Home >> ALL ISSUES >> 2014 Issues >> Study: primary HPV test ‘merits consideration’

Study: primary HPV test ‘merits consideration’

image_pdfCreate PDF

William Check, PhD

September 2014—With the FDA having approved use of the Roche Cobas assay for human papillomavirus as a primary standalone screen for cervical cancer in women 25 and older, expert panels are faced with the challenge of working the algorithm into current best practice recommendations for cervical cancer screening. A study published July 18 calculating the future risk of precancer (CIN2 and CIN3) and cancer among more than 1 million women who had a negative HPV test should provide valuable assistance in this task (Gage JC, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:pii: dju153). Subjects were women who underwent routine screening for cervical cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California since KPNC adopted concurrent HPV and Pap testing, known as cotesting, in 2003.

The newly published study greatly expands the KPNC experience reported in 2011 (Katki HA, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:663–672). “Basically, with longer follow-up among more than 1 million women, we have much greater precision to calculate and estimate cancer risks,” first author Julia C. Gage, PhD, MPH, tells CAP TODAY. The analysis was conducted to provide guidance on HPV primary screening. “We looked specifically at cancer risks after negative screening results,” says Dr. Gage, a research fellow in the Clinical Genetics Branch of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute.

Results from the larger, more recent study “support and extend data from the 2011 paper,” Dr. Gage says. “We found that cancer risk among women with a negative HPV test was about half of the already low risk of women with a negative Pap test and similar to the cancer risk among women who tested both HPV negative and Pap negative [cotest negative].” Similar relative risks were found for CIN3 and CIN2. “The differences in risk [for CIN2 and CIN3] between women who were HPV negative and those who were cotest negative were small although statistically significant,” Dr. Gage says. The difference in cancer risk was small and not statistically significant.

Dr. Gage

Dr. Gage

“What we have seen in these analyses going back to our 2011 paper in Lancet Oncology is that most cancers are detected by the HPV test, and that a negative Pap test provides little additional reassurance among women who test HPV negative,” Dr. Gage says. However, translating these findings into clinical practice is not simple when one takes into account the small but real differences between primary HPV testing and cotesting, as well as the “harms”—ancillary tests such as colposcopy. In addition, screening intervals have a substantive impact on the comparisons. “Which testing regimen is preferable will depend on how a woman interprets risk and how guideline committees interpret the small differences in risk,” Dr. Gage says. Thus, the cautious conclusions that she and her coauthors drew:

  • “These findings suggest that primary HPV testing merits consideration as another alternative for cervical screening.”
  • “In conclusion, we find that primary HPV testing every 3 years might provide as much, if not more, reassurance against precancer and cancer, compared to primary Pap testing every 3 years and cotesting every 5 years. Health decision analyses are now imperative to identify the optimal screening interval and preferred screening strategy.”

Further complexities arise when the criteria for selecting the screening program at KPNC itself are taken into account. CAP TODAY asked Thomas S. Lorey, MD, medical director of the TPMG Regional Reference Laboratory, Kaiser Permanente Northern California Region, how he sees the problem of balancing benefits versus harms among these screening algorithms. What will Kaiser itself do with these data? Will it switch from triennial cotesting to primary HPV screening?
“It is our belief that Kaiser Permanente members are willing to tolerate the relatively minor and low-risk procedures”—i.e. additional or more frequent screening and colposcopy exams—“in order to prevent cervical cancer and its associated complications such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation with loss of fertility and ovarian function that ensue when a cancer is detected,” Dr. Lorey says.

Dr. Lorey

Dr. Lorey

KPNC uses a highly rigorous comparison to determine the differences in risk. “In the case of KPNC’s Cervical Carcinoma Screening Program,” Dr. Lorey explains, “we have defined the minimum level of protection required as that equal to or better than the historical benchmark protection of the annual Pap test.” As a result, KPNC uses cotesting with three-year intervals, a program that is more stringent than that of professional guideline committees, which recommend triennial cytology or cotesting at five-year intervals for cervical cancer screening.

“There is a lot of historical precedent here,” Dr. Lorey says. “We are maintaining a level of protection that we have always offered, as opposed to starting a new program or significantly improving the level of protection over a prior strategy.” An institution that is currently doing triennial Pap screening or cotesting with five-year screening intervals would not be in the same position.

Two other analyses conducted on the same KPNC data set are relevant to cervical cancer screening policies. One analysis determined risks among women with HPV-negative/atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) cytology. The authors concluded, “Women testing HPV negative/ASC-US were found to have precancer/cancer risks that were more closely aligned with women with negative Pap test results, suggesting that women testing HPV negative/ASC-US should be managed similarly to women testing negative on Pap tests with a 3-year return for screening” (Gage JC, et al. Cancer Cytopathol. Epub ahead of print July 9, 2014; doi:10.1002/cncy.21463).

In the third analysis, age-related risks were estimated. “Although the rates of HPV infection declined dramatically with age, the subsequent CIN3+ risks associated with HPV infection declined only slightly,” the investigators found. They concluded that the “CIN3+ risks among older women are sufficiently elevated to warrant continued screening through age 65” (Gage JC, et al. Int J Cancer. Epub ahead of print Aug. 18, 2014; doi:10.1002/ijc.29143).

Currently prevailing cervical cancer screening recommendations were promulgated in March 2012 by two groups: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and a multidisciplinary partnership of the American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology.

In brief, both groups recommended two options for screening for cervical cancer:

CAP TODAY
X