Age-specific performance of human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA assay versus cytology for primary cervical cancer screening and triage: community-based screening in China.

Background: In the general population, primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is advocated for cervical cancer (CC) screening. HPV E6/E7 mRNA (Aptima HPV, AHPV) assays have garnered considerable traction due to their higher specificity when compared with HPV DNA assays. Here, we investigated age-specific primary AHPV screening assays and different triage strategies versus cytology to identify the best approach.
Methods: Between April 2018 and December 2021, we recruited female participants from 34 communities across Liaoning province and Qingdao City, China. Primary cervical screening protocols included liquid-based cytology (LBC) and AHPV assays, with females positive for any assays undergoing colposcopy. Genotyping (AHPV-GT) was conducted on all HPV-positive samples. Our primary outcomes were the identification of age-specific detection rates, colposcopy referral rates, and sensitivity and specificity values for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+). AHPV and different triage strategy performances were also examined across different age cohorts.
Results: Our investigation included 9911 eligible females. Age-specific abnormal cytology rates were in the 6.1%-8.0% range, and were highest in 45-54-year olds. When compared with 35-44-or 45-54-year olds, HPV prevalence was highest in 55-64-year olds (12.2% or 11.6% vs.14.1%, P = 0.048 and P = 0.002, respectively). In 35-44-year olds, AHPV sensitivity for detecting HSIL+ was 96.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89.7-100) - significantly higher than LBC sensitivity (65.5 [95% CI: 48.3-82.8], P < 0.001). When compared with LBC, HSIL+ detection rates by AHPV-GT using reflex LBC triage increased by 31.5% (9.6‰ vs. 7.3‰), and colposcopy referral rates decreased by 16.4% (5.1% vs. 6.1%). In 45-54-year olds, HSIL+ detection rates for AHPV-GT using reflex LBC triage were lower than LBC rates (6.2‰ vs. 6.6‰). In 55-64-year olds, AHPV sensitivity (97.2 [95% CI: 91.7-100.0]) was higher than LBC sensitivity (66.7 [95% CI: 50.0-80.6], P = 0.003). The area under the curve (AUC) value was not significantly different between AHPV-GT with reflex LBC triage and LBC (0.845 [95% CI: 0.771-0.920] vs. 0.812 [95% CI: 0.734-0.891], P = 0.236).
Conclusions: Primary AHPV screening using different triage strategies were different across different age cohorts. Thus, AHPV may be an appropriate primary screening method for 35-44 and 55-64 year old females, while AHPV-GT with reflex LBC triage may be more apt for 35-44 year old females.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 Zhang, Liu, Yang, Cui, Wang, Wang and Piao.)