Human papillomavirus type specific risk of progression and remission during long-term follow-up of equivocal and low-grade HPV-positive cervical smears
Corresponding Author
Olav Karsten Vintermyr
Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
The Gade Laboratory for Pathology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Correspondence to: Olav Karsten Vintermyr, Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMarie Songstad Andersland
Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorTone Bjørge
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorRobert Skar
Centre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorOle Erik Iversen
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Women's Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorMari Nygård
Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorHans Kristian Haugland
Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Olav Karsten Vintermyr
Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
The Gade Laboratory for Pathology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Correspondence to: Olav Karsten Vintermyr, Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMarie Songstad Andersland
Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorTone Bjørge
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorRobert Skar
Centre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorOle Erik Iversen
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Women's Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorMari Nygård
Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorHans Kristian Haugland
Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Search for more papers by this authorConflict of interest: None.
Abstract
The prevalence of clinically relevant HPV types and their specific risk for progression and regression in women with atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) were studied in a routine screening population. A 4-year cohort of women (n = 820) with ASCUS/LSIL and a positive HPV test in triage were followed for 6–9 years. The progression risks for CIN2+/CIN3+ were determined for single (71.2%) and multiple HPV infections (28.8%). The CIN2+ progression risk for all HPV 16, all HPV 35, single HPV 16 and single HPV 35 infections were 65.3% (95% CI: 59.6–71.0), 64.4% (95% CI: 50.4–78.4), 63.8% (95% CI: 56.2–71.4) and 73.7% (95% CI: 53.9–93.5), respectively. Based on CIN2+ progression risks four main groups were defined; the HPV 16 group, the HPV 31/33/35 group, the HPV 18/45/51/52 group and the HPV 39/56/58/59/66/68 group with progression risks of 65.3% (95% CI: 59.6–71.0), 62.1% (95% CI: 54.8–69.4), 52.6 (95% CI: 45.9–59.3) and 39.5 (95% CI: 33.0–46.0), respectively. In multivariate analyses, women in the age group 40–49 years had an increased risk of CIN2+ progression. As for CIN3+, HPV 16 had a higher progression risk than other HPV risk groups (p < 0.05). In multiple infections only HPV 16 had a significant additive CIN3+ progression risk (p < 0.05) as compared to other HPV risk groups. In summary, HPV types 16 and 35, including the HPV risk group 31/33/35, had a similar CIN2+ progression risk, but only HPV 16 had a higher risk for CIN3+ progression.
Abstract
What's new?
While it is known that infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) type 16 can lead to highest-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+), the HPV types associated with progression to the less dysplastic CIN2+ stage are less well studied. Here the authors analyzed data from a national screening program in Norway and found that HPV35, along with HPV31 and 33, was quite common with a CIN2+ progression risk similar to HPV16. However, HPV16 had the strongest association with progression to CIN3+, underscoring the heterogeneity observed in the CIN2+ progression risk group.
References
- 1 Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. Ca Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 87–108.
- 2 Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, et al. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States – a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2000; 78: 97–105.
- 3 Lonnberg S, Hansen BT, Haldorsen T, et al. Cervical cancer prevented by screening: long-term incidence trends by morphology in Norway. Int J Cancer 2015; 137: 1758–64.
- 4 Schwarz E, Freese UK, Gissmann L, et al. Structure and transcription of human papillomavirus sequences in cervical carcinoma cells. Nature 1985; 314: 111–4.
- 5 Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, et al. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 2007; 370: 890–907.
- 6 McCredie M, Sharples K, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 425–34.
- 7 Gustafsson L, Adami HO. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: consistent results obtained by an identification technique. Br J Cancer 1989; 60: 132–41.
- 8 Nieminen P, Kallio M, Hakama M. The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 1017–21.
- 9 Sasieni P, Adams J. Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model. BMJ 1999; 318: 1244–5.
- 10 van der Aa MA, Pukkala E, Coebergh JW, et al. Mass screening programmes and trends in cervical cancer in Finland and the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2008; 122: 1854–8.
- 11 Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, et al. The cervical cancer epidemics that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004; 364: 249–56.
- 12 Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Ranst MV, et al. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 280–93.
- 13 Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012; 30: F88–F99.
- 14 Vintermyr OK, Skar R, Iversen OE, et al. Usefulness of HPV test on cell sample from the cervix. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2008; 128: 171–3.
- 15 Haldorsen T, Skare GB, Ursin G, et al. Results of delayed triage by HPV testing and cytology in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. Acta Oncol 2015; 54: 200–9.
- 16 Nygard M, Roysland K, Campbell S, et al. Comparative effectiveness study on human papillomavirus detection methods used in the cervical cancer screening programme. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e003460.
- 17 Wentzensen N, Arbyn M, Berkhof J, et al. Eurogin 2016 roadmap: how HPV knowledge is changing screening practice. Int J Cancer 2017; 140: 2192–200.
