Design of the HPV-Automated Visual Evaluation (PAVE) Study: Validating a Novel Cervical Screening Strategy ========================================================================================================== * Silvia de Sanjosé * Rebecca B. Perkins * Nicole G. Campos * Federica Inturrisi * Didem Egemen * Brian Befano * Ana Cecilia Rodriguez * Jose Jerónimo * Li C. Cheung * Kanan Desai * Paul Han * Akiva P Novetsky * Abigail Ukwuani * Jenna Marcus * Syed Rakin Ahmed * Nicolas Wentzensen * Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer * Mark Schiffman * the PAVE Study Group ## Abstract **Objective** To describe the HPV-Automated Visual Evaluation (PAVE) Study, an international, multi-centric study designed to evaluate a novel cervical screen-triage-treat strategy for resource-limited settings as part of a global strategy to reduce cervical cancer burden. The PAVE strategy involves: 1) screening with self-sampled HPV testing; 2) triage of HPV-positive participants with a combination of extended genotyping and visual evaluation of the cervix assisted by deep-learning-based automated visual evaluation (AVE); and 3) treatment with thermal ablation or excision (Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone). The PAVE study has two phases: efficacy (2023-2024) and effectiveness (planned to begin in 2024-2025). The efficacy phase aims to refine and validate the screen-triage portion of the protocol. The effectiveness phase will examine implementation of the PAVE strategy into clinical practice, cost-effectiveness, and health communication. **Study design** Phase 1 Efficacy: Nonpregnant women, aged 25-49 years, without prior hysterectomy, are being screened at nine study sites in resource-limited settings. Eligible and consenting participants perform self-collection of vaginal specimens for HPV testing using a FLOQSwab (Copan). Swabs are transported dry and undergo testing for HPV using a newly-redesigned isothermal DNA amplification HPV test (ScreenFire), which has been designed to provide HPV genotyping by hierarchical risk groups: HPV16, else HPV18/45, else HPV31/33/35/52/58, else HPV39/51/56/59/68. HPV-negative individuals are considered negative for precancer/cancer and do not undergo further testing. HPV-positive individuals undergo pelvic examination with collection of cervical images and targeted biopsies of all acetowhite areas or endocervical sampling in the absence of visible lesions. Cervical images are used to refine a deep learning AVE algorithm that classifies images as normal, indeterminate, or precancer+. AVE classifications are validated against the histologic endpoint of high-grade precancer determined by biopsy. The combination of HPV genotype and AVE classification is used to generate a risk score that corresponds to the risk of precancer (lower, medium, high, highest). During the efficacy phase, clinicians and patients will receive HPV testing results but not AVE results or risk scores. Treatment during the efficacy phase will be performed per local standard of care: positive Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid impression, high-grade colposcopic impression or CIN2+ on colposcopic biopsy, HPV positivity, or HPV 16,18/45 positivity. The sensitivity of the PAVE strategy for detection of precancer will be compared to current SOC at a given level of specificity. Phase 2 Effectiveness: The AVE software will be downloaded to the new dedicated image analysis and thermal ablation devices (Liger Iris) into which the HPV genotype information can be entered to provide risk HPV-AVE risk scores for precancer to clinicians in real time. The effectiveness phase will examine clinician use of the PAVE strategy in practice, including feasibility and acceptability for clinicians and patients, cost-effectiveness, and health communication. **Conclusion** The goal of the PAVE study is to validate a screen-triage-treat protocol using novel biomarkers to provide an accurate, feasible, cost-effective strategy for cervical cancer prevention in resource-limited settings. **Brazil** Ana Ribeiro - ana-ribeiro.dantas{at}fiocruz.br Tainá Raiol - taina.raiol{at}fiocruz.br Center for Women’s Integrated Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Brasília, DF, Brazil. MARCO Clinical and Molecular Research Center, University Hospital of Brasília/EBSERH, Federal District, Brazil **Cambodia** Te Vantha, MD, Director of Takeo Provincial Hospital,Cambodia Thay Sovannara, MD, Medical Practitioner, Raffles Medical Group, Cambodia Judith Norman, MD, Director of Women’s Health, Mercy Medical Center, Cambodia judynorman{at}gmail.com Dr. Andrew T. Goldstein, Director, Gynecologic Cancers Research Foundation. drg.cvvd{at}gmail.com **Dominican Republic** Margaret M. Madeleine, MPH, PhD Program in Epidemiology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center mmadelei{at}fredhutch.org Yeycy Donastorg, MD Instituto Dermatológico y Cirugía de la Piel “Dr. Huberto Bogaert Díaz”, HIV Vaccine Trials Research Unit, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. ydonastorg{at}gmail.com **El Salvador** Miriam Cremer MD; Basic Health International, Pittsburgh, PA 15205, USA. Ob/Gyn and Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. miriam.cremer{at}gmail.com