We present one of the largest series of HPV-genotyped cervical cancers to date. The systematic collection of cervical cancer HPV genotyping data by the screening registry will facilitate prevention and monitoring of HPV type-specific disease burden.

BackgroundHigh-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infection is established as the major cause of invasive cervical cancer (ICC). However, whether hrHPV status in the tumor is associated with subsequent prognosis of ICC is controversial. We aim to evaluate the association between tumor hrHPV status and ICC prognosis using national registers and comprehensive human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping.Methods and findingsIn this nationwide population-based cohort study, we identified all ICC diagnosed in Sweden during the years 2002–2011 (4,254 confirmed cases), requested all archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks, and performed HPV genotyping. Twenty out of 25 pathology biobanks agreed to the study, yielding a total of 2,845 confirmed cases with valid HPV results. Cases were prospectively followed up from date of cancer diagnosis to 31 December 2015, migration from Sweden, or death, whichever occurred first. The main exposure was tumor hrHPV status classified as hrHPV-positive and hrHPV-negative. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality by 31 December 2015. Five-year relative survival ratios (RSRs) were calculated, and excess hazard ratios (EHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Poisson regression, adjusting for education, time since cancer diagnosis, and clinical factors including age at cancer diagnosis and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage. Of the 2,845 included cases, hrHPV was detected in 2,293 (80.6%), and we observed 1,131 (39.8%) deaths during an average of 6.2 years follow-up. The majority of ICC cases were diagnosed at age 30–59 years (57.5%) and classified as stage IB (40.7%). hrHPV positivity was significantly associated with screen-detected tumors, young age, high education level, and early stage at diagnosis (p < 0.001). The 5-year RSR compared to the general female population was 0.74 (95% CI 0.72–0.76) for hrHPV-positive cases and 0.54 (95% CI 0.50–0.59) for hrHPV-negative cases, yielding a crude EHR of 0.45 (95% CI 0.38–0.52) and an adjusted EHR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.52–0.71). Risk of all-cause mortality as measured by EHR was consistently and statistically significantly lower for cases with hrHPV-positive tumors for each age group above 29 years and each FIGO stage above IA. The difference in prognosis by hrHPV status was highly robust, regardless of the clinical, histological, and educational characteristics of the cases. The main limitation was that, except for education, we were not able to adjust for lifestyle factors or other unmeasured confounders.ConclusionsIn this study, women with hrHPV-positive cervical tumors had a substantially better prognosis than women with hrHPV-negative tumors. hrHPV appears to be a biomarker for better prognosis in cervical cancer independent of age, FIGO stage, and histological type, extending information from already established prognostic factors. The underlying biological mechanisms relating lack of detectable tumor hrHPV to considerably worse prognosis are not known and should be further investigated.

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary cause of cervical cancer, although some invasive cervical cancers may test negative by HPV PCR. We previously requested all invasive cervical cancers in Sweden during 10 years and subjected them to PCR. We also optimised methods for deep sequencing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples. Methods Using Novaseq 6000, we simultaneously sequenced total DNA and cDNA from 392 HPV PCR-negative cervical cancers. Non-human reads were queried against all known HPVs. The complete database now contains PCR and/or deep sequencing data on 2850 invasive cervical cancers. Results HPV sequences were detected in 169/392 of HPV PCR-negative cervical cancers. Overall, 30 different HPV types were detected, but only 5 types were present in proportions above 3% of cancers. More than 92% of tumours were HPV-positive in PCR and/or sequencing (95% confidence interval: 91.1–93.1%). Exploring possible reasons for failure to previously detect HPV suggest that more sensitive type-specific PCRs for HPV 31, 33, 45 and 73 targeting retained regions of HPV would have detected most of these (117/392). Conclusions Unbiased deep sequencing provides comprehensive data on HPV types in cervical cancers and appears to be an important tool for quality assurance of HPV screening.

Our study used a refined case–control cervical cancer Audit framework to investigate effectiveness of cervical screening, with measures of three screening failures: irregular‐participation, cervical cancer developed after cytological abnormalities and after normal screening results. The register‐based study included 4,254 cervical cancer cases diagnosed in Sweden during 2002–2011, and 30 population‐based controls per case. We used conditional logistic regression models to examine relative risks of cervical cancer in relation to screening participation and screening results in the past two screening rounds from 6 months before cancer diagnosis. We found that women unscreened in past two screening rounds showed four times increased risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened in time (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 3.8–4.5), and women unscreened in the previous round but screened in the most recent round also showed a statistically significantly elevated risk (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5–1.8). Women having abnormality in previous two rounds exhibited higher risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened with normal results, while having normal results in the subsequent round after the abnormality also yielded an increased risk (OR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2–5.1). Being screened with only normal results was associated with 89% risk reduction for squamous cell cancer, compared to women unscreened, but only 60% reduction for adenocarcinoma. Our findings emphasize the importance of routine participation in cervical screening and suggest that management of abnormalities, as well as sensitivity of the test, warrants improvement especially for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma. The Audit framework serves as routine evaluation model and the findings benchmark for future evaluation of changes in screening practice.