Comparison of three human papillomavirus DNA assays and one mRNA assay in women with abnormal cytology

Validation of cobas 4800 HPV assay in SurePath Papanicolaou specimens for cervical cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

The cobas (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) HPV assay was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in SurePath (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) Papanicolaou specimens for cervical cancer prevention. To validate the cobas HPV assay in SurePath specimens in our institution, we compared its accuracy and clinical efficacy to that of the Cervista (Hologic, Marlborough, MA) HPV HR assay.

METHODS

This study used 138 Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology specimens collected in SurePath preservative fluid at our institution in 2018. After Pap cytology testing, the residual specimens were split for testing with the cobas and Cervista assays. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV testing (GP5+/GP6+) was performed on specimens with discrepant results. Clinical follow-up data were reviewed.

RESULTS

The cobas HPV and Cervista HPV HR assays showed good concordance (89.1%), with a kappa value of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.675-0.885). Fifteen specimens showed discrepant results between the 2 assays. Of 7 cases with cobas+/Cervista- results, 5 (71%) were confirmed positive by PCR. Of 8 cases with cobas-/Cervista+ results, 4 (50%) were confirmed positive by PCR. cobas HPV and Cervista HPV HR showed the same HPV-positive rate in cases of pathologically diagnosed ASC-H, LSIL, or HSIL. The sensitivities and specificities for detecting high-risk HPV of cobas HPV (93.7%, 97.3%) and Cervista HPV HR (92.1%, 94.7%) were comparable. The cobas HPV assay had false-negative results in 4 cases (5.2%) including 1 false-negative case that failed to predict CIN3.

CONCLUSIONS

The cobas HPV assay is valid in SurePath Pap cytology specimens for cervical cancer screening but has limitations of false-negative results with clinical implications.

Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus RNA in urine for cervical cancer screening with HPV 16 & 18/45 genotyping

Objective

To detect high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) messenger-RNA (mRNA) in urine samples, compare their concordance with cervical samples including HPV 16 & 18/45 genotyping, and to determine the utility in detecting ≥ CIN 2 lesions.

Methods

A cohort of 189 non-pregnant patients (age ≥ 25) was recruited in three groups: Group 1 with abnormal pap-smears and hrHPV positivity, Group 2 with normal pap-smears and hrHPV positivity, and Group 3 with normal pap-smears and hrHPV negativity. Urine samples were tested for hrHPV-mRNA and subsequent hrHPV-mRNA genotype if positive. High-risk HPV detection and genotyping were performed using Aptima assays which are validated for cervical HPV testing. Colposcopy results from groups 1 & 2 were analyzed.

Results

The sensitivity of urine hrHPV-mRNA detection was 31.5% while the specificity and PPV were above 95% (96.9% & 95.1% respectively) (p < 0.001). The kappa agreement with cervical samples was fair (0.22, p = 0.04). The sensitivity and specificity of urine hrHPV-mRNA genotyping were 20.0% & 100% respectively (p < 0.001) with 100% genotype-specific concordance. The kappa agreement with cervical samples was fair (0.25, p = 0.16). For urine hrHPV-mRNA detection of ASC-H/HSIL when grouped by age ≥ 30, the sensitivity and specificity were 45.4% & 63.9% respectively (p = 0.009). For urine hrHPV-mRNA detection of ≥ CIN 2 for all ages, the sensitivity and specificity were 45.5% & 75.0% respectively (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Using the Aptima Assay, urine hrHPV-mRNA detection is suboptimal for cervical cancer screening but given the high specificity, it has the potential to identify high-grade lesions (≥ CIN 2). Urine hrHPV-mRNA genotyping via this modality is not beneficial in triage settings of normal or abnormal cytology to determine the need for colposcopy.

Accuracy of mRNA HPV Tests for Triage of Precursor Lesions and Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates the accuracy of the mRNA HPV biomarker in cervical smears to identify cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 and cervical cancer.

DATA SOURCE

Eligible studies were identified by performing a search of electronic databases on Medline via Pubmed, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Grey literature for papers published between January 1990 and June 2018.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

As no randomized studies were identified, this review focuses on observational studies in which the mRNA HPV diagnostic test was compared to a histopathology reference standard. We analyzed studies that included women screened for cervical cancer using mRNA HPV.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

After screening, 61 studies including 29,674 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Dichotomization was performed by defining CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) versus CIN1, HPV infection, and normal (CIN 1-). The analysis was discriminated by the following tests: Aptima, PreTect HPV Profeer, NucliSens EasyQ HPV, OncoTect, and Quantivirus.

