Objectives: We developed a new human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping assay based on multiplex polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods for large-scale cervical cancer screening. Methods: We first trained the assay on 1,170 self-collected samples, balancing the cutoff points for high-risk types. Then using 4,262 separate self-collected specimens, we compared concordance, sensitivity, and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia type 2 (CIN2) or higher and CIN type 3 (CIN3) or higher of the HPV sequencing assay with that of Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) direct samples and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry assay self-samples. Results: All assays had a good agreement. The sensitivity for CIN2 or higher and CIN3 or higher of the self-sampling specimens tested with the sequencing assay run on both MiSeq and Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine sequencer was similar to that of direct-sampling specimens tested with HC2 (P > .05), but the specificity of the sequencing assay for CIN2 or higher and CIN3 or higher was significantly higher than that of HC2 (P < .01). Conclusions: This population-based study has demonstrated the applicability of a new NGS high-risk HPV assay for primary cervical cancer screening based on self-collection.

Objective: The aim of this research was to evaluate independently the performance of a new isothermal amplification assay for cervical cancer screening compared to two previously validated PCR-based assays and histologic endpoints. Methods: This is a sub-study from the Chinese multi-center screening trial (CHIMUST). The self-collected and clinician-collected specimens stored in PreservCyt at − 4 °C from 6042 women with complete data were tested with the AmpFire assay. These specimens had been previously tested with Cobas and SeqHPV assays. In the primary study all patients with an abnormal test were referred to colposcopy where all had directed and/or random biopsies plus ECC. No additional patients were called back based on the AmpFire results. Results: 6042/6619 women had complete data (mean age 44.1). There were 57 cases of CIN 2, 35 cases of CIN 3 and 2 cancers. The sensitivity for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were similar among the three assays (both direct and self-collected). For the specificities in all categories (CIN2+/CIN3+ and self and direct collection), isothermal amplification assay was either equal to or more specific than Cobas but consistently less specific than SeqHPV. Conclusion: The AmpFire HPV assay showed similar sensitivity to Cobas and SeqHPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ on both self and clinician-collections (P>0.05), with good specificity. The speed, low cost, and simplicity of this assay will make it particularly suited for low and middle resource settings. Its accuracy with self-collection makes it applicable for mass screening programs.

Background: We propose an economical cervical screening research and implementation strategy designed to take into account the typically slow natural history of cervical cancer and the severe but hopefully temporary impact of COVID-19. The commentary introduces the practical validation of some critical components of the strategy, described in three manuscripts detailing recent project results in Asia and Africa. The main phases of a cervical screening program are 1) primary screening of women in the general population, 2) triage testing of the small minority of women that screen positive to determine need for treatment, and 3) treatment of triage-positive women thought to be at highest risk of precancer or even cancer. In each phase, attention must now be paid to safety in relation to SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The new imperatives of the COVID-19 pandemic support self-sampled HPV testing as the primary cervical screening method. Most women can be reassured for several years by a negative test performed on a self-sample collected at home, without need of clinic visit and speculum examination. The advent of relatively inexpensive, rapid and accurate HPV DNA testing makes it possible to return screening results from self-sampling very soon after specimen collection, minimizing loss to follow-up. Partial HPV typing provides important risk stratification useful for triage of HPV-positive women. A second “triage” test is often useful to guide management. In lower-resource settings, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) is still proposed but it is inaccurate and poorly reproducible, misclassifying the risk stratification gained by primary HPV testing. A deep-learning based approach to recognizing cervical precancer, adaptable to a smartphone camera, is being validated to improve VIA performance. The advent and approval of thermal ablation permits quick, affordable and safe, immediate treatment at the triage clinic of the majority of HPV-positive, triage-positive women. Conclusions: Overall, only a small percentage of women in cervical screening programs need to attend the hospital clinic for a surgical procedure, particularly when screening is targeted to the optimal age range for detection of precancer rather than older ages with decreased visual screening performance and higher risks of hard-to-treat outcomes including invasive cancer.