[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Clinical Evaluation of Human Papillomavirus Screening With p16/Ki-67 Dual Stain Triage in a Large Organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program

Educational Objective
To review what are efficient approaches for triage of human papillomavirus–positive women in cervical cancer screening.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What are efficient approaches for triage of human papillomavirus–positive women in cervical cancer screening?

Findings  This cohort study of 3225 women found that p16/Ki-67 dual stain, alone or in combination with human papillomavirus 16/18 genotyping, provides better risk stratification than comparable cytologic-based strategies.

Meaning  Triage of human papillomavirus–positive women with dual stain may lead to lower referral to undergo colposcopy with similar detection of precancerous lesions compared with cytologic screening, making cervical cancer screening more efficient.

Abstract

Importance  As cervical cancer screening transitions from Papanicolaou cytologic screening to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing worldwide, effective triage tests are needed to decide who among the HPV-positive women should receive further diagnostic evaluation to avoid unnecessary colposcopies and biopsies.

Objective  To evaluate the performance of the p16/Ki-67 dual stain (DS) and HPV16/18 genotyping for the triage of HPV-positive women.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A prospective observational study was conducted within the cervical cancer screening program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California of 3225 HPV-positive women undergoing HPV and Papanicolaou cytologic testing with a valid DS result from September 16 to October 31, 2015, with follow-up through December 31, 2018.

Exposures  Human papillomavirus screening with partial genotyping and cytologic triage compared with DS triage.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe (CIN3+) and grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+), diagnosed within 3 years after sample collection.

Results  A total of 3225 women (mean [SD] age, 37.9 [11.3] years) participated in the study. For triage of HPV-positive women with partial genotyping, DS showed better risk stratification for CIN3+ than did Papanicolaou cytologic testing, with women with positive DS results having a higher risk than women with positive Papanicolaou test results for CIN3+ (218 of 1818 [12.0%; 95% CI, 10.5%-13.5%] vs 219 of 2128 [10.3%; 95% CI, 9.0%-11.6%]; P = .005). Similarly, DS showed better risk stratification for CIN3+ compared with Papanicolaou cytologic testing in HPV-positive women, irrespective of genotyping. The greatest reassurance against CIN3+ was observed in HPV16/18-negative women with negative DS results, with a risk low enough to extend retesting intervals. Dual stain triage strategies required substantially fewer colposcopies per detection of CIN3+ compared with Papanicolaou cytologic testing, with a 32.1% (859 of 2677) reduction of colposcopies compared with the currently recommended triage strategy of HPV screening with Papanicolaou cytologic testing. Results for CIN2+ were very similar.

Conclusions and Relevance  Triage of HPV-positive women with DS was superior to Papanicolaou cytologic testing in this study, demonstrating equal immediate detection of precancerous lesions and substantially reduced referral to colposcopy. These findings suggest that DS can safely replace Papanicolaou cytologic testing as a triage strategy for primary HPV screening, and that retesting intervals in HPV16/18-negative women with negative DS results can be safely extended to 3 years.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: January 23, 2019.

Published Online: May 13, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0306

Correction: This article was corrected on June 10, 2019, to add the Open Access paragraph to the acknowledgments section and again on July 1, 2019, to fix errors in the caption to Figure 2.

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Wentzensen N et al. JAMA Internal Medicine.

Corresponding Author: Nicolas Wentzensen, MD, PhD, MS, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Dr, Room 6-E448, Bethesda, MD 20892 (wentzenn@mail.nih.gov).

Author Contributions: Drs Wentzensen and Clarke had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Wentzensen, Castle, Schiffman, Lorey.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Wentzensen, Bremer, Poitras, Tokugawa, Castle, Schiffman.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wentzensen, Clarke, Goldhoff, Castle, Schiffman, Kingery, Grewal, Locke, Kinney, Lorey.

Statistical analysis: Wentzensen, Clarke, Bremer, Poitras, Castle, Schiffman.

Obtained funding: Wentzensen, Schiffman.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Wentzensen, Poitras, Tokugawa, Goldhoff, Schiffman, Kingery, Grewal, Kinney, Lorey.

Supervision: Wentzensen.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Wentzensen reported being employed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which has received cervical cancer screening assays in-kind or at reduced cost from BD and Roche for studies that Dr Wentzensen is conducting. Dr Goldhoff reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/NCI during the conduct of the study. Dr Castle reported receiving cervical screening tests and diagnostics from Roche, Becton Dickinson, Cepheid, and Arbor Vita Corp at a reduced cost or no cost for research. Dr Schiffman reported being employed by the NCI, which has received cervical cancer screening assays in-kind or at reduced cost from companies involved in cervical screening, including Roche, BD, Qiagen, and MobileODT. Dr Kingery reported receiving grants from the NIH and the NCI during the conduct of the study and receiving grants from the NIH and the NCI outside the submitted work. Dr Grewal reported receiving grants from the NIH and the NCI during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH and the NCI outside the submitted work. Dr Lorey reported receiving grants from the NIH and the NCI during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH and the NCI outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Additional Information: This article is dedicated to Barbara Fetterman, SCT.

