Eurogin roadmap 2017: Triage strategies for the management of <scp>HPV</scp>‐positive women in cervical screening programs

  • Kate Cuschieri
    Scottish HPV Reference Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine NHS Lothian, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent Edinburgh EH16 4SA United Kingdom
  • Guglielmo Ronco
    Centre for Cancer Prevention (CPO), AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza via Cavour 39 Torino 10123 Italy
  • Attila Lorincz
    Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ United Kingdom
  • Laurie Smith
    University of British Columbia and BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre, 4500 Oak Street Vancouver British Columbia V6H 3N1 Canada
  • Gina Ogilvie
    Faculty of Medicine University of British Columbia British Columbia Canada
  • Lisa Mirabello
    Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute Rockville Maryland
  • Francesca Carozzi
    Cancer Prevention Regional Laboratory ISPO, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute Florence Italy
  • Heather Cubie
    Global Health Academy, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Quad Edinburgh EH8 9PG United Kingdom
  • Nicolas Wentzensen
    Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute Rockville Maryland
  • Peter Snijders
    Department of Pathology VU University Medical Center (VUmc) Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Marc Arbyn
    Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Scientific Institute of Public Health Brussels Belgium
  • Joe Monsonego
    Institut du Col Paris France
  • Silvia Franceschi
    International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon France

Description

<jats:p>Cervical cancer screening will rely, increasingly, on HPV testing as a primary screen. The requirement for triage tests which can delineate clinically significant infection is thus prescient. In this EUROGIN 2017 roadmap, justification behind the most evidenced triages is outlined, as are challenges for implementation. Cytology is the triage with the most follow‐up data; the existence of an HR‐HPV‐positive, cytology‐negative group presents a challenge and retesting intervals for this group (and choice of retest) require careful consideration. Furthermore, cytology relies on subjective skills and while adjunctive dual‐staining with p16/Ki67 can mitigate inter‐operator/‐site disparities, clinician‐taken samples are required. Comparatively, genotyping and methylation markers are objective and are applicable to self‐taken samples, offering logistical advantages including in low and middle income settings. However, genotyping may have diminishing returns in immunised populations and type(s) included must balance absolute risk for disease to avoid low specificity. While viral and cellular methylation markers show promise, more prospective data are needed in addition to refinements in automation. Looking forward, systems that detect multiple targets concurrently such as next generation sequencing platforms will inform the development of triage tools. Additionally, multistep triage strategies may be beneficial provided they do not create complex, unmanageable pathways. Inevitably, the balance of risk to cost(s) will be key in decision making, although defining an acceptable risk will likely differ between settings. Finally, given the significant changes to cervical screening and the variety of triage strategies, appropriate education of both health care providers and the public is essential.</jats:p>

Journal

Citations (3)*help

See more

Report a problem

Back to top