Advertisement

Human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid detection in mildly or moderately dysplastic smears: A possible method for selecting patients for colposcopy

      Abstract

      Objective: Current screening protocols for cervical cancer dictate that patients with smears read as mild or moderate dysplasia of the uterine cervix undergo colposcopy, although approximately half these women do not prove to have high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. The aim of this study was to determine whether human papillomavirus testing is capable of discriminating between high- and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions so as to be useful in reducing the number of colposcopic examinations. Study design: We tested 190 consecutive patients with smears read as mild or moderate dysplasia for the presence of human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid by use of two different polymerase chain reactions with the consensus primer pairs CPI/IIG and MY09/11. Typing was carried out by direct sequence analysis of the CPI/IIG amplimers. The MY09/11 amplimers were detected in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay format with the SHARP (Solution Hybridization Assay for PCR Products) Signal System with two probe mixtures (A and B) to detect nononcogenic and oncogenic human papillomavirus types. The human papillomavirus test results were compared with the histologic diagnosis, which was regarded as the reference standard. Results: Fifty-six of the 190 patients had high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. The sensitivity was 96% for the CPI/IIG test and 95% for the MY09/11 polymerase chain reaction plus SHARP Signal System when probe B only was used. The specificity was 33% for the CPI/IIG test and 40% for the MY09/11 polymerase chain reaction plus SHARP Signal System when probe B was used. Conclusion: A negative CPI/IIG or SHARP Signal System probe B test can select, respectively, 44 or 54 of the 134 patients without high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. The use of these human papillomavirus tests as a secondary triage in patients with smears that were read as mild or moderate dysplasia could prevent those patients from undergoing unnecessary colposcopy. However, respectively, 2 or 3 of the 56 patients who have high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions would be missed by human papillomavirus testing.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • McIndoe WA
        • McLean MR
        • Jones RW
        • Mullins PR.
        The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 64: 451-458
        • Ostor AG.
        Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review.
        Int J Gyn Pathol. 1993; 12: 186-192
        • Hatch KD
        • Schneider A
        • Abdel-Nour NW.
        An evaluation of human papillomavirus testing for intermediate- and high-risk types as triage before colposcopy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 172: 1150-1157
        • Fahey MT
        • Irwig L
        • Macaskill P.
        Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy.
        Am J Epidemiology. 1995; 141: 680-689
        • Raffle AE
        • Alden B
        • Mackenzie EFD.
        Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for?.
        Lancet. 1995; 345: 1469-1473
        • Burger MPM
        • Hollema H
        • Pieters WJLM
        • Quint WGV.
        Predictive value of human papillomavirus type for histological diagnosis of women with cervical cytological abnormalities.
        BMJ. 1995; 310: 94-95
        • Cuzick J
        • Terry G
        • Ho L
        • Hollingworth T
        • Anderson M.
        Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA in abnormal smears as a predictor of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
        Br J Cancer. 1994; 69: 167-171
        • Reid R
        • Lorincz AT.
        Human papillomavirus tests.
        Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 9: 65-103
        • Cox JT
        • Lorincz AT
        • Schiffman MH
        • Sherman ME
        • Cullen A
        • Kurman RJ.
        Human papillomavirus testing by hybrid capture appears to be useful in triaging women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 172: 946-954
        • Herrington CS
        • Evans MF
        • Hallam NF
        • Charnock FM
        • Gray W
        • McGee JOD.
        Human papillomavirus status in the prediction of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in patients with persistent low-grade cervical cytological abnormalities.
        Br J Cancer. 1995; 71: 206-209
        • Smits HL
        • Bollen LJM
        • Tjong-A-Hung SP
        • et al.
        Intermethod variation in detection of human papillomavirus DNA in cervical smears.
        J Clin Microbiol. 1995; 33: 2631-2636
        • Tieben LM
        • ter Schegget J
        • Minnaar RP
        • et al.
        Detection of cutaneous and genital HPV types in clinical samples by PCR using consensus primers.
        J Virol Methods. 1993; 42: 265-280
        • Bauer HM
        • Ting Y
        • Greer CE
        • et al.
        Genital human papillomavirus infection in female university students as determined by a PCR-based method.
        JAMA. 1991; 265: 472-477
        • Boom R
        • Sol CJA
        • Salimans MMM
        • Jansen CL
        • Wertheim-van Dillen PME
        • van der Noordaa J.
        Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids.
        J Clin Microbiol. 1990; 28: 495-503
        • Lundberg GD.
        The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnosis.
        JAMA. 1989; 262: 931-934
        • Lorincz A.
        Hybrid Capture method for detection of human papillomavirus DNA in clinical specimens.
        Papillomavirus Rep. 1996; 7: 1-5
        • Richart RM
        • Wright TC.
        Controversies in the management of low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
        Cancer. 1993; 71: 1413-1421
        • Remmink AJ
        • Walboomers JMM
        • Helmerhorst TJM
        • Voorhorst FJ
        • Rozendaal L
        • Risse EKJ
        • et al.
        The presence of persistent high-risk HPV genotypes in dysplastic cervical lesions is associated with progressive disease: natural history up to 36 months.
        Int J Cancer. 1995; 61: 306-311
        • Javaheri G
        • Fejgin MD.
        Diagnostic value of colposcopy in the investigation of cervical neoplasia.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 137: 588-594
        • Buxton EJ
        • Luesley DM
        • Shafi MI
        • Rollason M.
        Colposcopically directed punch biopsy: a potentially misleading investigation.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991; 98: 1273-1276
        • Howe DT
        • Vincenti AC.
        Is large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) more accurate than colposcopically directed punch biopsy in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia?.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991; 98: 588-591
        • Skehan M
        • Soutter WP
        • Lim K
        • Krausz T
        • Pryse-Davies J.
        Reliability of colposcopy and directed punch biopsy.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97: 811-816
        • Ismail SM
        • Colclough AB
        • Dinnen JS
        • et al.
        Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
        BMJ. 1989; 298: 707-710
        • Cuzick J
        • Szarewski A
        • Terry G
        • et al.
        Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening.
        Lancet. 1995; 345: 1533-1536