References
1.
Wentzensen  N, Arbyn  M, Berkhof  J,  et al.  Eurogin 2016 roadmap: how HPV knowledge is changing screening practice.  Int J Cancer. 2017;140(10):2192-2200. doi:10.1002/ijc.30579PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Gage  JC, Schiffman  M, Katki  HA,  et al.  Reassurance against future risk of precancer and cancer conferred by a negative human papillomavirus test.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(8):dju153. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju153PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Wentzensen  N.  Triage of HPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening.  Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(2):107-109. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70568-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Cuschieri  K, Ronco  G, Lorincz  A,  et al.  Eurogin roadmap 2017: triage strategies for the management of HPV-positive women in cervical screening programs.  Int J Cancer. 2018;143(4):735-745. doi:10.1002/ijc.31261PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Wentzensen  N, Schiffman  M, Palmer  T, Arbyn  M.  Triage of HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening.  J Clin Virol. 2016;76(suppl 1):S49-S55. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2015.11.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Huh  WK, Ault  KA, Chelmow  D,  et al.  Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.  J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015;19(2):91-96. doi:10.1097/LGT.0000000000000103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Wright  TC, Stoler  MH, Behrens  CM, Sharma  A, Zhang  G, Wright  TL.  Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: end of study results from the ATHENA study using HPV as the first-line screening test.  Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136(2):189-197. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.076PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Guan  P, Howell-Jones  R, Li  N,  et al.  Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPV-positive women: a meta-analysis from cervical infection to cancer.  Int J Cancer. 2012;131(10):2349-2359. doi:10.1002/ijc.27485PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Wright  TC  Jr, Stoler  MH, Behrens  CM, Sharma  A, Sharma  K, Apple  R.  Interlaboratory variation in the performance of liquid-based cytology: insights from the ATHENA trial.  Int J Cancer. 2014;134(8):1835-1843. doi:10.1002/ijc.28514PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Carozzi  F, Confortini  M, Dalla Palma  P,  et al; New Technologies for Cervival Cancer Screening (NTCC) Working Group.  Use of p16-INK4A overexpression to increase the specificity of human papillomavirus testing: a nested substudy of the NTCC randomised controlled trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(10):937-945. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70208-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Carozzi  F, Gillio-Tos  A, Confortini  M,  et al; NTCC working group.  Risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during follow-up in HPV-positive women according to baseline p16-INK4A results: a prospective analysis of a nested substudy of the NTCC randomised controlled trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(2):168-176. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70529-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
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 [published online October 11, 2018].  JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4270PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
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(12):djv257. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv257PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Wentzensen  N, Schwartz  L, Zuna  RE,  et al.  Performance of p16/Ki-67 immunostaining to detect cervical cancer precursors in a colposcopy referral population.  Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(15):4154-4162. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0270PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Wright  TC  Jr, 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(1):51-56. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Solomon  D, Davey  D, Kurman  R,  et al; Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop.  The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology.  JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114-2119. doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2114PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Leisenring  W, Alonzo  T, Pepe  MS.  Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs.  Biometrics. 2000;56(2):345-351. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00345.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Katki  HA, Schiffman  M, Castle  PE,  et al.  Benchmarking CIN 3+ risk as the basis for incorporating HPV and Pap cotesting into cervical screening and management guidelines.  J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17(5)(suppl 1):S28-S35. doi:10.1097/LGT.0b013e318285423cPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Katki  HA, Kinney  WK, Fetterman  B,  et al.  Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice.  Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):663-672. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70145-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Wentzensen  N, Fetterman  B, Tokugawa  D,  et al.  Interobserver reproducibility and accuracy of p16/Ki-67 dual-stain cytology in cervical cancer screening.  Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(12):914-920. doi:10.1002/cncy.21473PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Grabe  N, Lahrmann  B, Pommerencke  T, von Knebel Doeberitz  M, Reuschenbach  M, Wentzensen  N.  A virtual microscopy system to scan, evaluate and archive biomarker enhanced cervical cytology slides.  Cell Oncol. 2010;32(1-2):109-119. doi:10.3233/CLO-2009-0508PubMedGoogle Scholar
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Topics
State Requirements