Objective High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 3) still develops in some vaccinated women despite established effectiveness of prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. The purpose of this study was to define characteristics of women with CIN 3 after HPV vaccination referred to a gynecological dysplasia unit. Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis of HPV-vaccinated women with CIN 3 in a single German center. Between July 2018 and September 2020, 791 women were referred to our university hospital–based dysplasia unit for colposcopic evaluation of abnormal cytological findings. Human papillomavirus vaccination status was retrieved. Human papillomavirus typing was performed in lesional biopsies and cervical swabs. Results Nine women were identified who had previously been vaccinated with the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Q-HPV) and were diagnosed with histologically confirmed CIN 3/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. The Q-HPV had been administered between 12 and 28 years of age and 1–13 years before CIN 3 diagnosis. Nine different high-risk (HR)-HPV types were found in the CIN 3 biopsies, 6 monoinfections (twice HPV 16, once HPV 18, HPV 31, HPV 52, HPV 58, respectively) and 3 dual infections (HPV 33 + 52, HPV 51 + 52, HPV 53 + 66). Seven of these 9 HR-HPV types are not covered by Q-HPV, but only 2 CIN 3 lesions carried HR-HPV types not included in the nonavalent HPV vaccine. Conclusions It is important to implement vaccination recommendations and administer HPV vaccination as early as possible in HPV-naive individuals. Because not all HR-HPV types are covered by the available HPV vaccines, other types may still cause CIN 3/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. This requires further screening after vaccination, especially in women who were previously vaccinated with the bivalent or the quadrivalent HPV vaccine.

Cervical cancer screening can be conducted with cytology and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing but few studies have compared the latter directly to concomitant testing (co-testing). We compared these strategies to determine appropriate screening. Within a randomised population-based cohort study conducted around Mainz, Germany, eligible women (≥30 years) were screened via Pap smear, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV testing (HC2) and HPV genotyped post hoc (PCR). These tests formed three strategies: cytology (Pap or LBC) and HPV (HC2 or PCR) stand-alone and co-testing. Screen positives and 5% negative women were invited to colposcopy. Absolute and relative sensitivity, specificity, false positive rates (FPR) and number needed to colposcopy to detect one lesion (NNC) were calculated. Estimates were crude and verification bias-adjusted using stratified sampling with bootstrapped confidence intervals. Of 2,627 screened women, cytology stand-alone demonstrated lowest sensitivities (47%) and highest specificities (97%-99%) while HPV stand-alone demonstrated higher sensitivities (79%-95%) but lower specificities (94%-95%). Co-testing increased sensitivity (84%-99%) but not specificity (92%-95%). Relative sensitivities were similar between crude and adjusted estimates, with greater detection via HPV-based strategies. Specificity of co-testing with LBC relative to HPV stand-alone was near unity (0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00) but significantly lower than unity with Pap co-testing. FPR and NNC were greatest under co-testing. HPV stand-alone screening in women over 30 years appears appropriate over co-testing as a screening strategy. Co-testing for cervical cancer does not appear to add any benefit in detection and may introduce unnecessary harms compared to HPV stand-alone screening.

Background: Some countries have implemented stand-alone human papillomavirus (HPV) testing while others consider cotesting for cervical cancer screening. We compared both strategies within a population-based study. Methods: The MARZY cohort study was conducted in Germany. Randomly selected women from population registries aged ≥30 years (n = 5,275) were invited to screening with Pap smear, liquid-based cytology (LBC, ThinPrep), and HPV testing (Hybrid Capture2, HC2). Screen-positive participants [ASC-US+ or high-risk HC2 (hrHC2)] and a random 5% sample of screen-negatives were referred to colposcopy. Post hoc HPV genotyping was conducted by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA with reverse line blotting. Sensitivity, specificity (adjusted for verification bias), and potential harms, including number of colposcopies needed to detect 1 precancerous lesion (NNC), were calculated. Results: In 2,627 screened women, cytological sensitivities (Pap, LBC: 47%) were lower than HC2 (95%) and PCR (79%) for CIN2+. Cotesting demonstrated higher sensitivities (HC2 cotesting: 99%; PCR cotesting: 84%), but at the cost of lower specificities (92%–95%) compared with HPV stand-alone (HC2: 95%; PCR: 94%) and cytology (97% or 99%). Cotesting versus HPV stand-alone showed equivalent relative sensitivity [HC2: 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00–1.21; PCR: 1.07, 95% CI, 1.00–1.27]. Relative specificity of Pap cotesting with either HPV test was inferior to stand-alone HPV. LBC cotesting demonstrated equivalent specificity (both tests: 0.99, 95% CI, 0.99–1.00). NNC was highest for Pap cotesting. Conclusions: Cotesting offers no benefit in detection over stand-alone HPV testing, resulting in more false positive results and colposcopy referrals. Impact: HPV stand-alone screening offers a better balance of benefits and harms than cotesting. See related commentary by Wentzensen and Clarke, p. 432

Leukemia in pregnancy is a rare condition with the prevalence of 1 in 75,000-100,000 pregnancies. In this case report, we present a successful multidisciplinary management strategy for treatment and for preserving the reproductive potential in a rare case of acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) during pregnancy. Several complex challenges existed and necessitated a multidisciplinary approach with strong coordination and collaboration between oncologists, gynecologists, reproductive cryobiologists, obstetricians, and neonatologists in order to improve the maternal and fetal outcome. Pregnancy in the second trimester is neither a contraindication for ALL treatment nor for emergency fertility preservation via ovarian tissue extraction and further cryopreservation.

Invasive cervical cancer is today the fourth most common cancer of women in western civilization. Screening programs have led to a continuously decrease. Nevertheless, both screening and a positive test result are known to be associated with a negative psychological impact. Screening programs in European countries differ and thus psychological impact might as well. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychological impact of women with an abnormal Pap smear in a German cohort.

Inguinal lymph node (LN) metastasis is a crucial prognostic factor in vulva carcinoma. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of the number of resected LNs in patients with vulvar carcinoma on recurrence rates.

Fragestellung: Im Jahr 2008 wurde in Frankreich, Spanien und Portugal eine Umfrage der „Women Against Cervical Cancer Foundation“ durchgeführt, um zu erheben, welche Belastungen Patientinnen mit einem auffälligen Pap-Abstrich empfinden und welche Informationsbedürfnisse sie haben. Ziel dieser Studie war es vergleichbare Daten für Deutschland zu erheben.