Comparison of the Cobas 4800 HPV Test and the Seeplex HPV4A ACE with the Hybrid Capture 2 Test

Background: It is well-known that persistent cervical infections with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) are related to the development of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer and that infection with HPV 16 and HPV 18 accounts for approximately 70% of all cases of invasive cervical cancer.Methods: We performed 3 HPV molecular tests―the Cobas 4800 HPV test, the Seeplex HPV4A ACE, and the hybrid capture 2 (HC2) test―in 146 cervical swab samples to compare between these three tests.Results: There was a concordance rate of 82.8% between the results of the Cobas 4800 HPV and the HC2 test and a concordance rate of 84.9% between the results of the Seeplex HPV4A ACE and the HC2 test. Between the Cobas 4800 HPV test and the Seeplex HPV4A ACE, there was a concordance rate of 89.6% in the detection of high-risk HPV between the results and a concordance rate of 98.7% in the detection of HPV 16 or 18. When an abnormal Pap test was defined as ≥low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), the sensitivity of the Cobas 4800 HPV test, the Seeplex HPV4A ACE and the HC2 test were 71.1%, 80.0%, and 88.9%, respectively, while their specificities were 76.4%, 74.5%, and 67.9%, respectively.Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the Cobas 4800 HPV test and the Seeplex HPV4A ACE may be as effective as the HC2 test in detecting HR HPV and that the concordance between the results of the Cobas 4800 HPV test and the Seeplex HDV4A ACE may be higher in the detection of HPV 16 and HPV18 than concerning high-risk HPV.     

Anyplex II HPV28 detection and Anyplex II HPV HR detection assays are highly concordant with other commercial assays for detection of high-risk HPV genotypes in women with high grade cervical abnormalities

Purpose: to evaluate the performance of Anyplex II HPV28 and HPV HR Detection assays against the EuroArray HPV, Cobas 4800 HPV (Cobas), HPV Amplicor (Amp), Linear Array HPV (LA) and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) in detection of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) from liquid-based cervical cytology samples. Methods: cervical specimens from 404 women undergoing management of high-grade cytological abnormality were evaluated by Anyplex II HPV28 and HPV HR Detection assays for detection of HR-HPV genotypes and prediction of histologically-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (≥CIN2). The results were compared to EuroArray, HC2, Cobas, Amp, and LA. Results: specimens were evaluated from 404 women with an average age of 30 years, including 336 with a histological diagnosis of?≥?CIN2 and 68 with?≤?CIN1. Concordance of HR-HPV detection between Anyplex II HPV28 and other genotyping assays was 94.79 % (κ?=?0.84; EuroArray) and 97.27 % (κ?=?0.91; LA); and between Anyplex II HPV HR and other HR-HPV detection assays was 86.35 % (κ?=?0.62; HC2), 96.03 % (κ?=?0.87; Cobas) and 96.77 % (κ?=?0.89; Amp). Using HR-HPV detection for prediction of?≥?CIN2 by Anyplex II HPV28 and HPV HR, sensitivity (90.18, 95 % CI 86.48–93.14; 90.77, 95 % CI 87.16–93.65) and specificity (both 67.16, 95 % CI 54.60–78.15) were not significantly different to the other HPV assays tested, with one exception. Both Anyplex assays had significantly higher sensitivity than HC2 (p?<?0.0001), with a specificity of 96 % (p?>?0.05) of HC2 in this high-risk population. Conclusions: both Anyplex II HPV detection assays were concordant with other commercial assays for HR-HPV detection, with comparable sensitivity and specificity for?≥?CIN2 detection.     

