Equivocal and weakly positive hybrid capture 2 tests in women aged 50 and older

The performance of the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test for human papilloma virus (HPV) detection depends on the prevalence of infection. However, the current HC2 manufacturer recommended interpretative algorithm is the same for all women. This test, which may be particularly useful in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women given the morphologic complexity of their Pap tests, could be affected by the overall lower prevalence of HPV infection in this age group. We investigated HC2 equivocal and weakly positive HPV tests in women 50 years and older and the detection of high-grade dysplasia (CIN2+) on their follow-up specimens. All HC2 test data from 1,067 consecutive specimens and 85 additional specimens from women ≥ 50-years-old with equivocal and weakly positive HC2 were analyzed. Follow-up specimens from women with HC2 tests within these ranges were reviewed. No CIN2+ was found on follow-up of 49 cases of women ≥ 50 with equivocal or weakly positive HC2 results. The current HC2 algorithm resulted in "positive" reports in 63% of specimens with initial equivocal HC2 due to retests mostly within the equivocal range. These results suggest that women 50 years and older may benefit from higher HC2 thresholds. The test could also be reported as HC2 values (RLU/CO) to be interpreted in view of risk factors.     

Performance of the Aptima high-risk human papillomavirus mRNA assay in a referral population in comparison with Hybrid Capture 2 and cytology

This study compared the Aptima human papillomavirus (HPV) (AHPV; Gen-Probe Incorporated) assay, which detects E6/E7 mRNA from 14 high-risk types, the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA (HC2; Qiagen Incorporated) test, and repeat cytology for their ability to detect high-grade cervical lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) in women referred to colposcopy due to an abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) smear. A total of 424 clinical specimens, stored in liquid-based cytology (LBC) vials at room temperature for up to 3 years, were tested by repeat cytology, the AHPV assay, and the HC2 test. Assay results were compared to each other and to histology results. The overall agreement between the AHPV assay and the HC2 test was 88.4%. The sensitivity (specificity) of cytology, the HC2 test, and the AHPV assay for the detection of CIN2+ was 84.9% (66.3%), 91.3% (61.0%), and 91.7% (75.0%) and for the detection of CIN3+ was 93.9% (54.4%), 95.7% (46.0%), and 98.2% (56.3%), respectively. Of the disease-positive specimens containing high-risk HPV (HR HPV) DNA as determined by Linear Array (Roche Diagnostics), the AHPV assay missed 3 CIN2 and 1 microfocal CIN3 specimen, while the HC2 test missed 6 CIN2, 4 CIN3, and 1 cervical carcinoma specimen. The AHPV assay had a sensitivity similar to but a specificity significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than the HC2 test for the detection of CIN2+. The AHPV assay was significantly more sensitive (P = 0.0041) and significantly more specific (P = 0.0163) than cytology for the detection of disease (CIN2+).     

Comparison of the cobas Human Papillomavirus (HPV) test with the hybrid capture 2 and linear array HPV DNA tests

The cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test (cobas) was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and identifies HPV16 and HPV18 separately as well as detecting a pool of 11 HR-HPV genotypes (HPV31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -59, -68) and also HPV66. We compared cobas, Linear Array (LA), and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assays for detection of carcinogenic HPV DNA, and cobas and LA for detection of HPV16 and HPV18 DNA, among the first 1,852 women enrolled in the HPV Persistence and Progression Cohort (PaP Cohort) study. Specimens were tested by all 3 assays 1 year after an HC2-positive result. In 1,824 specimens with cobas results, cobas had an 85.9% agreement with HC2 and 91.0% agreement with LA for carcinogenic HPV detection. When results between cobas and HC2 disagreed, cobas tended to call more women HPV positive (P < 0.01). Categorizing cobas and LA results hierarchically according to cancer risk (HPV16, HPV18, other carcinogenic HPV genotypes, or carcinogen negative), there was a 90% agreement for all categories of HPV (n = 1,824). We found good agreement between the two U.S. FDA-approved HPV tests, with discrepancies between the two assays due to specific characteristics of the individual assays. Additional studies are needed to compare HC2 and cobas for detecting and predicting CIN3 to understand the clinical implications of the discrepant test results between the two tests.     

