4.6 Article

14-type HPV mRNA test in triage of HPV DNA-positive postmenopausal women with normal cytology

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07498-6

Keywords

HR-HPV mRNA testing; Cervical cancer screening; Postmenopausal women

Categories

Funding

  1. Lund University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background During 2013 and 2016 the region of Skane, Sweden started to analyse human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology in postmenopausal women 60-65 years of age. Our aim was to evaluate high-risk (HR) HPV mRNA testing for the triage of HPV DNA-positive postmenopausal women with normal cytology. Methods A total of 271 women, 60-65 years of age, underwent liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV testing by using the HR-HPV DNA MGP-PCR-Luminex assay. HR-HPV DNA-positive women with normal cytology underwent complimentary HPV mRNA testing (Aptima, Hologic Inc.). Over a period of 49 months (SD 11.0) the women received regular follow-ups at intervals of 12-18 months. Women with abnormal cytology and/or a positive HR-HPV DNA and/or mRNA result at two subsequent visits were scheduled for colposcopy and clinical examination. Results Over the surveillance period, 3.6% (10/271) of the HR-HPV DNA-positive women developed histologically confirmed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs) or worse. The cumulative incidence rates (CIR) were 29.7% (CI 24.8-30.1) for HSIL or worse among HPV mRNA-positive women at enrolment (39.5% 107/271) and 0% among HPV mRNA-negative women (60.5%, 164/271), (p = 0.002). Conclusions Postmenopausal women with normal cytology testing positive for HR-HPV mRNA are at increased risk for the development of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), in contrast to women with a negative HR-HPV mRNA outcome. The HR-HPV mRNA APTIMA assay detecting 14 HR-HPV types may be a useful triage method among HPV DNA-positive postmenopausal women with normal cytology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available