Comparison of Digene Hybrid Capture 2, GeneMatrix PapilloScreen,and a PCR sequencing assay in detecting high-risk and probable high-risk oncogenic HPV genotypes in specimens from Korean women

Most cervical cancers are caused by 15 high-risk (HR) and three probable high-risk (pHR) oncogenic types of human papillomavirus (HPV). However, current commercial HR HPV screening test products do not include pHR HPV genotypes. Recently, PapilloScreen has been developed to detect the 15 HR and three pHR HPV types. In this study, we evaluated the concordance levels and clinical performance of Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), PapilloScreen, and a PCR sequencing assay in detecting HR and pHR HPV. The PapilloScreen (96.8 %) and PCR sequencing assay (96.8 %) demonstrated higher sensitivity than HC2 (80.7 %) for detecting HR and pHR HPV. The three assays showed similar specificities and positive or negative predictive values. The concordance levels were 86.5 % (κ = 0.68) and 86.5 % (κ = 0.67) between HC2 and PapilloScreen and between HC2 and PCR sequencing, respectively. A near-perfect concordance was observed between PapilloScreen and PCR sequencing (97.8 %, κ = 0.95). Overall, the agreement between the three assays suggests that the results obtained by the HC2 assay are more often discordant (12.6 %) than the PCR-based tests. In conclusion, PapilloScreen is highly sensitive for detecting high-grade CIN or cervical cancer. The PapilloScreen assay should be considered an accurate and sensitive method for detecting HR and pHR HPV infections and an epidemiological tool for prevalence studies as well as early diagnosis and intervention in HR and pHR HPV infections.     

Comparison of clinical performance of Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test with that of hybrid capture 2 assay in a screening setting

Randomized trials have produced sound evidence about the efficacy of screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA tests in reducing cervical cancer incidence and mortality. We evaluated the clinical performance and reproducibility of the Abbott RealTime High Risk (HR) HPV test compared with that of the HR hybrid capture 2 (HC2) assay as assessed by a noninferiority score test. A random sample of 998 cervical specimens (914 specimens of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia less severe than grade 2 [相似文献   

Comparison of the Anyplex II HPV28 assay with the Hybrid Capture 2 assay for the detection of HPV infection

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing is an important part of cervical cancer screening and management of women with abnormal cytology results. The Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) has been recommended for use as a reference test.ObjectiveTo evaluate a new real-time PCR assay (Anyplex II HPV28) for detecting high risk (HR) HPV and to compare it to the HC2. In addition, we compared the genotyping results of the Anyplex II HPV28 to those of sequencing analysis.Study designA total of 1114 cervical swab specimens were consecutively obtained from a single healthcare center. We submitted all specimens for HPV detection with Anyplex II HPV28 and HC2, then analyzed the discordant results using multiplex PCR followed by direct sequencing.ResultsHC2 detected 72 (6.5%) cases with HR HPV, while Anyplex II HPV28 identified 138 (12.4%) cases. The overall agreement rate was 91.4% (1018/1114) of cases. Discordant results between these two assays were observed in 96 cases; 15 were positive only by HC2, and 81 were positive only by Anyplex II HPV28. Sequencing analyses performed in 80 cases of discordant results revealed 11 false-positive, and 67 false-negative results using HC2 tests and two false-positive results using Anyplex II HPV28.ConclusionsThe Anyplex II HPV28 assay is analytically more sensitive in the detection of the 13 HR types represented by the HC2 assay and exhibited a higher concordance with comprehensive genotyping based on the sequencing analysis, and it could be used as a laboratory testing method for identifying HPV genotypes.     

两种人乳头状瘤病毒检测方法的比较

目的 评价导流杂交和实时荧光定量（real-time）PCR对宫颈癌患者HPV感染检测的临床意义.方法 采用导流杂交和real-time PCR分别对190例患者进行HPV感染检测,并对检测结果进行分析.结果 在190例检测标本中,导流杂交法检测出113例HPV阳性,阳性检出率为59.5％,筛查宫颈癌的敏感度为58.1％,特异度为39.2％,阳性预测值为47.8％,阴性预测值为49.4％.real-time PCR检测出106例阳性,阳性检出率为55.8％,筛查宫颈癌的敏感度为54.8％,特异度为43.3％,阳性预测值为48.1％,阴性预测值为50.0％.导流杂交和real-time PCR检出的HPV阳性率差异无统计学意义,而且一致性检验显示两种方法具有较高的一致性（符合率为87.9％）.结论 本研究结果表明,导流杂交和real-time PCR方法检测HPV未表现出较大的差异,在宫颈癌筛查中可以将两种方法结合使用,以提高检测的准确性,降低漏诊率.     