Detection of high-risk HPV types by the hybrid capture 2 test

A hybrid capture test that can be used to detect at least 13 high-risk HPV types (referred to collectively as HPV-HR) in cervical scrapes (Hybrid Capture 2 probe set B, HC2-B) was evaluated. The HC2-B test is accurate and highly reproducible and the results obtained show excellent agreement with those obtained by a multiplexed type-specific polymerase chain reaction (mts-PCR). An additional assay to identify a subset of HPV-HR types may improve specificity without compromising sensitivity in HC2-B positive specimens with a test result close to the cut-off value given by 1 pg/ml HPV DNA.     

A comparison of a prototype PCR assay and hybrid capture 2 for detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus DNA in women with equivocal or mildly abnormal papanicolaou smears

We evaluated Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results for paired specimens collected at 19,187 visits from 5,026 of 5,060 women participating in the Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS). We examined the test agreement between HC2 and PCR detection for any of 13 carcinogenic human papillomavirus types targeted by HC2 and compared clinical performance of the 2 tests for detecting concurrent and follow-up cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or cancer. The k value for the 2 assays was 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.66), with 82.7% crude agreement. HC2 was more sensitive (93.6% vs 89.3%; P < .0005) but less specific (41.2% vs 48.5%; P < .0005) than PCR for detecting 2-year cumulative CIN 3 or cancer (n = 503). The presence of multiple types as detected by PCR and/or cytologic abnormality increased the likelihood of an HC2+ result. Increased sensitivity of HC2 compared with PCR was surprising, given the theoretical advantages of PCR-based methods for analytic sensitivity. Smaller amounts of material used in PCR could have limited its sensitivity, but our results demonstrate the importance of optimization and standardization of PCR-based assays for clinical applications.     

Reproducibility of HPV DNA Testing by Hybrid Capture 2 in a Screening Setting

Within a large Italian randomized trial on new technologies for cervical cancer screening involving 7 laboratories with different levels of experience, an intralaboratory and interlaboratory quality control program for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Digene, Gaithersburg, MD) was implemented. To monitor the hybridization and detection steps, target samples containing purified, concentration-defined, HPV DNA were introduced in each test run. Only 3 of 1,024 showed a mistake in a positive vs negative classification with a 1 relative light unit (RLU)/positive control specimen (PC) ratio cutoff. To monitor the preanalytic steps (particularly denaturation), blinded specimens (33 collected in PreservCyt (Cytyc, Boxborough, MA) and 36 in Specimen Transport Medium (STM, Digene) were centrally prepared, divided into aliquots, and sent to each laboratory. The multiple-rater scores for negative (<1 RLU/PC), low-positive (1 to <11 RLU/PC), and high-positive (> or =11 RLU/PC) samples, respectively, were 0.91, 0.60, and 0.69 with PreservCyt and 0.93, 0.87, and 0.90 with STM. Our data showed high reliability and reproducibility with HC2, with values higher for STM than ThinPrep (Cytyc) samples.     

Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program

In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8%) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8%) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (> or =CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97% (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91% (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as > or =CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of >or =CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for > or =CIN3 in population-based cervical screening.     

Human papillomavirus viral load expressed as relative light units (RLU) correlates with the presence and grade of preneoplastic lesions of the uterine cervix in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) cytology

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive and has higher negative predictive value (NPV) than the Pap test for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) cytology, but has low specificity, leading to high referral rates to second-level triage. Our goal was to identify the prognostic significance of HPV viral load figures. We evaluated whether a correlation between viral load, expressed as relative light units/cutoff (RLU/CO), and the severity of cervical lesions existed in 614 ASCUS cases. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2?) RLU/CO values, categorised into five classes, were correlated to clinical outcomes and statistically analysed. A significant correlation (p?1,000 (p?相似文献   

Performance of proex c and pretect hpv‐proofer e6/e7 mrna tests in comparison with the hybrid capture 2 hpv dna test for triaging ascus and lsil cytology

The clinical usefulness of the ProEx C (Becton Dickinson) and PreTect HPV‐Proofer E6/E7 mRNA tests (Proofer; Norchip) for the triage of ASCUS and LSIL cytology was determined in comparison with the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test (HC2; Qiagen). The study population consisted of women with a history of abnormal cytology referred to colposcopy. Histology‐confirmed CIN 2+ served as the disease endpoint. The study was based on 1,360 women (mean age 30.7 years), of whom 380 had CIN 2+. Among 315 with ASCUS (CIN 2+, n = 67), the sensitivities of ProEx C, Proofer, and HC2 to detect CIN 2+ were, 71.6, 71.6, and 95.5%, respectively, with a corresponding specificity of 74.6, 74.2, and 35.1%. Among 363 with LSIL (CIN 2+, n = 108), the sensitivities of ProEx C, Proofer, and HC2 were, 67.6, 74.1, and 96.3%, respectively, with a corresponding specificity of 60, 68.2, and 18.4%. Among 225 HC2‐positive ASCUS (CIN 2+, n = 64), 105 tested positive by ProEx C, reducing colposcopy referral by 53.3% and detecting 71.9% of CIN 2+; Proofer was positive in 112/225, reducing colposcopy referral by 50.2% and detecting 75.0% of CIN 2+. Among 312 HC2‐positive LSIL (CIN 2+, n = 104), 160 tested positive by ProEx C, reducing coloposcopy referral by 48.7% and detecting 66.3% of CIN 2+; Proofer was positive in 159/312, reducing colposcopy referral by 49.0% and detecting 75.0% of CIN 2+. In conclusion, both ProEx C and Proofer have a similar performance profile with a significantly higher specificity but lower sensitivity than HC2 for the detection of CIN 2+. Consequently, although they can reduce colposcopy referral, they will miss a proportion of CIN 2+ cases. This is a major limitation and should be taken into account if these tests are considered for ASCUS or LSIL triage. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2013;41:767–775. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The predictive value of p16(INK4a) and hybrid capture 2 human papillomavirus testing for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

We performed p16(INK4a) immunocytochemical analysis and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Digene, Gaithersburg, MD) high-risk HPV testing on 210 abnormal SurePath (TriPath Imaging, Burlington, NC) Papanicolaou specimens diagnosed as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). The results were compared with 121 follow-up biopsy specimens. p16(INK4a) was positive in 57.9% of women with LSIL compared with 97.1% of women with HSIL. In contrast, HC2 testing was positive in 85.0% of women with LSIL and 86.4% of women with HSIL. The differences in the positive rates for16(INK4a) between LSIL and HSIL was significant (P < .001), whereas, for HC2, it was not (P = .264). In patients who had cervical biopsies following a cytologic diagnosis of LSIL, the positive predictive value (PPV) of p16(INK4a) for a biopsy of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2/3; 33.3%) was significantly higher than the PPV of HC2 results (21.2%) (P < .001). Using liquid-based cytology specimens, p16(INK4a) immunocytochemical analysis has a higher PPV than reflex HC2 HPV testing for identifying CIN2/3 among patients with LSIL and might be useful for selecting patients with LSIL for colposcopy.     

Head-to-Head Comparison of the RNA-Based Aptima Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Assay and the DNA-Based Hybrid Capture 2 HPV Test in a Routine Screening Population of Women Aged 30 to 60 Years in Germany

Testing for E6/E7 mRNA in cells infected with high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) might improve the specificity of HPV testing for the identification of cervical precancerous lesions. Here we compared the RNA-based Aptima HPV (AHPV) assay (Hologic) and the DNA-based Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) HPV test (Qiagen) to liquid-based cytology (LBC) for women undergoing routine cervical screening. A total of 10,040 women, 30 to 60 years of age, were invited to participate in the study, 9,451 of whom were included in the analysis. Specimens were tested centrally by LBC, the AHPV test, and the HC2 test, and women who tested positive on any test were referred for colposcopy. Genotyping was performed on all HR-HPV-positive samples. Test characteristics were calculated based on histological review. As a result, we identified 90 women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+), including 43 women with CIN3+. Sensitivity differences between the AHPV test and the HC2 test in detecting CIN2+ (P = 0.180) or CIN3+ (P = 0.0625) lesions were statistically nonsignificant. Of three CIN3 cases that were missed with the AHPV test, two cases presented lesion-free cones and one had a non-HR HPV67 infection. The specificity (<CIN2) and positive predictive value (CIN2+) of the AHPV test were significantly higher (both P < 0.001) than those of the HC2 test. The overall agreement between the tests was substantial (κ = 0.77). Finally, we present results for several possible triage strategies, based on the primary screening test being either the AHPV test or the HC2 test. In summary, the AHPV assay is both specific and sensitive for the detection of high-grade precancerous lesions and may be used in primary cervical cancer screening for women ≥30 years of age.     

Comparison of human papillomavirus detection and typing by cycle sequencing, line blotting, and hybrid capture

We compared the results of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection and typing from 781 cervical samples assayed by three methods: L1 consensus PCR followed by cycle sequencing, L1 consensus PCR with biotinylated primers followed by hybridization to a line blot, and Hybrid Capture assay. Both PCR assays used L1 consensus PCR with primers MY09 and MY11. We evaluated the amplification efficiencies of both PCR assays and also compared the specific HPV types detected by each method. The samples positive by the Hybrid Capture assay were compared to the specific types detected by the PCR-based assays. The concordance between the two PCR assays in producing an HPV amplicon visible by gel electrophoresis or in detecting any HPV type was moderate: kappa values were 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56 to 0.67) and 0.51 (95% CI = 0.46 to 0.58), respectively. The McNemar test for correlated proportions indicated that biotinylated PCR was less likely to produce a band (P = 0.001) and to detect an HPV type (P = 0.001) than the other PCR assay. In comparing the Hybrid Capture assay results with the HPV types detected by the PCR-based assays, we found that positivity by the Hybrid Capture assay for a number of samples may be due to cross-hybridization with HPV types not included in the Hybrid Capture assay probe cocktails.     

Clinical Impact of the Analytical Specificity of the Hybrid Capture 2 Test: Data from the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer (NTCC) Study

The Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test targets 13 human papillomavirus (HPV) types. Here, cross-reactivity with non-HC2-targeted HPV types is described. We aimed to define the proportion of HC2-positive women who had negative results with HC2-targeted HPV types and estimate its determinants and impact on women''s health management. The New Technologies for Cervical Cancer (NTCC) trial was followed in two predetermined phases. Women in the experimental arm were tested for the presence of HPV DNA by HC2 following a sample collection in PreservCyt (first phase) or Digene specimen transport medium (STM) (second phase). HPV genotyping was performed on DNA samples from HC2-positive women by PCR with GP5⁺/GP6⁺ primers and reverse line blot (RLB) hybridization. Untyped samples were submitted to direct sequencing or restriction fragment length polymorphism. Multivariate logistic regression analysis estimated the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) between the presence of HC2-targeted types and age, viral load, and type of transport medium. Out of 2,920 HC2-positive samples, 2,310 (79.1%) were positive on RLB for HC2-targeted types, 396 were positive (13.6%) for only non-HC2-targeted types (mostly represented by HPV-53, HPV-66, and HPV-70), and in 214 (7.33%) samples, no HPV types were detected. The probability of detecting HC2-targeted types increased with increasing viral load expressed as the relative light unit/positive-control specimen ratio (RLU/PC) (OR for unitary increase of log RLU/PC, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 1.42) and with STM versus PreservCyt (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.84). If only the samples containing HC2-targeted types tested positive, the positive predictive value (PPV) would have increased from 7.0% (95% CI, 6.1% to 8.0%) to 8.4% (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.6), although 4.9% (95% CI, 2.4% to 8.8%) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2⁺ (CIN2⁺) cases would have been missed. In conclusion, STM use and an increased cutoff would reduce the HC2 analytical false-positive rate and increase the positive predictive value for high-grade CIN. The gain in clinical sensitivity by detecting non-HC2-targeted HPV types is limited.     

Human papillomavirus genotype specificity of hybrid capture 2

Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2), a clinical test for carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA, has proven to be a sensitive but only modestly specific predictor of cervical precancer and cancer risk. Some of its nonspecificity for clinical end points can be ascribed to cross-reactivity with noncarcinogenic HPV genotypes. However, the reference genotyping tests that have been used for these comparisons are also imperfect. We therefore sought to describe further the HPV genotype specificity of hc2 by comparing the hc2 results to paired results from two related PGMY09/11 L1 primer-based HPV genotyping assays: Linear Array (LA) and its prototype predecessor, the line blot assay (LBA). LA and LBA results were considered separately and combined (detection by either assay or both assays) for 37 individual HPV genotypes and HPV risk group categories (carcinogenic HPV > noncarcinogenic HPV > negative). Baseline specimens from 3,179 of 3,488 (91.5%) women referred to ALTS (a clinical trial to evaluate the management strategies for women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS] or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions) because of an ASCUS Papanicolaou smear were tested by all three assays. Among single-genotype infections with genotypes targeted by hc2 as detected by either PCR assay, HPV genotype 35 (HPV35) (86.4%), HPV56 (84.2%), and HPV58 (76.9%) were the most likely to test positive by hc2. Among single-genotype infections with genotypes not targeted by hc2 as detected by either assay, HPV82 (80.0%), HPV66 (60.0%) (recently classified as carcinogenic), HPV70 (59.1%), and HPV67 (56.3%) were the most likely to test positive by hc2. Among women who tested negative for carcinogenic HPV by both PCR tests and were positive for noncarcinogenic HPV by either test, 28% of women were hc2 positive. Conversely, 7.8% of all hc2-positive results in this population were due to cross-reactivity of hc2 with untargeted, noncarcinogenic HPV genotypes. In conclusion, hc2 cross-reacts with certain untargeted, noncarcinogenic HPV genotypes that are phylogenetically related to the targeted genotypes, but the degree of cross-reactivity may be less than previously reported.     