RESULTS

Analyzing by technique, Aptima, with 28 studies, exhibited superior performance, showing for the outcomes CIN2+ and CIN3+ an AUC of 0.88 (0.82-0.95) and 0.91 (0.84-0.99), a pooled sensitivity of 92.8% (95%CI 91.9-93.7) and 95.6% (95%CI 94.5-96.5), and a pooled specificity of 60.5% (95%CI 59.8-61.3) and 61.9% (95%CI 61.1-62.7), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the current hypothesis that the mRNA HPV assay is an adequate tool for secondary cervical cancer screening.

Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort

Whereas HPV16 and HPV18 have been the focus in current risk-based cervical cancer screening algorithms using HPV genotype information, mounting evidence suggests that oncogenic HPV types such as HPV31, 33, 52 and 58 pose a ≥CIN3 risk equivalent to or greater than that of HPV18, and the combined risk of HPV31 and HPV33 rivals even HPV16 in women above 30 years of age. Here, we evaluate the baseline risk of CIN2 and CIN3 by genotype in a colposcopy referral population from Denmark and Italy. In total, 655 women were enrolled upon a referral to colposcopy after a positive screening sample. All samples were HPV analyzed using Onclarity HPV assay with extended genotyping and combined with the histology outcomes, a Bayesian probability modeling was used to determine the risk per genotype assessed. The combined data for this referral population showed that the ≥CIN2 risk of HPV16 was 69.1%, HPV31 at 63.3%, HPV33/58 at 52.7%, HPV18 at 46.6% and HPV52 at 40.8%. For ≥CIN3, the risks were 44.3%, 38.5%, 36.8%, 30.9% and 16.8% for HPV16, HPV31, HPV18, HPV33/58 and HPV52, respectively, indicating that the baseline risk of disease arising from HPV16 is, not surprisingly, the highest among the oncogenic HPV genotypes. We find that the HPV genotype-specific ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risk-patterns are so distinct that, for example, 35/39/68 and 56/59/66 should be considered only for low intensive follow-up, thereby proposing active use of this information in triage strategies for screening HPV-positive women.

Comparison of CerviHPV and Hybrid Capture 2 HPV tests for detection of high-risk HPV infection in cervical swab specimens

BACKGROUND

Persistent high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is the etiological cause of virtually all cervical cancer cases. HR-HPV screening achieved with earlier generations of HR-HPV tests has been instrumental in the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer worldwide. The first FDA-approved HR-HPV test, digene Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA Test (HC2), has been prominent in these efforts. Newer tests have since been developed to improve upon the capability of HC2 test.

METHODS

To evaluate the performance of a new multiplex real-time quantitative PCR assay for HR-HPV detection, CerviHPV HR-HPV Test (CerviHPV), 232 cervical swab specimens were collected and analyzed by HC2 and CerviHPV tests for comparison.

RESULTS

HC2 test detected 69 (29.7%) positive cases, whereas CerviHPV test reported 43 (18.5%) positive cases. The concordance rate between the two tests was 84.5% with a kappa value of 0.579. Additional analyses identified only HPV66 or low-risk HPV (LR-HPV) types in six HC2 positive discordant cases, suggesting these HC2 results to be false positive.

CONCLUSION

CerviHPV test has two advantages over HC2 test: It contains a cellular control to eliminate false negative results due to failed sample collection and processing, and it can simultaneously detect and genotype the two most carcinogenic HPV types, HPV16 and 18. In this comparison study, CerviHPV test also demonstrated higher analytical specificity for HR-HPV genotypes than HC2 test. Therefore, CerviHPV test has the potential to become a viable option for cervical cancer screening in the clinics.

Referral population studies underestimate differences between human papillomavirus assays in primary cervical screening

OBJECTIVE

We studied how representative cytologically abnormal women ("referral populations") are with respect to uncovering differences between human papillomavirus (HPV) assays in the primary screening where most women are cytologically normal.

