Epidemiological and clinical aspects of human papillomavirus detection in the prevention of cervical cancer

Cervical cancer is a major cause of death, and the second most frequent cancer in women worldwide. Many studies have indicated a causal relation between genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and cervical cancer. High-risk HPV genotypes have been detected in almost 100% of all cervical cancers, and the process of HPV mediated carcinogenesis has been partly clarified. The concept that HPV is a obligatory cause in cervical cancer development has lead to extensive research regarding the incorporation of HPV detection in (1) cervical cancer prevention programs, (2) triage of women with abnormal cervical scrapes in the screening program, and (3) follow-up of patients treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Epidemiological studies indicate that 50% of women becoming sexually active contract a genital HPV infection within 2 years. The lifetime risk of a genital HPV infection is estimated to be 80%, but very few of these women will develop cervical cancer. Several studies have shown that the persistence of genital HPV infections is especially related to the development of cervical cancer. As a result, HPV detection at a single moment was shown to be of limited clinical value in the triage of patients with abnormal cervical scrapes, or during follow-up after treatment for CIN. Furthermore, major variations in the sensitivity of different HPV detection methods, as well as differences in HPV detection related to the menstrual cycle, have shown that many facts regarding HPV transmission, replication, and detection need to be clarified, before HPV detection can be of clinical value.     

A direct comparison of four high-risk human papillomavirus tests versus the cobas test: Detecting CIN2+ in low-resource settings

Low-cost, accurate high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) tests are needed for cervical cancer screening in limited-resource settings. More than 200 cervical cytological specimens from hospital patients were collected and analyzed for a real-world study. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of four widely used HR-HPV test (Tellgen, Hybribio, Liferiver, and Sansure) based on real-time polymerase chain reaction technology platforms, compared with the cobas test. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse lesions (CIN2+) were set as the disease endpoint, and all the five HPV tests were performed with equal sensitivity (McNemar's test; P = 0.971) and specificity (McNemar's test; P = 0.953). All genotyping using the INNO-LiPA HPV test showed that HPV-16, -52, and -54 were the most common types among CIN2+ cases. Overall, the four HR-HPV tests analyzed appear to be as effective as the cobas HPV test in both agreement and clinical performance. Therefore, each of these low-cost HPV test kits could be implemented in limited-resource settings to accelerate the control of cervical cancer. However, we suggest that there is a need to further standardize and optimize testing around clinical sensitivity and specificity.     

Comparison of the performance of different HPV genotyping methods for detecting genital HPV types

Classification of high-risk HPV types for cervical cancer screening depends on epidemiological studies defining HPV type-specific risk. The genotyping tests that are used, are however, not uniform with regard to type-specific detection rates making comparisons between different studies difficult. To overcome the lack of a "gold standard" four tests were evaluated crosswise using 824 cervical smears pretested by HC2. The tests evaluated were the L1-PCR-based assays PGMY09/11 LBA, HPV DNA Chip and SPF LiPA and an E1 consensus PCR followed by cycle sequencing (E1-PCR). A subset of 265 samples was tested in addition with the GP5+/6+ reverse line blot assay. Differences were noted in the sensitivity and range for specific HPV types, e.g. with detection rates for HPV53 ranging from 2.3% to 11.6%. HPV16 was the most prevalent type detected by all tests except for the SPF-10 LiPa, which detected HPV31 more often. Kappa values calculated ranged from poor (k=0.20) to intermediate (k=0.54) for HPV positivity, but were higher for high-risk type positivity (k=0.31-0.61) and best for recognition of HPV16 (k=0.53-0.72). The analytical sensitivity of the tests ranged between 15% and 97% for individual types and specificity was highly dependent on which test system was used as "gold standard" for the analysis. The results of histology were used for calculation of clinical sensitivity and specificity. E1-PCR, PGMY09/11 LBA and SPF-10 LiPA had a high clinical sensitivity (>95%) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or higher, whereas the HPV DNA Chip reached only 84.1%.     