Karla Alfaro, MD Basic Health International, El Salvador, kalfaro{at}basichealth.org **Honduras** Miriam Cremer MD; Basic Health International, Pittsburgh, PA 15205, USA. Ob/Gyn and Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. miriam.cremer{at}gmail.com Karla Alfaro, MD Basic Health International, El Salvador, kalfaro{at}basichealth.org. Jaqueline Figueroa, MD, Programa Nacional contra el Cáncer, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. jacqueline_figueroan{at}yahoo.com **Eswatini** Eyrun F. Kjetland, MD, PhD, Professor, Departments of Global Health and Infectious Diseases Ullevaal, Centre for imported and Tropical Diseases, Oslo University Hospital Ullevaal, Oslo, Norway; College of Health Sciences, Discipline of Public Health, Nelson Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa;Centre for Bilharzia and Tropical Health Research (non-profit), BRIGHT Academy, Durban, South Africa e.f.kjetland{at}medisin.uio.no Teresa Norris, Founder and President, HPV Global Action, tnorris{at}hpvglobalaction.org Zeev Rosberger, PhD, Department of Oncology, Psychology and Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, zeev.rosberger{at}mcgill.ca Amelie McFadyen, MA, Chief Executive Officer, HPV Global Action, ameliemcfadyen{at}hpvglobalaction.org Marc Steben, MD, Ecole de Sante Publique, Université de Montréal; International society for STD research, marc{at}marcsteben.com **Malawi** Amna Haider, MD, Epidemiologist, Department of Epidemiology and Training, Epicentre, Dubai, UAE, amna.haider{at}epicentre.msf.org George Kassim Chilinda, MD, Médecins Sans Frontières, Operational Centre Paris, Blantyre, Malawi, gchilinda{at}gmail.com Henry B.K.Phiri, MD-Sexual and reproductive health department, Ministry of Health, Malawi, henryphiri06{at}gmail.com **Nigeria** Ajenifuja Kayode Olusegun, MD, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Osun state Nigeria, ajenifujako{at}yahoo.com Adepiti Clement Akinfolarin, MD, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Osun state Nigeria, akinfolarindepiti{at}yahoo.co.uk Adekunbiola Banjo, MD, College of Medicine University of Lagos, Lagos, aafbanjo{at}cmul.edu.ng Moharson-Bello Imran, MD, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria, imranmorhasonbello{at}gmail.com Oyinloye Temitope,MD, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun state, Nigeria, projectcoordinator.itoju{at}gmail.com Bola-Oyebamiji Sekinat, MD, College of Medicine, Osun state University, Osogbo, Osun state. Adeyemo Marydiya, MD, College of Medicine, Osun state University, Osogbo, Osun state **Tanzania** Karen Yeates-MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, yeatesk{at}queensu.ca Safina Yuma, MD, Cervical Cancer Focal Person, Ministry of Health, Tanzania, sychande{at}yahoo.com Bariki Mchome, MD, Head, Reproductive Health Centre, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, barikimchome{at}gmail.com Alex Mremi, MD, Head, Department of Pathology, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, alexmremi{at}gmail.com Keywords * Automated visual evaluation * Cervical cancer prevention * HPV testing * Resource-limited settings * Risk-based screening ## Introduction ### Global burden of cervical cancer Cervical cancer causes substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide, with approximately 600,000 incident cases and 340,000 deaths each year.1 Globally, cervical cancer is caused by persistent infection with one of ∼13 carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types.2 Cervical cancer rates vary greatly worldwide due to uneven access to effective preventive measures; nearly 85% of cervical cancer cases and almost 90% of cervical cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).3 The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for the global elimination of cervical cancer, based on an advanced understanding of the natural history of the causal carcinogenic types of cervical HPV infection and existence of effective preventive technologies, including prophylactic HPV vaccination and cervical screening.2,4,5 However, translation of the HPV-based prevention methods has not yet occurred in many LMIC. While prophylactic vaccination will eventually decrease cervical cancer rates6 if high uptake can be achieved in LMIC, maximum potential health benefits of vaccinating adolescents today will not be achieved for 40 years. However, rapid implementation of a broad, effective cervical screening campaign for adult women in the highest burden areas will advance cancer control by 20 years (Figure 1). The US Cancer Moonshot initiative for Accelerated Control of Cervical Cancer has supported development of the new screening methods.7 ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F1) Figure 1. Timing and deaths averted with one-time prevention campaigns: vaccination only, screening only, or both **Footnote Figure 1:** Projection of the relative timing of health benefits, measured as deaths averted, accrued by vaccination and/or screening applied through one-time campaigns. Three scenarios were examined: 1) a one-time screening campaign providing effective management for approximately 25% of 30-to 49-year-old