Comparison of the Digene Hybrid Capture 2 assay and Roche AMPLICOR and LINEAR ARRAY human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in detecting high-risk HPV genotypes in specimens from women with previous abnormal Pap smear results

The development of cervical cancer is strongly associated with the presence of persistent high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Recently, the commercially manufactured PCR-based Roche AMPLICOR (AMP) and LINEAR ARRAY (LA) HPV tests have become available for HPV detection. However, knowledge of their clinical performance compared to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay is limited. This study evaluated the concordance between the HC2, AMP, and LA tests in detecting HR-HPV among a cohort of 1,679 women with previous abnormal Pap smear results. Overall, 1,393 specimens (81.3%) generated concordant results for HR-HPV presence or absence by the three assays. The concordance levels were substantial between the HC2 and AMP tests (84.4%, kappa = 0.6419) and between the HC2 and LA tests (84.0%, kappa = 0.6341) and nearly perfect between the AMP and LA tests (97.8%, kappa = 0.9441). HR-HPV prevalence, as detected by the AMP or LA tests, was significantly higher among women with cytological or histological high-grade disease (CIN2 or greater) than that detected by HC2 (P < 0.0001). The AMP and LA tests exhibited greater sensitivity, but lower specificity, than HC2 for detecting HR-HPV among this cohort of women with underlying cervical abnormalities, particularly among subjects with histologically proven high-grade disease. Both PCR-based HPV tests may be valuable in the management of care for women with underlying cervical abnormalities, in predicting treatment success, and in studying the clearance or acquisition of new infections.     

Comparative analysis of three methods for HPV DNA detection in cervical samples

High risk HPV infection is considered to play a central role in cervical carcinogenesis. HPV DNA testing has shown to be a very useful tool for screening and following cervical infections. The aim of this study was to compare three methods for HPV DNA detection, along with cytology and colposcopy analysis. Cervical samples were collected from 100 sexually active women in Mérida, western Venezuela. HPV infection was screened using Hybrid-Capture 2 (HC2), L1-Nested-PCR and E6/E7-PCR assays. 40% of the samples (40/100) were HPV positive by at least one of the DNA detection methods. HC2 detected HPV in 12% specimens. L1- and E6/E7-PCRs showed 50% sensitivity and 77% specificity.The agreement rate between HC2 and both PCR assays was 65%. Kappa value showed moderate concordance between HC2 and both PCR methods (kappa=0.55; CI 95%). Also moderate concordance was seen when L1- and E6/E7-PCRs were compared (kappa=0.48; CI 95%). There was a significant association between the Schiller test and E6/E7-PCR (p=0.006) for HPV infection. An acceptable agreement between all three assays for HPV detection was observed. Nevertheless, different PCR formats need to be further analyzed in order to make the right choice of method for HPV testing.     

Comparison of the Digene HC2 assay and the Roche AMPLICOR human papillomavirus (HPV) test for detection of high-risk HPV genotypes in cervical samples