Clinical validation of Anyplex™ II HPV HR Detection according to the guidelines for HPV test requirements for cervical cancer screening

BackgroundAnyplex™ II HPV HR Detection (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) is a multiplex real-time PCR using tagging oligonucleotide cleavage and extension (TOCE) technology for simultaneous detection and genotyping of 14 high-risk (HR) HPV types, including HPV16 and HPV18.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether the clinical performance and reproducibility of Anyplex™ II HPV HR Detection meet the international consensus guidelines for HPV test requirements for cervical cancer screening [1].Study designThe clinical performance of Anyplex™ II HPV HR Detection for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was determined relative to that of the reference assay, i.e., HR HPV GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA, by analysis of a total of 879 cervical liquid based cytology (LBC) specimens from a screening population, of which 60 were from women with CIN2+. The intra-laboratory reproducibility and inter-laboratory agreement were determined on 509 LBC samples, of which 172 were positive by the reference assay.ResultsAnyplex™ II HPV HR Detection showed a clinical sensitivity for CIN2+ of 98.3% (59/60; 95% CI: 89.1–99.8) and a clinical specificity for CIN2+ of 93.6% (764/816; 95% CI: 89.8–96.1). The clinical sensitivity and specificity were non-inferior to those of HR HPV GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA (non-inferiority score test: P = 0.005 and P = 0.023, respectively). Both intra-laboratory reproducibility (96.8%; 95% CI: 95.3–98.1; kappa value of 0.93) and inter-laboratory agreement (96.0%; 95% CI: 94.3–97.4; kappa value of 0.91) were high.ConclusionsAnyplex™ II HPV HR Detection performs clinically non-inferior to HR HPV GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA. Anyplex™ II HPV HR Detection complies with international consensus validation metrics for HPV DNA tests for cervical cancer screening [1].     

High-risk HPV testing in women with borderline and mild dyskaryosis: long-term follow-up data and clinical relevance.

In The Netherlands and most other European countries, women with two serial cervical smears with borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) within 6 months are referred for colposcopy-directed biopsies. Only about 10% of these women have high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study therefore investigated whether human papillomavirus (HPV) testing could identify which women with smears read as BMD are most likely to have high-grade CIN, either at referral or during follow-up and the relationship was determined between clearance of high-risk HPV and regression of abnormal cytology. Women with smears read as BMD (n=278) were referred to the gynaecologist for colposcopy. They were subdivided into two groups; group A comprised women with a single smear (n=172) and group B women with two sequential smears (n=106) read as BMD before referral. High-risk HPV detection with Hybrid Capture II (HC II) was performed on a cervical scrape taken at the first visit before colposcopy (i.e. baseline smear) and during follow-up. Biopsies were taken when lesions suspected for CIN were seen at colposcopy. High-risk HPV DNA was present in the baseline smears of 126 (45.0%) women; 26 (20.6%) of them had histologically confirmed CIN 2/3 at the first visit and another 14 (11.1%) during follow-up. Only one of the 152 women (0.7%) with a negative high-risk HPV test had a CIN 2 lesion at the first visit and no CIN lesions were detected during follow-up of these women. After exclusion of women who were treated for prevalent high-grade CIN, the median follow-up times were 1.3 years (range 0.0-4.3 years) and 1.6 years (range 0.0-4.5 years) for women with HPV-negative and HPV-positive baseline smears, respectively. The sensitivity of a positive high-risk HPV test for CIN 2/3 at the first visit was 96.3%, the specificity 60.2%, the positive predictive value 20.6%, and the negative predictive value 99.3%. These values did not change markedly when stratified for group A or group B. Thus, a high-risk HPV positive test was strongly associated with the presence at the first visit and the development of CIN 2/3 lesions during follow-up. Moreover, regression of abnormal cytology in women with a positive high-risk HPV test at baseline was strongly associated with viral clearance and occurred 0.3 years (range -1.2 to 1.7 years) later than HPV clearance. This study establishes the value of a high-risk HPV positive test for women at risk of high-grade CIN, with virtually no risk for missing CIN 2/3. Addition of a test on high-risk HPV in women with BMD could prevent 55% of the referrals and/or repeat smears.     

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.     

Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Self sampling is considered an adjuvant tool to facilitate the participation of women in cervical cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to evaluate whether cervicovaginal lavage could be an alternative for the cervical smear in cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and to assess the acceptance of the self sampling device by women. METHODS: Fifty six women with abnormal cervical cytology (very mild dyskaryosis or worse) and 15 women with normal cervical cytology obtained a self collected cervicovaginal lavage at home and filled in a questionnaire on the use of the device. At the colposcopy clinic the gynaecologist performed the same procedure followed by a cervical smear for cytology and HPV DNA testing. RESULTS: The self sampling device was acceptable to 88% of the women. The concordance between the cytology results in the smear and the lavage by the doctor and the patient was 54% and 41%, respectively (kappa = 0.28 and 0.14). The concordance between high risk HPV detection in the smear and the lavage by the doctor and the patient was 93% and 78%, respectively (kappa = 0.82 and 0.53). Ninety one per cent of the women with high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) had a high risk HPV positive test in the smear, compared with 91% and 81% in the lavages taken by the doctor and the patient, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HPV DNA testing by home obtained samples is useful as a screening tool for cervical cancer, whereas cervical cytology by self sampling is not. Although the sensitivity for high grade CIN by high risk HPV testing in the lavage by the patient is not significantly lower than that in the cervical smear, self sampling for HPV DNA is a feasible alternative method in women who decline to participate in population based cervical cancer screening programmes. However, participation in the screening programme remains the best option.     