METHODS

A total of 4997 women were tested with SurePath® cytology, and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), cobas, CLART and APTIMA HPV assays. Women with positive test results were offered a follow-up. For all detected HPV infections and HPV-positive high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN2), we studied the distributions of assay-specific signal strengths in the baseline samples as documented by the assays' automatically generated reports. We calculated the likelihood of test result discordance as the proportion of HPV-positive samples that were not confirmed by all four assays.

RESULTS

Median signal strengths for HPV infections were weaker in normal than abnormal cytology (P<.001, adjusted for women's age, multiple infections and the reason for taking the sample). For HC2, they were RLU/CO 11.0 (interquartile range, IQR: 3.3-52.8) vs 124.2 (IQR: 22.8-506.9), respectively; for cobas, Ct 33.5 (IQR: 29.6-37.5) vs 26.9 (IQR: 23.7-31.3), respectively; for APTIMA, S/CO 10.2 (IQR: 5.8-11.3) vs 11.1 (IQR: 9.4-15.5), respectively. Similar patterns were observed for HPV-positive ≥CIN2. The four HPV assays more frequently returned discordant test results in normal than in abnormal cytology. Relative frequency of discordance in detecting HPV infections was 0.39 (95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.48) for abnormal vs normal cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that referral population studies, by not including sufficient numbers of cytology normal women, underestimate the differences between HPV assays that would become apparent in primary screening.

Performance of Roche cobas high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in the two most common liquid-based Papanicolaou test platforms

INTRODUCTION

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is important in cervical cancer screening and management algorithms. Roche (Pleasanton, Calif.) cobas hrHPV testing is commonly performed on both ThinPrep (TP) and SurePath (SP) samples, but performance of these platforms has not been fully investigated in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Roche hrHPV testing was performed on 47,885 (TP = 18,295; SP = 29,590) out of 130,648 consecutive Papanicolaou tests, over 16 months; 1895 of those had interpretable biopsies.

RESULTS

The overall hrHPV detection rates were similar in TP (13.5%) and SP (13.1%). The hrHPV positive rate was higher in SP (8.5%) than TP (7.3%, P < 0.0001) in women with negative cytology; the difference in other cytologic diagnosis categories was insignificant. TP samples had significantly fewer negative cytology diagnoses (7.3% versus 8.5%, P < 0.0001), more low-grade abnormalities in cytology and biopsies, and higher colposcopy referral rate (4.8% versus 2.7%, P < 0.0001) than SP. There were no differences between TP and SP in detecting ≥HSIL by hrHPV testing, cytology or biopsy. SP samples had a significantly higher rate of HPV 16/18 but a lower rate of non-16/18 hrHPV genotypes than TP.

CONCLUSIONS

Roche cobas hrHPV testing was similar in both TP and SP platforms. The significantly lower hrHPV detection rate in cytological negative TP samples is likely related to higher cytology reporting rates for indeterminate and low-grade diagnoses in TP than SP samples. Significant differences were also observed in hrHPV genotyping results between TP and SP. Clinical risk stratification based on hrHPV testing may need to take testing platforms into consideration.

High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in human papillomavirus self-sampling of screening non-attenders

BACKGROUND

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) offered to women who do not participate in cervical cancer screening is an increasingly popular method to increase screening coverage. The rationale behind self-sampling is that unscreened women harbour a high proportion of undetected precancer lesions. Here, we compare the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (⩾CIN2) detection rate between non-attenders who participated in self-sampling and women attending routine screening.

METHODS

A total of 23 632 women who were qualified as non-attenders in the Copenhagen Region were invited for HPV-based self-sampling. Of these, 4824 women returned a self-sample, and HPV-positive women were referred for cytology and HPV co-testing as follow-up. The entire cohort and a reference cohort (3347 routinely screened women) were followed for histopathology confirmed ⩾CIN2. Odds ratio (OR) and the relative positive predictive value of ⩾CIN2 detection between the two populations were estimated.

RESULTS

Women participating in self-sampling had a higher ⩾CIN2 detection than women undergoing routine cytology-based screening (OR=1.83, 95% CI: 1.21-2.77) and a similar detection as routinely screened women tested with cytology and HPV testing (OR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.75-1.40). The positive predictive value for ⩾CIN2 was higher in screening non-attenders than in routinely HPV- and cytology-screened screened women (36.5% vs 25.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling offered to non-attenders showed higher detection rates for ⩾CIN2 than routine cytology-based screening, and similar detection rates as HPV and cytology co-testing. This reinforces the importance of self-sampling for screening non-attenders in organised cervical cancer screening.

Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus in Self-Taken Samples from Screening Nonattenders

The Copenhagen Self-Sampling Initiative (CSi) has shown how human papillomavirus (HPV)-based self-sampling can be used to increase screening participation among 23,632 nonattenders in the Capital Region of Denmark. In this study, we describe HPV prevalence and genotype frequency in 4,824 self-samples as determined by three HPV assays (the CLART, Onclarity, and Hybrid Capture 2 [HC2] assays) and compare the results with those for physician-taken follow-up samples. The HPV self-sample findings were also compared to the findings for a reference population of 3,347 routinely screened women from the Horizon study, which had been undertaken in the same screening laboratory. Nonattenders had an HPV prevalence of 11.3% as determined by the CLART assay, which was lower than that for women from the Horizon study (18.5%). One-third of the CSi women who tested HPV positive by self-sampling tested HPV negative on the physician-taken follow-up sample. The CLART and Onclarity assays agreed on 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60 to 68%) of the HPV-positive self-taken samples. When the HC2 assay results were added into a three-way comparison, the level of agreement decreased to 27% (95% CI, 24 to 29%). Our findings suggest that further validation of HPV assays on self-taken samples is needed for optimal HPV detection and correct clinical management of HPV-positive women.

Human papillomavirus prevalence and genotype distribution among young women and men in Maputo city, Mozambique

OBJECTIVES

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a well-known cause of cervical cancer, the second most frequent cancer in female African populations. This study aimed at determining the prevalence of HPV infections and the genotype distribution in young adults aged 18-24, in Maputo city, Mozambique, and to assess the suitability of commercially available HPV vaccines.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted between 2009 and 2011 at a youth clinic in Maputo Central Hospital. Cervical and urethral samples were obtained from 236 women and 176 men, respectively. Demographic and behavioural data were collected using structured questionnaires. HPV genotyping was performed for 35 different high, probably or possibly high-risk and low-risk HPV types using the CLART Human Papillomavirus 2.

RESULTS

HPV prevalence was 168/412 (40.8%; 95% CI 36.0 to 45.5) and was significantly higher in women than in men (63.6%vs10.2%). HPV52 was the most frequent type found in women, followed by HPV35, -16,-53, -58,-6 and -51. In men, HPV51 ranked the highest, followed by HPV6, -11,-52, -59 and -70. HIV infection and sexual debut before 18 years of age were associated with multiple HPV infections (OR 3.03; 95% CI 1.49 to 6.25 and OR 6.03; 95% CI 1.73 to 21.02, respectively). Women had a significantly higher HPV infection prevalence than men (p<0.001). The 9-valent HPV vaccine would cover 36.8% of the high-risk genotypes circulating in women in this study, compared with 26.3% and 15.8% coverage by the bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the high burden of HPV infections in young women in Maputo city, Mozambique. The HPV prevalence was associated with high-risk sexual behaviour. Sex education and sexually transmitted infection prevention interventions should be intensified in Mozambique. Only a proportion of the high-risk HPV genotypes (37%) were covered by currently available vaccines.

A comparison of different human papillomavirus tests in PreservCyt versus SurePath in a referral population-PREDICTORS 4

BACKGROUND

Two transport media, PreservCyt and SurePath, are widely used for cervical cytology screening. There are concerns that they may perform differently for HPV testing.

OBJECTIVES

A comparison of the performance of six different HPV tests in SurePath and PreservCyt in a referral population using two samples from each woman. The primary goal was to compare the performance of each test in the two media. Comparisons between assays and viral load comparisons between media were secondary aims.

STUDY DESIGN

Two cervical samples were collected in random order at the same visit in women with abnormal cytology. One sample was placed in 20ml of PreservCyt and the other in 10ml of SurePath. Aliquots were taken for 4 DNA based tests: digene HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test, Abbott Realtime, BD Onclarity and Genera PapType, an RNA based test-: Hologic Aptima and a protein test: OncoHealth.