Many different methods with different sensitivity and specificity have been proposed to detect the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR HPV) in cervical samples. The HC2 is one of the most widely used. Recently, a new standardized PCR-based method, the AMPLICOR HPV test, has been introduced. Both assays recognize the same 13 HR HPV genotypes. The performances of these two commercially available assays were compared in 167 consecutive women (for a total of 168 samples) who presented at the Colposcopy Clinic either for a follow-up or for a diagnostic visit. Concordant results were found in 140/168 cervical samples (overall agreement, 83%; Cohen's kappa = 0.63). Twenty-eight samples gave discordant results: 20 were positive with the AMPLICOR HPV test and negative with the HC2 assay, and 8 were negative with the AMPLICOR HPV test and positive with the HC2 assay. The genotyping showed that no HR HPV was detected in the 8 HC2 assay-positive AMPLICOR HPV test-negative samples, while in 8/20 AMPLICOR HPV test-positive HC2 assay-negative samples, an HR HPV genotype was found. The AMPLICOR HPV test scored positive in a significantly higher percentage of subjects with normal Pap smears. All 7 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 patients scored positive with the AMPLICOR HPV test, while 2 of them scored negative with HC2. Both tests had positive results in the only patient with squamous cell carcinoma. In conclusion, this study shows that the HC2 assay and the AMPLICOR HPV test give comparable results, with both being suitable for routine use. The differences noted in some cases may suggest a different optimal clinical use.     

Comparison of clinical and analytical performance of the Abbott Realtime High Risk HPV test to the performance of hybrid capture 2 in population-based cervical cancer screening

The clinical performance of the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV (human papillomavirus) test (RealTime) and that of the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test (hc2) were prospectively compared in the population-based cervical cancer screening setting. In women >30 years old (n = 3,129), the clinical sensitivity of RealTime for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 (CIN2) or worse (38 cases) and its clinical specificity for lesions of less than CIN2 (3,091 controls) were 100% and 93.3%, respectively, and those of hc2 were 97.4% and 91.8%, respectively. A noninferiority score test showed that the clinical specificity (P < 0.0001) and clinical sensitivity (P = 0.011) of RealTime were noninferior to those of hc2 at the recommended thresholds of 98% and 90%. In the total study population (women 20 to 64 years old; n = 4,432; 57 cases, 4,375 controls), the clinical sensitivity and specificity of RealTime were 98.2% and 89.5%, and those of hc2 were 94.7% and 87.7%, respectively. The analytical sensitivity and analytical specificity of RealTime in detecting targeted HPV types evaluated with the largest sample collection to date (4,479 samples) were 94.8% and 99.8%, and those of hc2 were 93.4% and 97.8%, respectively. Excellent analytical agreement between the two assays was obtained (kappa value, 0.84), while the analytical accuracy of RealTime was significantly higher than that of hc2. RealTime demonstrated high intralaboratory reproducibility and interlaboratory agreement with 500 samples retested 61 to 226 days after initial testing in two different laboratories. RealTime can be considered to be a reliable and robust HPV assay clinically comparable to hc2 for the detection of CIN2+ lesions in a population-based cervical cancer screening setting.     

Concordant testing results between various human papillomavirus assays in primary cervical cancer screening: systematic review

ObjectivesHuman papillomavirus (HPV) assays are increasingly used for primary cervical screening and HPV-vaccination-effect monitoring. We undertook a systematic literature review to determine the concordance in positive test results (i.e. detection of HPV infections) between Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and other assays.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for studies of primary screening with HC2 and one or more assays, with cross-tabulated testing results for the assays. Two authors applied inclusion criteria and three authors extracted data from included studies. For each inter-assay comparison, we calculated the concordance by comparing the number of concordant samples with the number of samples that tested positive on at least one assay.ResultsSixteen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria, comparing nine assays to HC2, and including 392 to 9451 patients each. The calculated concordance varied between 48% and 69% for HC2 and APTIMA, Cobas, Abbott RealTime, Cervista, GP5+/6+, CLART, BD HPV test, Amplicor and Linear Array, i.e. 31%–52% of all positive tests on any pair of compared assays were discordant. Although modest variation in the degree of concordance with HC2 was suggested for particular assays, the numbers of studies per assay were generally low. No pronounced systematic patterns were observed by study (e.g. liquid medium) or population characteristics.ConclusionsThe ten commercially available assays do not detect the same HPV infections. Even in the most favourable case, the two assays provided discordant test results in 31% of all detected infections.     

Comparison of the Cobas 4800 Human Papillomavirus test against a combination of the Amplicor Human Papillomavirus and the Linear Array tests for detection of HPV types 16 and 18 in cervical samples

The greater prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 compared to the other high-risk HPV types of cervical cancer led to the development of clinical tests that detect both types separately from other genotypes. One method is the Roche Cobas 4800 HPV test, which is based on a real-time PCR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Cobas 4800 HPV test for detecting genotypes 16 and 18 by comparing the results with those obtained in a combination of the Roche Amplicor HPV assay and the Roche Linear Array (LA) HPV genotyping assay. Excellent concordance was found between both methods (92.7%, kappa value=0.872). The Cobas 4800 HPV test could be used as a single test for identifying HPV types 16 and 18 directly from clinical specimens.     

Clinical performance of the CLART human papillomavirus 2 assay compared with the hybrid capture 2 test

Persistent infection by high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) is a cause of cervical cancer. The use of HPV detection in cervical screening programs may improve the ability to identify women at risk of cervical cancer. Therefore, the development of appropriate methods for the detection of HR‐HPV is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the CLART Human Papillomavirus 2 assay (CLART) in comparison with the Hybrid Capture 2 test (HC2), using a clinical cut‐off of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse. Discrepant results were analyzed further by the PapilloCheck HPV genotyping system. In the 425 studied women, HR‐HPV positivity rates were similar by both tests (CLART‐13 HR‐HPV: 63.1%; CLART‐17 HR‐HPV: 64.7%; HC2: 64.5%). Agreement between CLART‐13 HR‐HPV (κ = 0.969; concordance level 98.6%), CLART‐17 HR‐HPV (κ = 0.974; concordance level 98.8%), and HC2 were very good. When 13 HR‐HPV types were considered, the two tests showed a clinical sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 92.6–97.9). The clinical specificity of CLART‐13 HR‐HPV was 73.6% (95% CI: 66.7–79.5) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, which was comparable to HC2 (71.4%; 95% CI: 64.3–77.5). When all 17 HR‐HPV types were considered, CLART showed a clinical sensitivity of 96.9% (95% CI: 93.8–98.5) and a clinical specificity of 71.9% (95% CI: 64.9–78.0). In conclusion, the CLART assay is efficient, sensitive, reproducible, and has a similar performance to HC2 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse. Furthermore, this assay has the advantage of detecting and genotyping 35 HPV types by a single test, which can provide additional information on the predictive value of infection with HR‐HPV. J. Med. Virol. 83:272–276, 2011. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Detection of HPV DNA in cervical carcinomas by PCR and hybrid capture assay

HPV DNA was detected in exfoliated cervical cells of 73% (85/116) cervical cancer patients by PCR using HPV consensus primers and by hybrid capture assay (HC II) (Digene Corp., USA) in 77 of the 85 cases found HPV positive by PCR. Presence of HPV 16/18 DNA were investigated in the 79 cases by PCR using type specific primers. HPV 16 was detected in 31 (39%) patients, HPV 18 in 7 (8.8%), both HPV 16 and 18 in 19 (24%) and HPVs other than 16/18 in 22 (27.8%) cases. Age and clinical stages had no significant effect on HPV prevalence. Double infection of HPV 16 and 18 was significantly (p<0.05) high in the older patients (56 years or more) compared to younger group. Results indicated that cervical cancers in India are strongly associated with high-risk type HPV infection. HC II assays and PCR results for detection of HPV in cervical smears were comparable.     

