Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Apr;17(5 Suppl 1):S78-84.
doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31828543c5.

Five-year risk of recurrence after treatment of CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS: performance of HPV and Pap cotesting in posttreatment management

Affiliations

Five-year risk of recurrence after treatment of CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS: performance of HPV and Pap cotesting in posttreatment management

Hormuzd A Katki et al. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: After excisional treatment, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) can recur. It is not clear how many negative posttreatment Pap or cotest results are needed to ensure adequate safety against CIN 2+ before returning to extended retesting intervals.

Methods: We observed 5-year risks of CIN 2+ for 3 follow-up management strategies after treatment (Pap-alone, human papillomavirus [HPV]-alone, and HPV/Pap cotesting) for 3,273 women aged 25 years and older who were treated for CIN 2, CIN 3, or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) between 2003 and 2010 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Results: Five-year risks of recurrent CIN 2+ after treatment varied both by antecedent screening test result and the histology of the treated lesion. The risk ranged from 5% for CIN 2 preceded by HPV-positive/atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion to 16% for CIN 3/AIS preceded by atypical glandular cells (AGC)/atypical squamous cells cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H)/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+) (p < .0001). However, after posttreatment negative tests, risks were lowered and similar regardless of antecedent screening test and histology of treated disease. The 5-year recurrent CIN 2+ risk after a negative posttreatment cotest (2.4%) was lower than that following a negative HPV test (3.7%, p = .3) or negative Pap result (4.2%, p = .1). Two negative posttreatment tests of each kind conferred slightly lower 5-year CIN 2+ risk than one (2 negative Pap tests vs. 1, 2.7% vs 4.2%, p = .2; 2 negative HPV tests vs. 1, 2.7% vs 3.7%, p = .7; 2 negative cotests vs. 1, 1.5% vs 2.4%, p = .8). The 5-year CIN 2+ risk after 2 negative cotests of 1.5% (95% confidence interval = 0.3%-7.2%) approached the 0.68% risk after a negative Pap test during routine screening.

Conclusions: Women with antecedent AGC/ASC-H/HSIL+ Pap results or those treated for CIN 3/AIS had a substantial risk of developing CIN 2+ posttreatment. On the basis of the principle of "equal management of equal risks," after negative test results posttreatment, no subgroup of women achieved risk sufficiently low to return to 5-year routine screening. However, negative cotests after treatment provided more reassurance against recurrent CIN 2+ than either negative Pap tests or HPV tests alone.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Schiffman and Dr. Gage report working with Qiagen, Inc. on an independent evaluation of non-commercial uses of CareHPV (a low-cost HPV test for low-resource regions) for which they have received research reagents and technical aid from Qiagen at no cost. They have received HPV testing for research at no cost from Roche. Dr. Castle has received compensation for serving as a member of a Data and Safety Monitoring Board for HPV vaccines for Merck. Dr. Castle has received HPV tests and testing for research at a reduced or no cost from Qiagen, Roche, MTM, and Norchip. Dr. Castle is a paid consultant for BD, GE Healthcare, and Cepheid, and has received a speaker honorarium from Roche. No other authors report any conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagram of women treated for treatment for CIN2, CIN3, or AIS
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative risk of CIN2+ after treatment for CIN2, CIN3, or AIS among women aged 25 and older given antecedent screening test that preceded colposcopy was HPV-positive/ASC-US or LSIL (Left Panel) or HSIL+, ASC-H, AGC (Right Panel).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cumulative risk of CIN2+ following subsequent negative follow-up tests after treatment for CIN2, CIN3, or AIS, for women age 25 and older. The negative Pap test curves are for all Pap results alone regardless of HPV test results and the HPV negative test curves are for all HPV results alone regardless of Pap test results. A “negative cost” means testing both HPV-negative and Pap-negative.

References

    1. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370(9590):890–907. - PubMed
    1. Kocken M, Helmerhorst TJM, Berkhof J, Louwers JA, Nobbenhuis MAE, Bais AG, et al. Risk of recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful treatment: a long-term multi-cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):441–50. - PubMed
    1. Soutter WP, de Barros Lopes A, Fletcher A, Monaghan JM, Duncan ID, Paraskevaidis E, et al. Invasive cervical cancer after conservative therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Lancet. 1997;349(9057):978–80. - PubMed
    1. Paraskevaidis E, Arbyn M, Sotiriadis A, Diakomanolis E, Martin-Hirsch P, Koliopoulos G, et al. The role of HPV DNA testing in the follow-up period after treatment for CIN: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30(2):205–11. - PubMed
    1. Nobbenhuis MAE, Meijer C, van den Brule AJC, Rozendaal L, Voorhorst FJ, Risse EKJ, et al. Addition of high-risk HPV testing improves the current guidelines on follow-up after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Cancer. 2001;84(6):796–801. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms