Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT Objective To compare the performance of cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping and PAX1/SOX1 methylation for the triage of high‐risk HPV‐positive cervical samples. Design Retrospective analyses of archival samples collected from a large‐scale prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting/Sample HPV‐positive women recruited from the general cervical screening population. Methods 403 HPV‐positive samples including 113 normal, 173 low‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (LG‐CIN), 114 HG‐CIN and three cervical cancers. All samples were assessed by liquid‐based cytology, HPV genotyping and PAX1/SOX1 methylation. Main Outcome Measures AUC (area under the curve), sensitivity and specificity for cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping and PAX1/SOX1 methylation for high‐grade (HG) premalignant cervical lesions. Results PAX1 was more sensitive than cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping in detecting a HG lesion (CIN2+). The sensitivity for PAX1, SOX1, cytology and HPV16/18 were 73.5% (95% CI: 65.5–81.5), 41.9% (95% CI: 32.9–50.8), 48.7% (95% CI: 39.7–57.8) and 36.8% (95% CI: 28.0–45.5), respectively, and their respective specificities were 70.3% (95% CI: 65.0–75.6), 83.6% (95% CI: 79.3–87.9), 77.6% (95% CI: 72.8–82.5) and 67.1% (95% CI: 61.7–72.6), respectively. Overall, PAX1 gave the best AUC at 0.72. Adding SOX1 to PAX1 did not improve the AUC (0.68). Three hundred and twenty‐two women who did not have a HG lesion at baseline were followed up for two rounds of screening. Fewer women developed a HG lesion with a normal baseline PAX1 compared to women with a normal baseline cytology or negative HPV16/18 (8.4% vs. 14.5% and 17.5%, respectively). Conclusion PAX1 triage for referral to colposcopy in HPV‐positive women may be superior to cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping.
Chan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.