incident cytological abnormalities (hazard ratio = 3.5; 95% CI 1.1-11.7). Conclusion These data implicate that HPV testing for hrHPV types might be a safe enough approach to warrant extension of the screening interval of hrHPV-/Pap-women even in low-resource settings. Although some women will inevitably contract hrHPV, the process to develop HSIL will be long enough to enable their detection at the next screening round (e.g. after three years). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare Hybrid Capture II (HC2) in detecting high-risk (HR) HPV in patient-collected vaginal samples with those obtained using gynaecologist collected samples., Methods: Patients were submitted to Pap smears, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and HC2 for hr-HPV., Results: A total of 1,081 HC2 tests for HR-HPV were performed: 770 (71.2%) samples were collected by a physician and 311 (28.8%) were self-collected by the patients. In detecting any cervical lesion, the sensitivity of HC2 collected by a physician was higher (92.86%) than that (37.5%) in the self-sampling group. Negative predictive value (NPV) was high for both, 99.69% and 93.75%, respectively. Using the CIN2 cutoff, performance of HC2 was significantly improved: 92.9% and 62.5%, respectively. HC2 specificity for any cervical lesion and for CIN2 or higher were close to 90% in both groups., Conclusions: Self-sampled HPV testing is a powerful option to increase the detection of cervical lesions in women segregated from prevention programs.

Hybrid capture II (HC II) test for oncogenic human papillomaviruses (HPV) was carried out in a cohort of 4284 women at their first clinical visit. Overall prevalence of HPV was 17.1%, decreasing with age from 33.9% among women below 20 years to only 11.0% among those older than 41 years. HPV prevalence was significantly higher among current smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% CI 1.1-1.6), in women with two or more lifetime sexual partners (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.6-2.4), and those women with two or more sexual partners during the past 12 months prior to examination (OR = 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.2). HPV detection increased in parallel with increasing cytologic abnormality, being highest in women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (P= 0.001). Specificity of the HPV test in detecting histologically confirmed cervical disease was 85% (95% CI 83.9-86.1). Sensitivity of the HPV test in detecting histologic abnormalities increased in parallel with disease severity, ranging from 51.5% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 to 96.5% for CIN 3 and 100.0% for cancer, with respective decline of positive predictive value. These data suggest that HPV testing with HC II assay might be a viable screening tool among this population with relatively high prevalence of cervical disease.

Objectives: To assess the performance indicators of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI) in four Latin American centres participating in the ongoing Latin AMerican Screening (LAMS) study, in settings with moderate incidence of cervical disease and with poorly to moderately well-organized cervical cancer screening., Setting: Three Brazilian centres (São Paulo, Campinas and Porto Alegre) and one Argentine centre (Buenos Aires) recruited a total of 11,834 healthy women to undergo VIA, VILI, conventional Pap smear and Hybrid Capture II (HCII)., Methods: Women who had a positive result from any of these tests were subjected to colposcopy and biopsies (if necessary), and women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were properly treated. To control for verification bias, 5% of women with normal tests were referred for colposcopy, as were 20% of HCII-negative women., Results: Data on VIA (n=11,834), VILI (n=2994), conventional Pap smear (n=10,138) and HCII (n=4195) were available for test comparisons, calculating sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Overall test positivity was 11.6% for VIA, 23.0% for VILI, 2.2% for Pap smear (LSIL threshold), 1.1% for Pap smear (HSIL threshold) and 17.1% for HCII. VIA was positive in 61.8% of the women with CIN 1, 57.0% of those with CIN 2, 35.0% of women with CIN 3 and in 21 of 28 (75%) of women with cancer. Approximately 10% of women with no detectable disease had an abnormal VIA. Regarding VILI, 83.3% of women diagnosed with CIN 1 and 62.5% of those with CIN 3 had an abnormal test. VILI failed to detect one of three cases of cancer. Both the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of VIA and VILI in detecting CIN 2 or CIN 3 could be significantly improved depending on the combination with Pap smear or HCII (sensitivity up to 100.0% and specificity up to 99.8%)., Conclusions: The LAMS study failed to reproduce the performance figures obtained with VIA and VILI (as stand-alone tests) in some other settings, where the prevalence of cervical disease was higher. However, a combined use of VIA or VILI with the Pap test or HCII allowed specific detection of cervical abnormalities.