Posttreatment human papillomavirus testing for residual or recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a pooled analysis.
- Author:
Mamiko ONUKI
1
;
Koji MATSUMOTO
;
Manabu SAKURAI
;
Hiroyuki OCHI
;
Takeo MINAGUCHI
;
Toyomi SATOH
;
Hiroyuki YOSHIKAWA
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Meta-Analysis ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords: Cell Biology; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia; Human Papillomavirus; Posttreatment Surveillance
- MeSH: Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia/pathology/surgery/*virology; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/*virology; Neoplasm, Residual; Papillomaviridae/*isolation & purification; Papillomavirus Infections/complications/*diagnosis; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment/methods; Sensitivity and Specificity; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/pathology/surgery/*virology
- From:Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2016;27(1):e3-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pooled analysis of published studies to compare the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology in detecting residual or recurrent diseases after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN 2/3). METHODS: Source articles presenting data on posttreatment HPV testing were identified from the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) database. We included 5,319 cases from 33 articles published between 1996 and 2013. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of high-risk HPV testing (0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.94) for detecting posttreatment CIN 2 or worse (CIN 2+) was much higher than that of cytology (0.76; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.80). Co-testing of HPV testing and cytology maximized the sensitivity (0.93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96), while HPV genotyping (detection of the same genotype between pre- and posttreatments) did not improve the sensitivity (0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.94) compared with high-risk HPV testing alone. The specificity of high-risk HPV testing (0.83; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.84) was similar to that of cytology (0.85; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.87) and HPV genotyping (0.83; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.85), while co-testing had reduced specificity (0.76; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.78). For women with positive surgical margins, high-risk HPV testing provided remarkable risk discrimination between test-positives and test-negatives (absolute risk of residual CIN 2+ 74.4% [95% CI, 64.0 to 82.6] vs. 0.8% [95% CI, 0.15 to 4.6]; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings recommend the addition of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in conjunction with cytology, to posttreatment surveillance strategies. HPV testing can identify populations at greatest risk of posttreatment CIN 2+ lesions, especially among women with positive section margins.