Is the human papillomavirus test in combination with the Papanicolaou test useful for management of patients with diagnoses of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is useful in the evaluation of patients diagnosed with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) and whether the HPV test is appropriate as an alternative screening method. DESIGN: The results of Papanicolaou (Pap) tests and subsequent hybrid capture tube (HCT) II tests for high-risk-type HPV were analyzed for 457 patients. Among these tests, 208 histologic diagnoses were made and correlated with the results of Pap and HPV tests. The sensitivity and specificity of the Pap test, HPV test, and the combined method of Pap and HPV tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 and all CIN were also measured. RESULTS: Sixty (63.8%) of 94 women with LSIL and 31 (26.3%) of 118 women with ASCUS tested positive for high-risk HPV. The sensitivity values for Pap tests in detecting all cases of CIN and CIN 2/3 were 91.4% and 92.9%, respectively. The sensitivity values of HCT II tests using the high-risk probe for detecting all cases of CIN and CIN 2/3 were 62.6% and 88.1%, respectively. Biopsies confirmed that 10 (22.7%) of 44 LSIL patients with high-risk HPV had CIN 2/3, but only 1 (4.5%) of 22 LSIL patients without high-risk HPV had CIN 2/3. CONCLUSION: Testing for high-risk HPV with the HCT II test is useful in the detection of CIN 2/3 in LSIL groups and in the selection of patients for colposcopy in ASCUS groups, but it is not suitable for cervical cancer screening tests.     

高危型人乳头状瘤病毒DNA检测方法在宫颈疾病中的临床意义

目的 评价高危型人乳头状瘤病毒DNA(酶切信号放大法)(Cervista High-risk humanpapilloma vires,Cervista HR-HPV)检测方法在宫颈疾病中的临床意义.方法 利用Cerrista HR-HPV检测方法对437例人组标本进行高危型HPV检测,检测结果与基因测序结果进行对比,同时评价Cervista HR-HPV检测方法在检测CIN2以上的宫颈病变(CIN 2+CIN 3+Cancer,以下简称CIN2+)的能力,以及三组A5/A6,A7,A9与CIN2+的相关性.结果 Cervista HR-HPV检测方法与基因测序结果相比总体符合率为88.26%,基因测序阳性率为29.08%,本实验为38.96%(P<0.0001).该检测方法对CIN2+灵敏度98.46%.特异度58.49%.阳性预测值29.68%,阴性预测值99.54%.A9和CIN2+的95%OR值的可信区间为10.086～57.283(P<0.0001).结论 Cervista HR-HPV与基因测序的检测一致性较好.对于CIN2+灵敏度与特异性较好,可以应用于宫颈癌的防癌筛查,出现A阳性的患者建议进一步行阴道镜检测确诊是否有CIN2+.     

高危型人乳头状瘤病毒DNA检测方法在宫颈疾病中的临床意义

目的 评价高危型人乳头状瘤病毒DNA(酶切信号放大法)(Cervista High-risk humanpapilloma vires,Cervista HR-HPV)检测方法在宫颈疾病中的临床意义.方法 利用Cerrista HR-HPV检测方法对437例人组标本进行高危型HPV检测,检测结果与基因测序结果进行对比,同时评价Cervista HR-HPV检测方法在检测CIN2以上的宫颈病变(CIN 2+CIN 3+Cancer,以下简称CIN2+)的能力,以及三组A5/A6,A7,A9与CIN2+的相关性.结果 Cervista HR-HPV检测方法与基因测序结果相比总体符合率为88.26%,基因测序阳性率为29.08%,本实验为38.96%(P<0.0001).该检测方法对CIN2+灵敏度98.46%.特异度58.49%.阳性预测值29.68%,阴性预测值99.54%.A9和CIN2+的95%OR值的可信区间为10.086～57.283(P<0.0001).结论 Cervista HR-HPV与基因测序的检测一致性较好.对于CIN2+灵敏度与特异性较好,可以应用于宫颈癌的防癌筛查,出现A阳性的患者建议进一步行阴道镜检测确诊是否有CIN2+.     