单一时间点HC2-HPV-DNA和HPV E6/E7mRNA检测的临床研究

目的 研究在单一时间点上的人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)E6/E7 mRNA检测及HC2-HPV-DNA检测在宫颈疾病筛查中的应用.方法 对2008年1月至2009年7月就诊的130例患者进行HPV E6/E7 mRNA与HC2-HPV-DNA检测.以TCT结果为标准评价两种方法检测宫颈高度病变的效能.结果 HC2-HPV-DNA检测阳性检出率82.3%(107/130),HPV E6/E7 mRNA检测阳性检出率40.0%(52/130),两种方法在阳性检出方面差异有统计学意义(X2=24.5,P＜0.05).HC2-HPV-DNA检测宫颈高度病变的敏感性为90.1%、特异性为22.1%、阳性预测值为37.4%、阴性预测值为82.6%;HPV E6/E7mRNA检测宫颈高度病变的敏感性为65.9%、特异性为73.3%、阳性预测值为55.8%、阴性预测值为80.8%.结论 在单一时间点的宫颈癌筛查中结合HC2-HPV-DNA检测和HPV E6/E7 mRNA检测更具有潜在价值.     

Comparison of the Third Wave Invader human papillomavirus (HPV) assay and the digene HPV hybrid capture 2 assay for detection of high-risk HPV DNA

This study compared the clinical performance of the Digene Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay to that of a prototype Third Wave Invader human papillomavirus (HPV) (IHPV) analyte-specific reagent-based assay for the detection of oncogenic or "high-risk" (HR) HPV DNA using liquid-based cytology specimens. In total, 821 ThinPrep vials were tested using both assays. In accordance with the type-specific probes contained within each test, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for the IHPV assay were 95.9%, 97.6%, 97.5%, and 96.1%, respectively, and those for the HC2 assay were 98.1%, 86.2%, 87.1%, and 97.9%. Overall, the sensitivity and NPV were comparable between the assays, but the IHPV assay demonstrated a better specificity and PPV, since the IHPV assay had fewer false-positive HR HPV results. The incorporation of an internal control to evaluate the cellularity of the test material is an important feature of the IHPV assay and should reduce the risk of false-negative results due to insufficient sample collection rather than the lack of HR HPV DNA. An additional benefit of the IHPV assay was the smaller sample volume required (1 ml versus 4 ml for the HC2 assay).     

Comparison of the performance in detection of HPV infections between the high‐risk HPV genotyping real time PCR and the PCR‐reverse dot blot assays

A new multiplex real‐time PCR assay, the high‐risk HPV genotyping real time PCR assay (HR HPV RT‐PCR), has been developed to detect 15 high‐risk HPV types with respective viral loads. In this report, a total of 684 cervical specimens from women diagnosed with vaginitis were assessed by the HR HPV RT‐PCR and the PCR reaction and reverse dot blot (PCR‐RDB) assays, using a PCR‐sequencing method as a reference standard. A total coincidence of 97.7% between the HR HPV RT PCR and the PCR‐RDB assays was determined with a Kappa value of 0.953. The HR HPV RT PCR assay had sensitivity, specificity, and concordance rates (accuracy) of 99.7%, 99.7%, and 99.7%, respectively, as confirmed by PCR‐sequencing, while the PCR‐RDB assay had respective rates of 98.8%, 97.1%, and 98.0%. The overall rate of HPV infection, determined by PCR‐sequencing, in women diagnosed with vaginitis was 49.85%, including 36.26% of single infection and 13.6% of multiple infections. The most common infections among the 15 high‐risk HPV types in women diagnosed with vaginitis were HPV‐52, HPV‐16, and HPV‐58, with a total detection rate of 10.23%, 7.75%, and 5.85%, respectively. We conclude that the HR HPV RT PCR assay exhibits better clinical performance than the PCR‐RDB assay, and is an ideal alternative method for HPV genotyping. In addition, the HR HPV RT PCR assay provides HPV DNA viral loads, and could serve as a quantitative marker in the diagnosis and treatment of single and multiple HPV infections.     