women in 2027 (i.e., 20 birth cohorts) (green line); 2) vaccinating 90% of 9-to 14-year-old girls in 2027 (i.e., 6 birth cohorts) with a bivalent HPV16/18 vaccination (orange line); and 3) both a screening campaign and HPV vaccination for respective birth cohorts in 2027 (blue line). We considered cervical cancer deaths averted over the lifetime of cohorts subject to the intervention, and conservatively assumed that deaths averted due to screening would only occur after age 50, to account for prevalent cancers. Projections were developed for the ∼65 LMIC with age-standardized cervical cancer incidence greater than 10 per 100,000 women.8 Even a relatively short-term intervention that combines screening and vaccination could avert over 1.2 million deaths over the lifetime of intervention cohorts, and implementation of effective screening campaigns could lead to reductions in cancer mortality almost immediately. ### Screening using HPV testing The detection of carcinogenic cervical/vaginal HPV DNA is currently the most sensitive screening method to distinguish those with an appreciable risk of precancer or cancer from those at low risk.9,10 The WHO currently recommends using either screen-treat or screen-triage-treat strategies. HPV testing is preferred to using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as the primary screening method where resources permit.4 There is a growing consensus that to achieve broad screening coverage, HPV testing of self-collected cervicovaginal specimens would be optimal for many populations.3,4,7,11 The results from meta-analyses comparing the performance of self-collected to clinician-collected samples, using PCR-based HPV detection, showed similar sensitivity and specificity for the detection of cervical precancer. 11 As of 2022, seven LMIC were recommending HPV self-collection.12 There is broad consensus that HPV testing is the preferred screening method due to its high negative predictive value and reproducibility. Treatment of all HPV-positive women with thermal ablation (i.e., screen-treat strategy) is an option under current WHO guidelines4; however, this may substantially overtreat infections, only the minority of which would progress to cancer.13 To make the best use of limited resources and concentrate on those at highest risk, triage strategies are critical to determine which HPV-positive women are at higher risk of cervical cancer. Triage with cytology or dual stain, as used in high resource settings, is unlikely to be a feasible solution in the majority of low-resource settings. Cervical visual examination using visual techniques, including VIA, are often used as triage methods. However, these techniques are subject to human error, have low accuracy for precancer, and require continuous training and quality control measures.14,15 HPV genotyping is a newer, more accurate method of triage, as genotype carcinogenicity varies predictably across populations.16,17 HPV16 is the most carcinogenic, followed by HPV18/45, followed by HPV31/33/35/52/58, followed by HPV39/51/56/59/68.18 Automated Visual Evaluation (AVE) using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm shows promise as a relatively simple and fast triage method that could be used in conjunction with HPV genotyping to generate a highly accurate composite triage test.19,20 ### HPV-AVE (PAVE) strategy The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) is currently undertaking a multi-centric study designed to evaluate a novel cervical screening and triage strategy for resource-limited settings, including settings with high HIV prevalence, as part of a global strategy to reduce cervical cancer burden. The PAVE strategy aims to target cervical precancer accurately and affordably by 1) self-sampled HPV screening; 2) triage among HPV-positive participants by combination of extended genotyping and visual evaluation assisted by deep-learning-based AVE; and 3) treatment using thermal ablation or excision (Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ). PAVE utilizes the concept of risk-based management, defined as patient management determined by their risk of precancer/cancer to minimize overtreatment in low-risk patients and concentrate treatment resources on high-risk patients (Figure 2). This manuscript describes the study protocol, structure, and logic of the PAVE strategy. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F2) Figure 2. Risk-based PAVE screen-triage-treat strategy provides risk stratification to assist in the management of screening participants. Note: hrHPV: refers to those HPV types considered as having a high potential capacity to induce cervical cancer when the infection is persistent over time. It includes HPV 16,18,45,31,33,45,52,58,39,51,56,59 and 68 ## Methods The PAVE study has two phases: efficacy (2023-2024) and effectiveness (planned to begin in 2024). The efficacy phase aims to refine and validate the screen-triage portion of the protocol. The effectiveness phase will research the introduction of the PAVE strategy into clinical practice. ### Phase 1: Efficacy #### Setting: Study design and locations The study aims to recruit up tens of thousands women in nine countries: Brazil, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Honduras, Malawi, Nigeria and Tanzania (Figure 3). Criteria for study site selection included: a) existing screening programs, b) willingness to research self-sampled HPV for screening, c) capacity to run the HPV test d) availability of pathology services to process biopsies and e) access to treatment services including ablation, excision, and cancer treatment. Outreach and recruitment activities under the protocol include awareness campaigns to inform the eligible female population in the catchment area. Research protocol details including recruitment strategies, number of visits, and institutional review board approval are under the control of individual study sites. The PAVE project is integrated into the screening activities at all study sites, and at select sites is also integrated into other ongoing research studies. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F3) Figure 3. Map of PAVE study sites ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F4) Figure 4. Schematic of PAVE protocol elements ![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/F5) Figure 5. Theoretical approach to compare the HPV AVE strategy and the standard of care (SOC) screening and triage outcome Footnote: Figure 5 is a hypothetical example showing how PAVE and SOC will be compared. Under a specific specificity value (which will be determined by the SOC), we will compare the difference between the sensitivities of PAVE and SOC. In this example, we had three categories for HPV genotype groups and three categories for AVE *(normal-indeterminate-precancer/cancer), and in total nine PAVE categories*. #### Ethical and regulatory aspects This multi-centric study is designed to function as a consortium. All ethical oversight of recruitment and clinical data collection will be done by the local sites under guidance of their own Institutional Review Boards and will follow local guidelines. All participants will have an informed consent for participation in the study and can drop their participation at any time during the process. All study documents written in languages other than English are officially translated into English for study records. Compiled analysis of de-identified data by NCI research staff for study purposes is deemed non-human subjects research by NIH. ### Protocol overview #### In-country elements: Patient enrollment and data collection The steps of the PAVE protocol include 1) determination of study eligibility, 2) informed consent, 3) self-sampled HPV testing, 4) cervical image collection and biopsy collection for those testing HPV positive, and 5) treatment as indicated per local protocols. #### Enrollment Eligibility criteria are: individuals with a cervix aged 30-49 years (general population) or 25-49 years if living with HIV (WLHIV), not currently pregnant, and able to understand study risks, benefits, and alternatives and provide informed consent in their native language. Those eligible for and interested in study participation undergo informed consent per local protocols. Those who choose to enroll provide basic demographic information (age, parity, HIV status if known). #### HPV self-collection Participants self-collect a vaginal sample for HPV testing using a FLOQSwab (Copan) following instruction by study personnel. Self-samples (FLOQSwab) are delivered dry for testing. All sites intend to use the ScreenFire HPV risk-stratification (RS) assay (ScreenFire) (US patent 11091799, Atila Biosystems Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, US).21,22 However, other HPV tests may be acceptable alternatives if they can provide genotyping information in following groups: HPV16, HPV18/45, HPV31/33/35/52/58, and HPV39/51/56/59/68. HPV tests are run onsite or in local laboratories in few days, with results returned to women quickly per local protocols. Women screening HPV-negative are informed of their results, reassured about their low subsequent risk of cervical cancer, and their participation in the study ends at most sites. The exception is El Salvador, at which 5% of those screening HPV negative undergo colpscopic examination. On average, approximately 80% of participants will screen HPV-negative, but this varies by study population. #### Triage of HPV-positive results: image collection and biopsy Women with HPV positive results undergo speculum exam with application of 5% acetic acid. Cervical images will be collected by a trained study provider using a dedicated device (Iris, Liger Medical LLC, Lehi, UT, US). Local clinicians also record their VIA assessment (negative, positive, suspicion of cancer) or colposcopy impression (normal, low-grade, high-grade or more severe). Following image capture, pathology specimens are collected. Biopsies will be collected from up to four acetowhite areas for each participant. If no acetowhite areas are seen, then an endocervical sample (using curette or brush) or cytology will be collected. Sites using colposcopy will collect punch biopsies per standard practice. Sites using VIA will use Softbiopsy/SoftECC brush biopsy ™ (Histologic LLC, Anaheim, CA, US), a device that is simpler to learn and perform and is associated with lower bleeding risk. All women that have an HPV positive test are expected to have a histologic diagnosis (biopsy, endocervical sample (ECC), and/or excisional tissue diagnosis). HPV-positive women with a negative triage evaluation initially, but who are later identified by PAVE activities to have a CIN2+, will be flagged and the clinical sites will be notified to permit “safety net” recall for adequate management. #### Treatment Treatment is provided for women meeting criteria per local protocols: VIA-positive or suspicion of cancer in sites using VIA, CIN2+ on biopsy and/or high-grade colposcopy impression in sites using colposcopy/biopsy, or HPV-positive and acetowhite changes or HPV 16,18/45 positive or HPV-positive for sites using screen-treat protocols. For sites using VIA, treatment decisions for those screening VIA-positive will be based on the standard of care, most commonly an adaptation of the WHO visual assessment for treatment (VAT) criteria for use of ablation. For sites using LLETZ, treatment decisions will follow local protocols. Table 1 describes screening, triage, biopsy, and treatment protocols for each site. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/09/2023.08.30.23294826/T1) Table 1. Site-specific primary triage and treatment protocols Biopsy and Treatment Protocols Note: Prior to the PAVE study, El Salvador screened with primary HPV screening (clinician-collected CareHPV), Brazil and DR screened with cytology, and Cambodia, Eswatini, Honduras, Malawi, Nigeria, and Tanzania screened with VIA. All sites are introducing self-sampled HPV testing with ScreenFire as part of the PAVE protocol. In El Salvador, women are continuing to screen initially with both ScreenFire and CareHPV. Triage testing is performed in all women with HPV-positive results. In El Salvador, triage testing is also performed on 5% of those testing HPV negative. ## Central elements: data management, HPV testing, AVE algorithm development, quality assurance, statistical analysis ### Data management Study data including demographic survey information, HPV test results (negative/positive, genotype for positive results), VIA or colposcopy impression, and local pathology results (cytology, biopsy and/or excisional specimen) are collected using DHIS2, Redcap or WEMA platforms. The collected data are associated with the corresponding images obtained during the triage visits. To ensure confidentiality, all personal identification information is removed from datasets before transferring outside the country of origin. De-identified datasets are securely transferred to a common server handled by the NGO specialized in country adaptation of DHIS2 information systems Enlace Hispano Americano de Salud (EHAS) and from there compiled data are transferred to Information Management Services (IMS), the NCI data management contractor, for data storage and analytic support during the course of the study. The noteworthy element in this study design element is that data rights (and residual biospecimens) will remain with the study site partners within their countries. The data on loan for PAVE analyses will be stored securely and data can be withdrawn and destroyed at any time by study site partners. This arrangement is important to many aspects of international data and biospecimen sharing. ### HPV testing/typing The ScreenFire HPV test is a new assay designed to detect the 13 high-risk HPV (hrHPV) genotypes grouped into the four risk groups described above, and specifically engineered to provide risk stratification by HPV genotype based on carcinogenicity. ScreenFire includes an internal control for sample quality guidance. The ScreenFire HPV assay is an isothermal, multiplex nucleic acid amplification method that uses 3NT technology to reduce false positivity and increase assay performance. ScreenFire can be run on 1 to 96 samples per batch, requires only basic pipetting skills, and takes approximately 2.5 hours in total including sample preparation, pipetting, and DNA amplification with readout. #### Validation ScreenFire was compared against reference research HPV DNA assays in 2078 stored specimens. Overall concordance for both viral types was >90%, and sensitivity for CIN3+ was 94.2%, similar to Linear Array (93.1%) and TypeSeq (95.9%), indicating excellent performance.22 Regulatory approval will require additional comparisons in screening settings. Additional clinical studies will be nested within the PAVE protocol. In El Salvador, 5% of HPV-negative women will undergo colposcopic evaluation. Comparison of ScreenFire to other WHO pre-qualified HPV tests (CareHPV and Abbott) may also be performed on subsets of patients. ### Development of AVE algorithm using clinical images Cervical images will be transferred via the digital camera to a secure server using a specially designed script. Images and non-PHI data will be shared and downloaded on a loan-basis to the PAVE AI team at NCI and the AI collaborators to train the AVE algorithm. Because images from the Iris device have not been used previously with the AI algorithm, a pilot phase will take place to retrain the AI-based algorithm. Due to the similarities of the Iris device to previously tested digital cameras, we expect to be able to retrain the algorithm