Dual stain vs. cytologic testing alone
In a second study, Nicolas Wentzensen, MD, PhD, from the National Cancer Institute and colleagues performed a prospective observational study of 3,225 women who tested positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) who underwent p16/Ki-67 dual stain (DS) and HPV16/18 genotyping.
p16/Ki-67 DS was more effective at risk stratification for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe neoplasia (CIN3+) than cytologic testing alone, and women with positive DS results had a higher risk of developing CIN3+ (12%) than did women with cytologic testing alone (10%; P = .005). Women who were HPV16/18 negative were the most likely to not have CIN3+ if they had negative DS results, and DS strategies resulted in fewer overall colposcopies relative to CIN3+ detections, compared with cytologic testing alone.
“We found that, for primary HPV screening, DS has both higher sensitivity and specificity compared with cytologic testing for triage of HPV-positive women Because of the greater reassurance of negative DS results, screening intervals can be extended compared with the screening intervals after negative cytologic results. Dual stain reduces unnecessary colposcopy referral and unnecessary cervical biopsies, and may reduce unnecessary treatment compared with Papanicolaou cytologic testing,” Dr. Wentzensen and colleagues concluded. “Our estimates of sensitivity, absolute risk, and colposcopy referral for various triage strategies can guide implementation of primary HPV screening.”
Five authors of Sawaya et al. reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute, and Dr. Megan J. Huchko reported receiving a grant from the University of California, San Francisco, during that study. That study was funded by a grant from the NCI. Six authors from Wentzensen et al. reported receiving grants from the NCI or being employed by the NCI or NIH. Dr. Philip E. Castle reported receiving low-cost or free cervical screening tests from Roche, Becton Dickinson, Cepheid, and Arbor Vita Corp. The other authors from both studies reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Sawaya GF et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. ; Wentzensen N et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019.