No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA (HR-HPV DNA test) postconisation as prediction of recurrent or residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) after treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN2+) in a prospective study and to compare this with follow-up cytology and the marginal status of the excised tissue.Design Prospective follow-up study.Setting Unselected women presenting at colposcopy clinic of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven.Population Seventy-two women treated with conisation for CIN2 or CIN3.Methods Women were followed by HR-HPV DNA test (Hybrid Capture II test of Digene Ò ) every 3 to 6 months. The same vial was used for cytology and the HR-HPV DNA test (SurePath TM ). All women were further followed by colposcopy and cytology for 24 months at 6-month intervals. The outcome of the study was presence of >CIN2, proven with colposcopy-directed biopsy occurring within 24 months after treatment. HR-HPV status was correlated with recurrent or residual CIN2+.Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and diagnostic odds ratios to predict treatment failure or cure were computed for HR-HPV testing, marginal status and follow-up cytology. HR-HPV status was also correlated with section margins postconisation and with the first cervical smear.Results In 6 of the 72 treated women (8%), residual or recurrent CIN occurred. Women with recurrence were significantly older than women without a recurrence (51.5 ± 9.6 versus 39.8 ± 12.2 years, P = 0.007). All six women with recurrence were HR-HPV positive, four had a positive follow-up smear ( ‡atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance = ASCUS+) and only two had involved section margins. Among the 66 cured women, 15 were HR-HPV positive, 6 had an abnormal smear and 12 had positive section margins. Sensitivity of cytology, positive section margins and HR-HPV DNA positivity was 66.7, 33.3 and 100% to predict treatment failure. Specificity of the three tests was, respectively, 90.9, 81.8 and 77.3%. Women with HR-HPV DNA at 3 to 6 months showed recurrent or residual CIN in 15% (2/13) if they had normal follow-up Pap smears and in 50% (4/8) if they had abnormal Pap smears. Margin status was not statistically significantly associated with human papillomavirus status.Conclusion Persistence or clearance of HR-HPV DNA is an early valid prognostic marker of failure or cure after treatment for CIN2+ and is more accurate than cytology or section margin status at the time of conisation. The absence of HR-HPV DNA has a 100% negative predictive value. Higher age at conisation may be a previously unrecognised risk factor for recurrence.Keywords Age, CIN, conisation, human papillomavirus, recurrence.Please cite this paper as: Verguts J, Bronselaer B, Donders G, Arbyn M, Van Eldere J, Drijkoningen M, Poppe W. Prediction of recurrence after treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus testing a...

In the Phase III PATRICIA study (NCT00122681), the human papillomavirus (HPV)‐16/18 AS04‐adjuvanted vaccine (Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) was highly efficacious against HPV‐16/18 infections and precancerous lesions in women HPV‐16/18 deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) negative and seronegative at baseline. We present further data on vaccine efficacy (VE) against HPV‐16/18 in the total vaccinated cohort including women who may have been exposed to HPV‐16/18 infection before vaccination. In women with no evidence of current or previous HPV‐16/18 infection (DNA negative and seronegative), VE was 90.3% (96.1% confidence interval: 87.3–92.6) against 6‐month persistent infection (PI), 91.9% (84.6–96.2) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)1+ and 94.6% (86.3–98.4) against CIN2+ [97.7% (91.1–99.8) when using the HPV type assignment algorithm (TAA)]. In women HPV‐16/18 DNA negative but with serological evidence of previous HPV‐16/18 infection (seropositive), VE was 72.3% (53.0–84.5) against 6‐month PI, 67.2% (10.9–89.9) against CIN1+, and 68.8% (−28.3–95.0) against CIN2+ [88.5% (10.8–99.8) when using TAA]. In women with no evidence of current HPV‐16/18 infection (DNA negative), regardless of their baseline HPV‐16/18 serological status, VE was 88.7% (85.7–91.1) against 6‐month PI, 89.1% (81.6–94.0) against CIN1+ and 92.4% (84.0–97.0) against CIN2+ [97.0% (90.6–99.5) when using TAA]. In women who were DNA positive for one vaccine type, the vaccine was efficacious against the other vaccine type. The vaccine did not impact the outcome of HPV‐16/18 infections present at the time of vaccination. Vaccination was generally well tolerated regardless of the woman's HPV‐16/18 DNA or serological status at entry.