We evaluated high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA testing for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions by cobas HPV test and diagnostic HPV16/18 genotyping in Japanese women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Of 357 patients, HR-HPV positivity prevalence was 75.6%, and 21.3% had grade 2 or higher CIN lesions (CIN2+), with the highest prevalence at 30 to 34 years. Negative predictive values of HR-HPV for CIN2+ in our patients were 93.1% (any age) and 94.9% (40-50 years). Absolute risk for CIN2+ in HR-HPV positive and HPV16/18 positive individuals was 25.9 and 35.1, respectively. Relative risk for CIN2+ lesions was 5.1 for HPV16/18 positive versus HR-HPV negative, and 3.8 for HR-HPV positive versus HR-HPV negative women. Predictive values of CIN2+ positive were higher for HPV16/18 positive women (any age) than 12 other HPV positive-genotypes, and highest (50%) at 40-50 years. The HPV16/18 genotyping might prevent women (>40 years) at risk of high-grade CIN lesions from undergoing unnecessary colposcopy/overtreatment of nonprogressive lesions.
InsingaRPGlassAGRushBB. Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):105–113.
2.
HosakaMFujitaHHanleySJ. Incidence risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or more severe lesions is a function of human papillomavirus genotypes and severity of cytological and histological abnormalities in adult Japanese women. Int J Cancer. 2012;132(2):327–334.
3.
HaririSUngerERSternbergM. Prevalence of genital human papillomavirus among females in the United States, the National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2006. J Infect Dis. 2011;204(4):566–573.
4.
LeviAWHarigopalMHuiPSchofieldKChhiengDCUse of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in patients with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011;119(4):228–234.
5.
MatsumotoKHiraiYFurutaR. Subsequent risks for cervical precancer and cancer in women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions unconfirmed by colposcopy-directed biopsy: results from a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17(3):233–239.
6.
ALTS Group. A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(6):1393–1400.
7.
InceUAydinOPekerO. Clinical importance of “low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL-H)” terminology for cervical smears 5-year analysis of the positive predictive value of LSIL-H compared with ASC-H, LSIL, and HSIL in the detection of high-grade cervical lesions with a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(1):152–156.
8.
MoscickiABMaYWibbelsmanC. Rate of and risk for regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in adolescents and young women. Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;116(6):1373–1380.
9.
de SanjoseSQuintWGAlemanyL. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(11):1048–1056.
10.
MiuraSMatsumotoKOkiA. Do we need a different strategy for HPV screening and vaccination in East Asia?Int J Cancer. 2006;119(11):2713–2715.
11.
SaslowDRunowiczCDSolomonD. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(6):342–362.
12.
The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with cytologic evidence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: baseline data from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(5):397–402.
13.
WrightTCJrStolerMHBehrensCMAppleRDerionTWrightTL. The ATHENA human papillomavirus study: design, methods, and baseline results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):46.e1–e11.
14.
RoncoGCuzickJSegnanN. HPV triage for low grade (L-SIL) cytology is appropriate for women over 35 in mass cervical cancer screening using liquid based cytology. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(3):476–480.
15.
CuzickJThomas CoxJZhangG. Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(4):959–966.
16.
Correa F deMRussomanoFBOliveiraCA. Colposcopic triage methods for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 after cytopathological diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a systematic review on diagnostic tests. Sao Paulo Med J. 2012;130(1):44–52.
17.
The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(9):914–916.
18.
KurmanRJEllensonLHRonnettBM. Blaustein’s Pathology of the Female Tract. New York: Springer; 2011:273–274.
19.
ArbynMRoelensJCuschieriK. The APTIMA HPV assay versus the hybrid capture 2 test in triage of women with ASC-US or LSIL cervical cytology: a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(1):101–108.
20.
MesherDSzarewskiACadmanL. Comparison of human papillomavirus testing strategies for triage of women referred with low-grade cytological abnormalities. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(9):2179–2186.
21.
SzarewskiAMesherDCadmanL. Comparison of seven tests for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears: the Predictors 2 study. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(6):1867–1873.
22.
AustinRMZhaoC. Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?Cytojournal. 2014;11:14.