Human papillomavirus testing with the hybrid capture 2 assay and PCR as screening tools

The recognition of high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) as etiological agents of cervical cancer has increased the demands to use testing for HPV for the detection of abnormal cervical smears and for cervical cancer screening. The present study compared the performance of the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay with that of PCR for the detection of significant cervical lesions in 1,511 women with different risks for HPV infections in three New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The results showed that the level of agreement between the HC2 assay and PCR was substantial, with a kappa (Cohen) value of 0.669 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.629 to 0.709). Of the 228 samples with discrepant results, 92 were positive by the HC2 assay but negative by PCR, whereas 136 samples were PCR positive but HC2 assay negative. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of the HC2 assay and PCR in detecting high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSILs) were 4.5% (95% CI, 3.5 to 5.5%) and 3.6% (95% CI, 2.7 to 4.5%), respectively, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) were 99.6% (95% CI, 99.3 to 99.9%) and 99.3% (95% CI, 98.9 to 99.7%), respectively. The sensitivities of the HC2 assay and PCR for the detection of HSILs were 85.2 and 74.0%, respectively, and the specificities were 67.2 and 64.1%, respectively. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the performance of the HC2 assay for the detection of HSILs was excellent (P = 0.0001); the area under the ROC analysis curve was 0.858 (95% CI, 0.811 to 0.905), and the optimal balance between sensitivity (86.5%) and specificity (80%) was obtained with an HC2 assay cutoff level of 15.6 relative light units/positive control. Use of this cutoff would increase the specificity of the HC2 assay to 80.0% without compromising sensitivity. In conclusion, the results of PCR and the HC2 assay were concordant for 85% of samples, resulting in substantial reproducibility. Both tests had low PPVs, equal specificities, and equal (almost 100%) NPVs for the detection of HSILs; but the sensitivity of the HC2 assay was slightly better.     

Clinical performance of the APTIMA® HPV Assay for the detection of high-risk HPV and high-grade cervical lesions

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is widely used in conjunction with Papanicolaou (Pap) testing in cervical cancer screening programs to improve the detection of high-grade lesions. While HPV DNA test sensitivity is good, an improvement in specificity is desired. Detection of HPV mRNA may improve specificity. The APTIMA® HPV Assay detects the mRNA of 14 high-risk HPV types in liquid-based cytology specimens.ObjectiveTo evaluate APTIMA HPV Assay performance for detection of high-risk HPV and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) compared to Qiagen's Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA (HC2) test.Study designLiquid Pap specimens were collected from 800 women referred to colposcopy and tested with the APTIMA HPV Assay and the HC2 test. Complete results were available for 753 subjects. A subset of samples (n = 393) were typed using Roche's Linear Array HPV Genotyping Test.ResultsSensitivity and specificity for detection of high-risk HPV were >92% and 99% for the APTIMA HPV Assay and 93% and 82% for the HC2 test. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were 91% and >55% for detection of CIN 2+, and 98% and 53% for detection of CIN 3+ for the APTIMA HPV Assay; values for the HC2 test were 95% and 47% for CIN 2+, and 99% and 44% for CIN 3+. Conclusions: The APTIMA HPV Assay is sensitive and very specific for detection of high-risk HPV. The APTIMA HPV Assay had similar clinical sensitivity for disease detection but higher clinical specificity than the HC2 test, which may improve patient management and reduce the cost of care.     

Value of morphological criteria in diagnosing cervical HPV lesions confirmed by in situ hybridization and hybrid capture assay.