- 18Screening program against cervical cancer, survey report 2015, Cancer Registry of Norway. https://www.kreftregisteret.no/globalassets/publikasjoner-og-rapporter/livmorhalskreft/ars-rapport/aarsrapport-livmorhalsprogrammet-2015.pdf
- 19 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: 2349–59.
- 20 Tjalma WA, Fiander A, Reich O, et al. High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer in Europe. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: 854–67.
- 21 Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 518–27.
- 22 Arbyn M, Tommasino M, Depuydt C, et al. Are 20 human papillomavirus types causing cervical cancer. J Pathol 2014; 234: 431–5.
- 23 Hosaka M, Fujita H, Hanley SJB, et al. Incidence risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or more severe lesions is a function of human papillomavirus genotypes severity of cytological and histological abnormalities in adult Japanese women. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: 327–34.
- 24 Wheeler CM, Hunt WC, Cuzick J, et al. The influence of type-specific human papillomavirus infections on the detection of cervical precancer and cancer: a population-based study of opportunistic cervical screening in the United States. Int J Cancer 2014; 135: 624–34.
- 25 Smelov V, Elfstrom KM, Johansson ALV, et al. Long-term HPV type-specific risks of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions: a 14-year follow-up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: 1171–80.
- 26 Schiffman M, Hyun N, Raine-Bennett TR, et al. A cohort study of cervical screening using partial HPV typing and cytology triage. Int J Cancer 2016; 139: 2606–15.
- 27 Kjær SK, Frederiksen K, Munk C, et al. Long-term absolute risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse following human papillomavirus infection: role of persistence. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 1478–88.
- 28 Thomsen LT, Frederiksen K, Munk C, et al. Long-term risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse according to high-risk human papillomavirus genotype and semi-quantitative viral load among 33,288 women with normal cervical cytology. Int J Cancer 2015; 137: 193–203.
- 29 Budal EB, Haugland HK, Skar R, et al. HPV DNA testing improves CIN2+ risk stratification and detection of CIN2+ in delayed triage of ASCUS and LSIL. A population-based follow-up study from Western Norway. Cancer Med 2014; 3: 182–9.
- 30 Ojesina AI, Lichtenstein L, Freeman SS, et al. Landscape of genomic alterations in cervical carcinomas. Nature 2014; 506: 371–5.
- 31 Ljøkjel B, Lybak S, Haave H, et al. The impact of HPV infection on survival in a geographically defined cohort of oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) patients in whom surgical treatment has been one main treatment. Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134: 636–45.
- 32 Kaplan EL, Meier P. Non parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Assoc 1958; 53: 457–81.
- 33 Rodríguez AC, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Rapid clearance of human papillomavirus and implications for clinical focus on persistent infections. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 513–7.
- 34 Plummer M, Schiffman M, Castle PE, et al. A 2-year prospective study of human papillomavirus persistence among women with a cytological diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Infect Dis 2007; 195: 1582–9.
- 35 Sherman ME, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, et al. Baseline cytology, human papillomavirus testing, and risk for cervical neoplasia: a 10-year cohort analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 46–52.
- 36 Mesher D, Szarewski A, Cadman L, et al. Long-term follow-up of cervical disease in women screened by cytology and HPV testing: results from the HART study. Br J Cancer 2010; 102: 1405–10.
- 37 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: 663–72.
- 38 Rositch AF, Koshiol J, Hudgens MG, et al. Patterns of persistent genital human papillomavirus infection among women worldwide: a literature review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2013; 133: 1271–85.
- 39 Isidean SD, Mayrand MH, Ramanakumar AV, et al. Human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: end-of-study and extended follow-up results from the Canadian cervical cancer screening trial. Int J Cancer 2016; 139: 2456–66.
- 40 Naucler P, Ryd W, Törnberg S, et al. Efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage and/or repeat HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 88–99.
- 41 Vintermyr OK, Iversen O, Thoresen S, et al. Recurrent high-grade cervical lesion after primary conization is associated with persistent human papillomavirus infection in Norway. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 133: 159–66.
- 42 Schiffman M, Clifford G, Buonaguro FM. Classification of weakly carcinogenic human papillomavirus types: addressing the limits of epidemiology at the borderline. Infect Agents Cancer 2009; 4: 8. doi:10.1186/1750-9378-4-8.
- 43 Kahng J, Kim EH, Kim HG, et al. Development of a cervical cancer progress prediction tool for human papillomavirus-positive Koreans: a support vector machine-based approach. J Int Med Res 2015; 43: 518–25.
- 44 Fossum GH, Lie AK, Jebsen P, et al. Human papillomavirus in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma in South-Eastern Norway: prevalence, genotype, and survival. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274: 4003–10.
- 45 Kjær SK, Christian Munk C, Junge J, et al. Carcinogenic HPV prevalence and age-specific type distribution in 40,382 women with normal cervical cytology, ASCUS/LSIL, HSIL, or cervical cancer: what is the potential for prevention? Cancer Causes Control 2014; 25: 179–89.
- 46 Arbyn M, Xu L, Verdoodt F, et al. Genotyping for human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in women with minor cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166: 118–27.