Evaluation Of Integrated Hpv Dna As Individualized Biomarkers For The Detection Of Recurrent Cin2/3 During Post-Treatment Surveillance

Simple Summary HPV-DNA integration into the host genome is a frequent step in cervical carcinogenesis and is considered to be a tumor-driving event. Viral integration sites are unique for each patient and could thus serve as highly specific molecular markers for the detection of recurrent disease. Unexpectedly, our study showed that integration sites as individualized biomarkers could not detect all recurrent pre-cancers (CIN2/3). Nevertheless, this is the first study which has identified and validated integration sites in a large number of CIN3 (n = 445) and as such has unraveled several novel findings: The integration frequency observed in CIN3 was much lower than anticipated (10.8% in CIN3 vs. 80% in cervical cancer). Moreover, in contrast to the monoclonal situation in cervical carcinoma, integrated HPV-DNA in CIN3 is most likely confined to clonally expanding subpopulations. Purpose: Post-treatment follow-up in women with cervical pre-cancers (CIN3) is mandatory due to relapse in up to 10% of patients. Standard follow-up based on hrHPV-DNA/cytology co-testing has high sensitivity but limited specificity. The aim of our prospective, multicenter, observational study was to test the hypothesis that an individualized viral-cellular-junction test (vcj-PCR) combined with cytology has a lower false positive rate for the prediction of recurrence compared to standard co-testing. Methods: Pre-surgical cervical swabs served for the identification of HPV16/18 DNA integration sites by next-generation-sequencing (NGS). Samples taken at 6, 12 and 24 months post-surgery were evaluated by cytology, hrHPV-DNA and the patients' individual HPV-integration sites (vcj-PCR on the basis of NGS). Results: Integration sites were detected in 48 of 445 patients (10.8%), 39 of them had valid follow-up data. The false positive rate was 18.2% (95% CI 8.6-34.4%) for standard hrHPV/cytology at six months compared to 12.1% (95% CI 4.8-27.3%) for vcj-PCR/cytology, respectively (McNemar p = 0.50). Six patients developed recurrences (1 CIN2, 5 CIN3) during follow-up. Standard co-testing detected all, whereas vcj-PCR/cytology detected only five patients with recurrences. Data of 269 patients without evidence of HPV16/18 integration were subject to post-hoc analyses. Standard co-testing revealed a false positive rate of 15.7% (95% CI 11.7-20.7%) and predicted ten of fourteen recurrences at six months. Conclusions: Although highly specific on its own vcj-PCR could not detect all recurrent CIN2/3. Possible reasons for this unexpected result may be multifocal lesions, intratumoral heterogeneity with respect to HPV integration and/or incident CIN.