The present study evaluated the value of morphological criteria (binucleation, multinucleation, koilocytosis, spindle koilocytes, abnormal mitosis and dyskeratosis) in the diagnosis of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) lesions confirmed by in situ hybridization (ISH) and hybrid capture (HC) assay. Colposcopic punch biopsies from a series of 138 women with abnormal Pap smears were examined on light microscopy and in situ hybridization (DAKO widespectrum cocktail probe) for HPV-induced morphological changes and HPV DNA, respectively. Cervical swabs were analyzed for HPV DNA of the oncogenic types using Hybrid Capture. CIN 2 and CIN 3 were found in 44 biopsies, CIN 1 in 62, and no evidence of HPV in 32 cases. HPV was detected by ISH in 51/138 (37%) cases and by HC in 66/138 (48%) lesions. With both tests, HPV DNA detection increased parallel with lesion severity, up to 70% and 59% in CIN 2/3 by HC and ISH, respectively OR 4.6 (1.7-12.1) and 10.1 (3.0-33.8). Among the histological criteria, multinucleation, binucleation and abnormal mitoses were significantly associated with HPV DNA detection. Multinucleation proved to be the strongest predictor of HPV DNA-positivity. Binucleation, abnormal mitosis, koilocytosis and spindle koilocytes were also reliable criteria of HPV lesions. Minor nuclear atypia, and "mild koilocytosis" were of no value in making this diagnosis.     

Clinical performance of RNA and DNA based HPV testing in a colposcopy setting: Influence of assay target,cut off and age

BackgroundAs HPV testing is used increasingly for cervical disease management, there is a demand to optimise the performance of HPV tests, particularly with respect to specificity.ObjectivesTo compare the clinical performance of an HPV DNA and a RNA based test in women with cytological abnormalities. The influence of age and assay cut off on test performance was also assessed.Study designA prospective comparison of the Hybrid Capture 2 test (HC2) and the Aptima HPV assay (AHPV) was performed within a colposcopy setting. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were determined for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse.ResultsBoth assays were >90% sensitive for the detection of CIN2+. AHPV was slightly more specific than HC2 [49.9% (46.8–53.1) vs 45.9% (42.8, 49.1), p < 0.0001]. Raising HC2 cut off to 2 RLU did not improve specificity. A cut-off of 10 RLU increased specificity by approximately 10% – although this led to a reduction in sensitivity of 6.3% which equated to 24 missed cases of CIN2+. Both assays were more specific in women over 30 years of age, compared to women under 30 (p < 0.001).ConclusionAlthough AHPV was more specific than HC2 in the total cohort (p < 0.001), we found this difference to be smaller than other studies. This could be attributed to different indications for colposcopic referral across different settings. This study also confirms the relatively poor specificity of commercial HPV assays in women under 30.     

Comparison of the AMPLICOR human papillomavirus test and the hybrid capture 2 assay for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus in women with abnormal PAP smear

Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary step in the progression to cervical cancer. Many methods for HPV testing are currently available, mostly developed to detect pools of HPV types. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) is one of the most widely used. A new PCR-based assay, the Roche AMPLICOR HPV test, has been recently developed. Both assays recognize a group of 13 HR HPV types contemporaneously. This study evaluated the performance of both methods for detecting high-grade cervical lesions as a part of management for abnormal PAP smears. The study population was composed of 213 women, all referred to colposcopy and histologic diagnosis following an abnormal PAP test. Biopsy-confirmed high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia was used as a gold standard. Overall agreement was 84.9% with a kappa value of 0.6. When comparing the ability to detect moderate cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+/cancer), AMPLICOR proved slightly more sensitive than HC2, a finding that is important when HPV testing is used in a triage of borderline smear results. Genotyping of discordant results showed a prevalence of LR-HPV types in HC2 positive/AMPLICOR negative samples, and a similar prevalence of HR- and LR-HPV types in AMPLICOR positive/HC2 negative samples. In conclusion, the study shows that the AMPLICOR assay is more sensitive than HC2, which makes it a valid alternative for routine clinical use.     

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA triage of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with cobas 4800 HPV and Hybrid Capture 2 tests for detection of high-grade lesions of the uterine cervix

The triage of women with high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive smears for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) to colposcopy is now an integrated option in clinical guidelines. The performance of cobas 4800 HPV and that of Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) for HR HPV DNA detection in cervical samples in PreservCyt were compared in 396 women referred to colposcopy for ASC-US. Of these, 316 did not have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), 47 had CIN1, 29 had CIN2 or CIN3 (CIN2+), and 4 had CIN of unknown grade. HR HPV was detected in 129 (32.6%) and 149 (37.6%) samples with HC2 and cobas 4800 HPV, respectively (P = 0.15). The clinical sensitivities and specificities for detecting CIN2+ were 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.8 to 97.2%) and 66.7% (95% CI, 61.7 to 71.3%) with cobas 4800 HPV and 93.1% (95% CI, 77.0 to 99.2%) and 72.2% (95% CI 67.4 to 76.5%) with HC2. The performance of cobas 4800 HPV was similar to that of HC2 for identifying women with ASC-US who would benefit the most from colposcopy.