Objective: The aim of the study was to examine whether high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was more closely associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) same-genotype persistence (SGTP) versus clearance of prior infection with a subsequent infection by a new genotype (genotype switch [GS]), clearance of HPV infection, or acquisition of a new HPV infection after a negative infection status, during a follow-up testing subsequent to abnormal screening results. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to July 2019 for prospective controlled trials and observational studies of women and retrospective studies using HPV assays with extended- or full-genotype reporting. The primary outcome was high-grade CIN after at least 2 rounds of testing. Overall quality of evidence for the risk estimate outcomes was assessed. Of the 830 identified abstracts, 66 full-text articles were reviewed, and 7 studies were included in the synthesis. The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018091093). Results: Continued HPV-positive women falls in 2 equally large groups: SGTP and GS. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio of SGTP were significantly higher than for GS. Human papillomavirus genotypes may be ranked into 3 tiers (immediate colposcopy, follow-up testing, return to routine screening), according to associated risk of persistence for high-grade CIN and to prevailing clinical action thresholds. Conclusions: There is moderately high-quality evidence to support the clinical utility of SGTP to improve risk discrimination for high-grade CIN compared with qualitative HPV testing without genotype-specific information.

The accuracy of available HPV molecular assays on self-samples needs to be evaluated as compared to clinician-collected samples. This pilot study aimed to investigate the BD Onclarity™ HPV assay on vaginal and first-void urine samples. Sixty-four women referred to colposcopy for cervical dysplasia performed a vaginal self-collection and provided a first-void urine sample, after informed consent. A cervical specimen was collected during the clinician examination. All samples were tested using BD Onclarity™ HPV assay on the BD Viper™ LT System. Overall positive agreement (OPA) between cervical and self-sample results was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa value (κ). Using a clinical cut-off of 38.3 Ct for HPV 16 and 34.2 Ct for other HR genotypes, compared to cervical sample, the self-collected vaginal sample OPA was 85.9%, and κ = 0.699. Without a clinical cut-off, the OPA was 95.3%, and the κ = 0.890. Data obtained comparing cervical and urine samples showed an OPA of 87.5% with a κ = 0.79 using a clinical cut-off, and an OPA of 90.6% with a κ = 0.776 without a clinical cut-off. Data showed a substantial agreement between both self-collected and clinician-collected samples. A specific clinical cut-off analysis should be considered based on type of sample analysed.

This study assessed the accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus testing of BD Onclarity HPV (Onclarity) assay on vaginal self-collected FLOQSwab versus cervical samples to ensure similar accuracy to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Testing was performed on two automated platforms, BD Viper LT and BD COR, to evaluate the effect of machine and using two vaginal self-samples to analyze the influence of collection, transport, and freezing-unfreezing on the results. A cervical sample and two self-samples were collected from 300 women. The first collected vaginal and the cervical sample were tested on BD Viper LT, and the second swab was frozen and subsequently tested on both automated systems. Test results on vaginal and cervical specimens were considered the index and comparator, respectively; colposcopy and histology were reference standards. Relative sensitivity for ≥CIN2 on vaginal samples analyzed versus the cervical sample was 1.01 (0.97–1.06), 1.01 (0.97–1.06), and 1.00 (0.95–1.05), for the first, second self-collected sample tested on BD VIPER LT, and second self-collected sample tested on BD COR, respectively. Relative specificity was 0.83 (0.73–0.94), 0.76 (0.67–0.87), and 0.82 (0.73–0.92) using the three different workflows. Cut-off optimization for human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity defined at Ct ≤38.3 for HPV16, ≤ 34.2 for HPV18, and ≤31.5 for all other types showed an increased relative specificity with similar sensitivity. No significant difference was observed between self-samples tested with the two platforms and between first- and second-collected swabs. Onclarity assay on FLOQSwab using both platforms showed similar sensitivity but lower specificity to detect ≥CIN2 compared to cervical samples. By cut-off optimization, non-inferior specificity could be reached. IMPORTANCE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected vaginal samples has been shown to improve women’s participation to cervical cancer screening programs, particularly in regions with limited access to health care. Nevertheless, the introduction of self-sampling in cervical cancer screening programs requires prior clinical validation of the HPV assay in combination with a self-sample collection device, including also the laboratory workflow and automation required for high-throughput testing in screening. In this study, the performance of BD Onclarity HPV on FLOQSwab-collected vaginal self-samples has been compared to clinician-taken liquid-based cytology samples, to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using two high-throughput platforms, BD Viper LT and BD COR. The study findings have shown a similar performance of BD Onclarity on testing self-collected samples, confirming the validation of the proposed pre-analytical and analytical protocols for their use in cervical cancer screening programs based on self-collected vaginal samples.