高危型人乳头状瘤病毒DNA检测方法在宫颈疾病中的临床意义

目的评价高危型人乳头状瘤病毒DNA（酶切信号放大法）（Cervista High-risk humanpilloma virus,CervistaHR-HPV）检测方法在宫颈疾病中的临床意义。方法利用CervistaHR-HPV检测方法对437例人组标本进行高危型HPV检测,检测结果与基因测序结果进行对比,同时评价CervistaHR-HPV检测方法在检测CIN2以上的宫颈病变（CIN2＋CIN3＋Cancer,以下简称CIN2＋）的能力,以及三组A5／A6,A7,A9与CIN2＋的相关性。结果CervistaHR-HPV检测方法与基因测序结果相比总体符合率为88．26％,基因测序阳性率为29．08％,本实验为38．96％（P（0．0001）。该检测方法对CIN2＋灵敏度98．46％,特异度58．49％,阳性预测值29．68％,阴性预测值99．54％。A9和CIN2＋的95％OR值的可信区间为10．086～57．283（P〈0．0001）。结论CervistaHR-HPV与基因测序的检测一致性较好,对于CIN2＋灵敏度与特异性较好．可以应用于宫颈癌的防癌筛查,出现A阳性的患者建议进一步行阴道镜检测确诊是否有CIN2＋。     

Intracellular Human Papillomavirus E6, E7 mRNA Quantification Predicts CIN 2+ in Cervical Biopsies Better Than Papanicolaou Screening for Women Regardless of Age

Context.-Cervical cancer screening in women younger than 30?years relies on cervical cytology because of the poor performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing in this age group. Objectives.-To determine the performance of in-cell HPV E6, E7 mRNA quantification (HPV OncoTect) for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women younger than 30?years. Design.-We analyzed 3133 cytology specimens from a screening population of women aged 19-75?years investigate HPV OncoTect as a triage/secondary screening test for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology in women younger than 30?years. Test results were compared to histology in 246 cases. Results.-The sensitivity of E6, E7 mRNA was 89% for CIN 2+ and 100% for CIN 3+ lesions in women 30?years and older. In women younger than 30?years, the sensitivity of E6, E7 mRNA for CIN 2+ lesions was 88% for CIN 2+ and 92% for CIN 3+ lesions. Abnormal cytology (≥ASCUS) exhibited a sensitivity of 89% for CIN 2+ and 100% for CIN 3+ in women 30?years and older and 96% sensitivity for CIN 2+ and 93% sensitivity for CIN 3+ in women younger than 30. The specificity of E6, E7 mRNA was >80% for CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ in both groups of women compared to a specificity of abnormal cytology of <10% for CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ in both groups. Conclusions.-HPV OncoTect demonstrates a performance that would be effective for ASCUS/LSIL triage in women including those younger than 30?years.     

High-risk HPV detection and concurrent HPV 16 and 18 typing with Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test

BackgroundHigh-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the causative agent of cervical cancer. Among the high-risk types, infection with HPV 16 and 18 is associated with significantly higher risk of disease progression, and consequently these two types together cause approximately 70% of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. Identification of HPV 16 and HPV 18 can provide valuable information for risk stratification and clinical management of patients infected with these two types in both ASC-US triage and primary screening in women over age 30. It may also be valuable in the assessment of HPV vaccine efficacy. Abbott RealTime High Risk (HR) HPV is a recently developed test for the detection of 14 high-risk HPV types with the ability to concurrently identify HPV 16 and 18.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical performance of Abbott RealTime HR HPV test. Study design: Abbott RealTime HR HPV was evaluated with 253 cervical specimens obtained from patients with CIN 3 and 340 specimens from patients with cervical cancer to determine clinical sensitivity of the test and the prevalence of types 16 and 18. Additionally, 757 cervical specimens obtained from women 30 years of age or older with normal cytology in a general screening population were tested to determine high-risk HPV positivity rate.ResultsThe Abbott RealTime HR HPV test detected 97.2% (246/253) of CIN 3 specimens and 98.5% (335/340) of cancer specimens. HPV 16 was the most prevalent type in both CIN 3 (72.8%) and cancer specimens (64.5%). HPV 16 and 18 combined were detected in 78.9% of high-risk HPV positive CIN 3 and 84.8% of high-risk HPV positive cancer specimens. In specimens from women 30 years of age or older with normal cytology in a screening population, the HPV positivity rate was 6.5% (49/757).ConclusionsAbbott RealTime HR HPV is a highly sensitive test for detection of high-grade cervical disease and cancer. The HPV 16 and HPV 18 typing capability of the test offers the advantage of stratifying patients at greater risk of progression and may thus aid in better patient care and management.     

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.     