Evaluation of the clinical performance of OncoPredict HPV® SCR assay within the VALGENT-2 framework

Human papillomavirus (HPV) assays used in cervical cancer screening should be clinically validated according to international criteria. OncoPredict HPV® Screening (SCR) is a partial genotyping multiplex real-time PCR assay targeting E6/E7 genes of 13 high-risk (hr) HPVs. OncoPredict HPV® SCR (index assay) identifies HPV-16 and HPV-18 separately, 11 other hrHPV in aggregate and includes quality controls for sample adequacy, DNA extraction efficiency and PCR inhibition. 1300 VALGENT-2 study samples (from women aged 20–60 attending the Scottish cervical cancer screening program) were tested with the index assay and the GP5+/6+ PCR enzyme immunoassay (standard comparator assay). Non-inferior accuracy detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) of the index versus comparator was verified. Intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility of the index was evaluated by overall concordance and Cohen's kappa, using a sub-population (n = 526). Relative sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ of the index versus comparator were 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99–1.03) and 1.02 (95% CI: 1.0–1.04), respectively. Noninferiority p values were all ≤0.05, except for CIN3+ in patients ≥30 years. Excellent intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility was shown with concordance >98% and kappas >0.95. OncoPredict HPV® SCR fulfills the three international validation criteria for hrHPV DNA tests in cervical cancer screening.     

Comparison of the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV with Genomica HPV Clinical Array for the detection of human papillomavirus DNA

Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been identified as the major cause of cervical cancer worldwide and HPV DNA testing is recommended in primary cervical cancer screening. Several molecular tests for detection/typing of HPV DNA with different sensitivity and specificity are commercially available. The present study compared the performance of the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV assay and the Genomica HPV Clinical Array CLART2 in 78 specimens (63 cervical smears and 15 rectal/urethral swabs).The typing results of the Genomica assay were in absolute agreement with each of the four possible result categories of the Abbott assay (HPV16, HPV18, Other HR HPV, not detected) in 87.2% (68/78) of the samples, with a Cohen' kappa agreement coefficient for every HR type of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.39–0.85), higher in cervical swabs (k = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.50–0.99) than in rectal/urethral swabs (k = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.00–0.82). There was an excellent agreement of the Genomica results with those of Abbott in cervical samples harbored HPV single infection (100% agreement). Nonetheless, both methods may lose sensitivity for detecting HPV types in multiple infections, giving discordant results (10/78). This underlines the importance of establishing the analytical sensitivity in HPV type detection in single and multiple HPV infections. In rectal/urethral swabs, 5 of 15 (33%) discordant cases were observed, most of which became compatible when the Genomica assay was performed starting from nucleic acid extracted with the Abbott m2000sp system. These results suggest that nucleic extraction based on the magnetic beads technique is suitable for HPV DNA detection in urethral/rectal swabs.     

Comparison of the f-HPV typing™ and Hybrid Capture II® assays for detection of high-risk HPV genotypes in cervical samples

Human papillomavirus genotyping is being considered in cervical screening programs and for monitoring the effectiveness of HPV vaccination. Both approaches require access to fast, easy and high-throughput technology. The aim of this study was to compare a new commercial assay (f-HPV typing?) with the Hybrid Capture II? (HC2) to detect HPV infection. The F-HPV typing is a multiplex fluorescent PCR method recognizing E6 and E7 regions of 13 high-risk (HR) HPV types, the same set of HR-types targeted HC2 test. A subset of 157 cervical samples was tested with both assays. The percentage of positive HR-HPV DNA samples was 24% (37/155) by HC2 and 33% (49/155) by f-HPV typing. Concordant results were found in 133/155 (overall agreement, 85.8%; Cohen's kappa=0.65). The analytical sensitivity and specificity of f-HPV were 97.6 and 93, respectively. In conclusion, this study shows that the f-HPV assay provides a good alternative to HC2 to detect HPV infection, allowing simple and rapid HPV genotyping and detecting multiple infections.