RESULTS

630 sample pairs were included in the analyses. For all tests except the protein test sensitivities were in excess of 90% for CIN2+ and 95% for CIN3+ for both media and with no significant differences except for a lower sensitivity for CIN2+ of Aptima in SurePath (93% vs 98%, P=0.005). Specificity for

CONCLUSIONS

We found similar sensitivity for CIN3+ in PreservCyt and SurePath for 5 nucleic acid tests in the two media in a referral population, but signal strength and positivity rates were lower in SurePath except for the Onclarity test. These results need to be replicated in a screening population.

Collapse

Key Words

• Cervical screening
• Human papillomavirus testing
• PreservCyt
• SurePath
• ThinPrep

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods
• Early Detection of Cancer/methods
• Female
• Humans
• Papillomaviridae/classification
• Papillomaviridae/genetics
• Papillomaviridae/isolation & purification
• Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis
• Prospective Studies
• Sensitivity and Specificity
• Specimen Handling/methods
• Viral Load/methods

Collapse

Grants

• 16891 Cancer Research UK
• C569/A16891 Cancer Research UK

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Jack Cuzick Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Amar S Ahmad Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
Janet Austin Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
Louise Cadman Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
Linda Ho Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
George Terry Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
Michelle Kleeman Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
Lesley Ashdown-Barr Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
Deirdre Lyons Department of Colposcopy, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London W2 1NY, UK
Mark Stoler Department of Pathology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA
Anne Szarewski Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK

Collapse

Differential Detection of Human Papillomavirus Genotypes and Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia by Four Commercial Assays

Laboratories now can choose from >100 human papillomavirus (HPV) assays for cervical screening. Our previous analysis based on the data from the Danish Horizon study, however, showed that four widely used assays, Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), cobas, CLART, and Aptima, frequently do not detect the same HPV infections. Here, we determined the characteristics of the concordant samples (all four assays returning a positive HPV test result) and discordant samples (all other HPV-positive samples) in primary cervical screening at 30 to 65 years of age (n = 2,859) and in a concurrent referral population from the same catchment area (n = 885). HPV testing followed the manufacturers' protocols. Women with abnormal cytology were managed according to the routine recommendations. Cytology-normal/HPV-positive women were invited for repeated testing in 18 months. Screening history and histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in 2.5 years after the baseline testing were determined from the national pathology register. HPV-positive women undergoing primary screening having concordant samples were more likely to harbor high-risk infections and less likely to harbor only low-risk infections than women with discordant samples. Additionally, assay signal strengths were substantially higher in concordant samples. More than 80% of ≥CIN2 results were found for women with concordant samples, and no ≥CIN2 results were found when the infection was detected by only one assay. These patterns were similar in the referral population despite the younger age and higher number of HPV infections. HPV test result discordance identified a cluster of low-risk HPV infections that were hardly ever associated with high-grade CIN and, almost exclusively, represented false-positive screening findings.

Cross-reactivity profiles of hybrid capture II, cobas, and APTIMA human papillomavirus assays: split-sample study

BACKGROUND

High-risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing is replacing cytology in cervical cancer screening as it is more sensitive for preinvasive cervical lesions. However, the bottleneck of HPV testing is the many false positive test results (positive tests without cervical lesions). Here, we evaluated to what extent these can be explained by cross-reactivity, i.e. positive test results without evidence of high-risk HPV genotypes. The patterns of cross-reactivity have been thoroughly studied for hybrid capture II (HC2) but not yet for newer HPV assays although the manufacturers claimed no or limited frequency of cross-reactivity. In this independent study we evaluated the frequency of cross-reactivity for HC2, cobas, and APTIMA assays.

METHODS

Consecutive routine cervical screening samples from 5022 Danish women, including 2859 from women attending primary screening, were tested with the three evaluated DNA and mRNA HPV assays. Genotyping was undertaken using CLART HPV2 assay, individually detecting 35 genotypes. The presence or absence of cervical lesions was determined with histological examinations; women with abnormal cytology were managed as per routine recommendations; those with normal cytology and positive high-risk HPV test results were invited for repeated testing in 18 months.