The clinical performance of Invader® technology and SurePath® when detecting the presence of high-risk HPV cervical infection

BackgroundTesting for high-risk genotypes of the human papillomavirus (HR HPV) has been fully integrated into the management algorithms for the prevention of cervical cancer. The literature is limited with regard to the evaluation of the clinical performance of laboratory-developed tests (LDT) utilizing Invader® V2.0 assay (ThirdWave/Hologic, Madison, WI, USA) for the detection of HR HPV.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical performance of Invader V2.0 LDT by determining its sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), specificity and positive predictive value (PPV).Study DesignThis study evaluated Invader V2.0 assay results from 12,490 SurePath® Pap specimens and 1,931 cervical biopsies in order to assess the clinical performance of the Invader V2.0 assay. The cervical biopsy results were correlated with Invader V2.0 results to determine clinical sensitivity, NPV, clinical specificity, and PPV.ResultsThe clinical sensitivity and NPV of Invader V2.0 LDT for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (CIN 3) or higher were 97.4% and 99.1% respectively. The clinical specificity and PPV for CIN 3 were 10.3% and 3.7% respectively.ConclusionsThe results support the use of the Invader V2.0 in identifying patients who are at low risk for CIN 3 or higher. The power of the assay implies that it could be used as a primary screening tool for prevention of cervical cancer if a paradigm shift in cervical screening ever occurs.     

Laboratory audit as part of the quality assessment of a primary HPV-screening program

BackgroundAs primary HPV screening programs are rolled out, methods are needed for routine quality assurance of HPV laboratory analyzes.ObjectiveTo explore the use of similar design for audit as currently used in cytology-based screening, to estimate the clinical sensitivity to identify women at risk for CIN 3 or worse (CIN3+).Study designPopulation-based cohort study conducted within the cervical screening program in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2011–2012. All women with histopathologically confirmed CIN3+ in the following two years were identified by registry analysis. Primary HPV and cytology screening results were collected. For women who had not been HPV tested, biobanked cytology samples were HPV-tested. If the original HPV result had been negative, the sample and subsequent biopsies were analyzed with broad HPV typing (general primer PCR and Luminex).Results154 women had a biobanked prediagnostic cytology sample taken up to 2 years before a histopathologically confirmed CIN3+. The high-risk HPV-positivity was 97% (148/154 women), whereas 143/154 (94%) women had had a cytological abnormality. Among the six HPV-negative samples, one sample was HPV 33 positive in repeat testing whereas the other five cases were HPV-negative also on repeat testing, but HPV-positive in the subsequent tumor tissue.ConclusionsA sensitivity of the HPV test that is higher than the sensitivity of cytology suggests adequate quality of the testing. Regular audits of clinical sensitivity, similar to those of cytology-based screening, should be used also in HPV-based screening programs, in order to continuously monitor the performance of the analyzes.     

Assessment of the effectiveness of HPV16/18 infection referred for colposcopy in cervical cancer screening in Northwest of China

To evaluate the effectiveness of Human papillomavirus16/18 infection referral to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening for women aged 25 years and older in Chinese northwest region Shaan'xi province. A total of 2224 women were diagnosed with primary high‐risk HPV infection by HPV‐DNA genotyping technology during August 2014 to August 2015. A total of 1916 cases referred for colposcopy with histological evidence were enrolled, including 1124 women with HPV16/18 genotype and 792 with other High‐risk human papillomavirus genotypes. A total of 1916 women aged 25 years and older with HR‐HPV positive were referred to colposcopy. The distribution of HPV16, HPV18, and other HR‐HPVs infection were 49.22%, 9.45%, and 41.33%, respectively. 71.56% had normal cervical histology, 7.05% had Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia1, 8.82% had CIN2, 7.25% had CIN3, and 5.32% had cervical cancer. The percentage of positivity of HPV16 and HPV18 was highly associated with the relative risk of cervical lesion. The sensitivity and specificity of HPV16/18 for detection of CIN2+ (CIN3+) was 82.68% (92.12%) and 47.87% (46.15%), respectively. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value of HPV16/18 for detection of CIN2+ (CIN3+) was 30.16% (19.75%) and 91.03% (97.60%), respectively. HPV16 and HVP18 are the most common genotypes in high grade cervical lesions in Shaan'xi province. Meanwhile, these two types play predominant roles in the progression of high grade cervical lesion. Primary HPV16/18 detection has high sensitivity and negative predictive value in cervical cancer screening and the strategy for women with HPV16 and HPV18 infection referral to colposcopy is efficient and feasible in northwestern region of China.     

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.     

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.     

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.