successfully as done in our prior work.23 During the PAVE study, four AI algorithms are being developed and evaluated: (1) cervix detector, (2) image quality classifier, (3) disease classifier to identify precancer, and (4) treatability/SCJ classifier. * (1) Cervix detector. This algorithm is designed to display a bounding box on the screen, aiding healthcare providers ensure that the cervix is centralized within the image. This feature simplifies the process of locating the cervix within the digital image, enhancing efficiency and accuracy of image collection. * (2) Image quality classifier. This algorithm aims to identify images that may be unsuitable for accurate disease assessment due to factors like obstruction or inadequate visual sharpness. By flagging such images, it helps ensure that only good quality images are used when training the algorithm. If shown to be useful, the image quality classifier could provide feedback in real time to clinicians when taking images to ensure adequate image quality. * (3) Disease classifier. This algorithm aims to visually distinguish precancerous changes from lesser abnormalities, and classifies cervical images as normal, indeterminate, or precancer+. AVE results are assessed on repeatability (correct classification of replicate images of the same patient) and accuracy (correct classification of AVE based on histopathology, as well as minimization of extreme misclassification of normal as precancer or vice versa). Accuracy is defined as correct classification of participants to < precancer or precancer+. Precancer+ is rigorously defined to include HPV-positive histologic CIN3, AIS, cancer, and CIN2 diagnoses confirmed by expert pathologic review and positive for the 8 most carcinogenic HPV genotypes. CIN2 is qualified because although CIN2 is the threshold for treatment in most clinical practice worldwide, it is a less reproducible pathologic diagnosis and may regress without treatment, especially when associated with lower carcinogenicity HPV genotypes.24,25 The current prototype algorithm is the result of several years of development. Earlier algorithms were limited by poor repeatability, misclassification including grave errors (i.e., cases with precancer called normal or vice versa), overfitting, and lack of portability (defined as the ability of the algorithm to accurately classify images from different image capture devices and study settings other than the dataset on which it was trained).20 Additional techniques have been applied to develop the prototype version of the AVE algorithm that will be refined and tested in the PAVE study,26 resulting in improved reliability and consistency of model predictions across repeat images from the same woman27. The disease classifier algorithm is trained using histology as the truth standard for defining the presence or absence of precancer. The outcome definition for the purpose of training a three-class ordinal classification algorithm includes normal (HPV-positive with histology normal, HPV negative, HPV negative cervicitis), indeterminate (low-grade HPV-related abnormalities, CIN1), and precancer+, as determined by histology among HPV positives (defined above). To ensure portability, the algorithm will undergo external validation using datasets distinct from the training set of images. Early data indicate that while our algorithm may function among patients across diverse geographies28 a dedicated device may be needed because AVE fails to transfer without retraining.23 The images collected in PAVE will be used to refine and externally validate the prototype AVE algorithm.27 We will test repeatability, accuracy, and calibration of the model before the algorithm is tested in clinical settings during the effectiveness phase.29 Treatability/SCJ classifier. This algorithm aims to classify the SCJ is as fully visible, partially visible, or not visible, using expert colposcopic impression as the truth standard. The goal is to assist providers in determining treatment eligibility. SCJ visibility is critical (i.e., necessary although not sufficient) for eligibility for thermal ablation procedures; ablation should not be performed when the SCJ is not fully visible. ### Pathology quality assurance Pathology readings are performed locally with centralized quality assurance on a subset of cases. Histotechnology adequacy via slide review from all participating laboratories includes assessment of specimen preparation, staining adequacy, and clarity/readability of scanned images by the assigned referent NCI study pathologist in collaboration with pathologists at each study site. Local pathologists involved in the PAVE project are asked to complete a performance competency review which include providing diagnoses on 20 standardized cases. Issues with either slide preparation or interpretation were addressed via videoconference between the NCI expert pathologist and local laboratories. To assure histopathology reading standardization the following cases receive review by an expert gynecologic pathologist, making use of a Motic whole slide scan review collection and transfer: 1) all cases with histology CIN2+ or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL); 2) all HPV16+ with