RESULTS

Cross-reactivity to low-risk genotypes was detected in 109 (2.2 %) out of 5022 samples on HC2, 62 (1.2 %) on cobas, and 35 (0.7 %) on APTIMA with only 10 of the samples cross-reacting on all 3 assays. None of the 35 genotypes was detected in 49 (1.0 %), 162 (3.2 %), and 56 (1.1 %) samples, respectively. In primary screening at age 30 to 65 years (n = 2859), samples of 72 (25 %) out of 289 with high-risk infections on HC2 and < CIN2 histology were due to cross-reactivity. On cobas, this was 106 (26 %) out of 415, and on APTIMA 48 (21 %) out of 224.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite manufacturer claims, all three assays showed cross-reactivity. In primary cervical screening at age ≥30 years, cross-reactivity accounted for about one quarter of false positive test results regardless of the assay. Cross-reactivity should be addressed in EU tenders, as this primarily technical shortcoming imposes additional costs on the screening programmes.

The BD Onclarity HPV Assay on Samples Collected in SurePath Medium Meets the International Guidelines for Human Papillomavirus Test Requirements for Cervical Screening

This study describes a validation of the BD Onclarity HPV (Onclarity) assay using the international guidelines for HPV test requirements for cervical cancer screening of women 30 years old and older using Danish SurePath screening samples. The clinical specificity (0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.88 to 0.91) and sensitivity (0.97, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.0) of the Onclarity assay were shown to be not inferior to the reference assay (specificity, 0.90 [95% CI = 0.88 to 0.92]; sensitivity, 0.98 [95% CI = 0.91 to 1.0]). The intralaboratory reproducibility of Onclarity was 97%, with a lower confidence bound of 96% (kappa value, 0.93). The interlaboratory agreement was 97%, with a lower confidence bound of 95% (kappa value, 0.92). The BD Onclarity HPV assay fulfills all the international guidelines for a new HPV test to be used in primarily screening. This is the first clinical validation of a new HPV assay using SurePath screening samples, and thus the Onclarity HPV assay is the first HPV assay to hold an international validation for both SurePath and ThinPrep.

A review of the clinical performance of the Aptima HPV assay

This comprehensive review compiles published data from 62 original articles comparing different HPV tests and one meta-analysis on the clinical performance of the Aptima HR HPV (AHPV) assay in either screening or referral populations as well as for the purpose of test of cure. A number of publications with technical issues were also considered. Besides a brief introduction in the development of E6/E7 mRNA testing, the review summarizes data on analytical sensitivies and specificities, as well as on clinical sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV with histological endpoints CIN2+ and CIN3+, where available. Although most studies were of cross-sectional design, five studies with a longitudinal prospective design or component were identified. In addition to the study design, sample size, age and CIN2/3+ prevalence of the respective cohort are listed. This allows direct comparison of the published data in the respective groups. One major outcome of this review is the remarkably stable similar sensitivities of AHPV and HC2 independent from study design for detection of CIN2/3+ combined with a higher specificity of the AHPV. The second outcome was the longitudinal predictive value derived from registry linkage and other prospective studies that would support the applicability of the AHPV test in primary screening with at least a three year screening interval.

Cervical histology after routine ThinPrep or SurePath liquid-based cytology and computer-assisted reading in Denmark

Background:

We compared the sensitivity and specificity of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and computer-assisted reading for SurePath/FocalPoint and ThinPrep with those of manually read conventional cytology in routine cervical screening in four Danish laboratories.

Methods:

Using data from five nationwide registers, technological phases were identified by slide preparation, reading technique, and triage of borderline cytology. Trends in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were an indicator of the technology's relative sensitivity, and trends in false-positive tests an indicator of relative specificity.

Results:

At 23–29 years, SurePath/FocalPoint statistically significantly increased the detection of ⩾CIN3 by 85% compared with manually read conventional cytology. The 11% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 30–44 years, the increase with SurePath/FocalPoint was 58% the 16% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 45–59 years, both technologies led to nonsignificant decreases in the detection. SurePath/FocalPoint doubled the frequency of false-positive tests at any age. With ThinPrep, these proportions remained the same at 23–29 years, but decreased by two-thirds at 45–59 years. In a fourth laboratory with continuous use of manually read conventional cytology, no such trends were seen.

Conclusions:

The sensitivity and specificity of modern LBC and computer-assisted reading technologies may be brand- and age-dependent.

Abnormal cervical cytology and health care use: a population-based register study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the long-term use of health care services in women with abnormal cytology results compared to women with normal cytology results.