To evaluate the significance of HPV persistence as a predictor for the development of CIN2+ recurrence and the impact of multiple genotypes and of HPV 16/18 on recurrence risk. A prospective cohort observational study was carried out at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, from December 2006 to December 2014. A total of 408 women surgically treated by excisional procedure for pre-neoplastic and neoplastic cervical lesions were enrolled. HPV test was performed at baseline and at first follow-up visit planned at 6 ± 3 months after treatment. Two-year cumulative incidences for relapse were estimated and compared by the Gray’s test. Overall, 96 (23.5%) patients were persistent for at least one genotype at three to nine months from baseline and 21 (5.1%) patients relapsed. The two-year cumulative relapse incidence was higher in HPV persistent patients compared to not-persistent (CIF = 27.6%, 95% CI: 16.2–40.2% versus CIF = 1.7%, 95% CI: 0.3–5.8%, p < 0.001), in women with persistent multiple infections (CIF = 27.2%, 95% CI: 7.3–52.3%, p < 0.001), and with the persistence of at least one genotype between 16 and 18, irrespective of the presence of other HR genotypes (CIF = 32.7%, 95% CI: 17.9–48.3%, p < 0.001), but not significantly different from women positive for single infections or any other HR genotype, but not for 16 and 18. The risk of CIN2+ recurrence should not be underestimated when same HPV genotype infection persists after treatment.

The introduction of self‐sampling in cervical cancer screening has raised the importance of HPV test validation on self‐collected samples. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical accuracy of the OncoPredict HPV Screening (SCR) assay on self‐collected vaginal and first‐void urine (FVU) samples, relative to cervical specimens, using the VALHUDES Framework. FVU and vaginal self‐samples followed by a clinician‐collected cervical brushing were collected from 500 women referred to colposcopy and tested using OncoPredict HPV SCR assay. The assay demonstrated clinical sensitivity to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (≥ CIN2) similar to cervical samples in FVU (ratio: 0.95, [95% CI: 0.88–1.02]) and vaginal self‐samples (ratio: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.90–1.02]). The clinical specificity for < CIN2 was lower in vaginal (ratio: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.84–0.96]) but not in FVU samples (ratio: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.96–1.12) when compared to cervical samples. However, the relative specificity improved following cut‐off optimization (ratio: 0.94, 95% CI: [0.88–1.01]). Moderate to excellent agreement in HPV detection between self‐collected and cervical samples was demonstrated (Kappa values: 0.53–1.00). To conclude, OncoPredict HPV SCR assay demonstrated similar accuracy on FVU and cervical samples. On vaginal compared to cervical samples sensitivity was similar with a lower specificity, which improved with cut‐off optimization.

Colposcopic patterns of Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia (VAIN) are not definitively related to histological grade. The aim of the present study was to investigate any correlation between clinical and colposcopic features and the development of high-grade VAIN. Two hundred and fifty-five women diagnosed with VAIN (52 VAIN1, 55 VAIN2 and 148 VAIN3) at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, from January 2000 to June 2022, were selected for a retrospective analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to estimate the association of risk factors and colposcopic patterns with VAIN grade. Smoking was associated with the development of VAIN (34.1%, p = 0.01). Most women diagnosed with VAIN3 (45.3%, p = 0.02) had a previous history of hysterectomy for CIN2+. At multivariate analysis, colposcopic grade G2 (OR = 20.4, 95%CI: 6.67–61.4, p < 0.001), papillary lesion (OR = 4.33, 95%CI: 1.79–10.5, p = 0.001) and vascularity (OR = 14.4, 95%CI: 1.86–112, p = 0.01) were significantly associated with a greater risk of VAIN3. The risk of high-grade VAIN should not be underestimated in women with a history of smoking and previous hysterectomy for CIN2+, especially when colposcopic findings reveal vaginal lesions characterized by grade 2, papillary and vascular patterns. Accurate diagnosis is crucial for an optimal personalized management, based on risk factors, colposcopic patterns and histologic grade of VAIN.