METHODS

We did a nationwide population-based study, using women aged 23 to 59years participating in the national organized cervical cancer screening program. We included a study population of 40,153 women with abnormal cytology (exposed) and 752,627 women with normal cytology (non-exposed). We retrieved data from the Danish Civil Registration System, the Danish Pathology Data Bank, the National Health Service, the National Patient and the National Prescription Register. We calculated the frequencies of contacts to general practitioner (GP), to private psychiatrist and/or psychologist, admissions to hospitals and use of prescription drugs. These frequencies were calculated separately in the 5-year period "before" the cytology result and for the 5-year period "after" the result.

RESULTS

During the "before" period exposed women had more contacts to GPs, more contacts to psychologists/psychiatrist, and more hospital admissions than non-exposed women. In both exposed and non-exposed women, health care use increased from the "before" to the "after" period. This increase was significantly higher for exposed than non-exposed women regarding contacts to GP, admissions to hospitals, and drug use.

CONCLUSION

Women with abnormal cytology results constitute a selected group with a higher health care use than other women even before they have the abnormal cytology. This difference is further enhanced after the abnormal cytology result.

HPV testing results and histologic follow-up in women with ASC-H cytology in different age groups

INTRODUCTION

Assessment on human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and disease outcome of atypical squamous cell, cannot exclude high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) in different age groups is limited in published reports. We reviewed our experience over a 5-year period on ASC-H cytology and correlated age distribution with high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) status and histological follow-up in a large cohort study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women with ASC-H cytology were retrieved from the hospital database. HR-HPV status and histological diagnoses on cervical biopsy or loop electrosurgical excisional procedure specimens were reviewed and correlated to 5 age groups.

RESULTS

Ages of women with ASC-H ranged from 16 to 88 years, with 42% women <30 years and 58% women >30 years. Among 647 cases diagnosed as ASC-H, 96% (618) had HR-HPV testing results, including 68.2% HR-HPV positive and 31.8% HR-HPV negative. HR-HPV positivity of ASC-H gradually decreased from 95.2% in women <20 years to 40.6% in the age group >51 years. Histologic follow-ups were available for review in 80% (517) of the cases. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) lesions were found in 40.3% (208) cases, including 92.9% women with HR-HPV-positive/ASC-H and 7.1% of women with HR-HPV-negative/ASC-H. The detection rate of CIN2+ by ASC-H gradually decreased from 51.2% in women <20 years to 18.2% in women >51 years. The majority of postmenopausal women with HR-HPV-negative/ASC-H had atrophy-related change.

CONCLUSIONS

The specificity of ASC-H cytology in detection of cervical CIN2+ lesions is age-dependent: higher in younger women <30 years, but gradually decreased in women >30 years. The vast majority (93%) of CIN2+ lesions were seen women with HR-HPV-positive/ASC-H. HR-HPV testing improves the accuracy and specificity in women with ASC-H in almost all age groups, especially in age groups older than 40 years.

HPV E6/E7 mRNA versus HPV DNA biomarker in cervical cancer screening of a group of Macedonian women

High risk types of human papillomaviruses E6/E7 oncogenes and their association with tumor suppressor genes products are the key factors of cervical carcinogenesis. This study proposed them as specific markers for cervical dysplasia screening. The aim of the study is to compare the clinical and prognostic significance of HPV E6/E7 mRNA as an early biomarker versus HPV DNA detection and cytology in triage of woman for cervical cancer. The study group consists of 413 women: 258 NILM, 26 ASC-US, 81 LSIL, 41 HSIL, and 7 unsatisfactory cytology. HPV4AACE screening, real-time multiplex PCR and MY09/11 consensus PCR primers methods were used for the HPV DNA detection. The real-time multiplex nucleic acid sequence-based assay (NucliSENS EasyQ HPV assay) was used for HPV E6/E7 mRNA detection of the five most common high risk HPV types in cervical cancer (16, 18, 31, 33, and 45). The results show that HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing had a higher specificity 50% (95% CI 32-67) and positive predictive value (PPV) 62% (95% CI 46-76) for CIN2+ compared to HPV DNA testing that had specificity of 18% (95% CI 7-37) and PPV 52% (95% CI 39-76) respectively. The higher specificity and PPV of HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing are valuable in predicting insignificant HPV DNA infection among cases with borderline cytological finding. It can help in avoiding aggressive procedures (biopsies and over-referral of transient HPV infections) as well as lowering patient's anxiety and follow up period.