Clinical performance of the BD Onclarity HPV assay using an adjudicated cohort of BD SurePath liquid-based cytology specimens

HPV Testing and its Role in Cervical Cancer Screening

The recognition that persistent infection with carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary cause of cervical precancer and cancer has led to the introduction of HPV testing into cervical cancer screening, either as a primary screening test or in conjunction with cervical cytology (i.e., co-testing). HPV testing has much higher sensitivity for detection of cervical precancer and provides greater long-term reassurance if negative compared to cytology. However, most HPV infections are transient, and do not progress to invasive cancer, thus triage tests are required to identify individuals who should be referred to colposcopy for diagnostic evaluation. This chapter begins with a description of the biology, natural history, and epidemiology of HPV as a foundation for understanding the role of HPV in cervical carcinogenesis. This section is followed by a detailed discussion regarding the introduction of HPV-based testing and triage into cervical cancer screening and management. Summarized triage tests include cervical cytology, HPV genotyping, p16/Ki-67 dual stain, and HPV and cellular methylation markers. The final section of this chapter includes an important discussion on cervical cancer disparities, particularly within the United States, followed by concluding remarks.

Molecular diagnostics of infectious disease: Detection and characterization of microbial agents in cytology samples

BACKGROUND

Cytology samples are widely used to diagnose various infectious diseases by detection and identification of causative infectious agents, including bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The role of cytopathology in infectious disease has expanded tremendously in the past decades with the advances in molecular techniques. Molecular diagnostic methods, compared to conventional methods, have shown improved patient outcome, reduction in cost, and shortened hospital stay times. The aim of this article is to review molecular testing in cytology samples for diagnosis of infectious diseases.

METHODS

The literature search for molecular testing in common cytology samples for diagnosis of infectious diseases was performed. The findings of the studies were summarized. The common cytology samples included in this article were gynecologic specimens, cerebrospinal fluid, bronchoalveolar lavage, and urine samples.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a number of molecular diagnostic tests that are available to be used in common cytology samples to detect infectious agents. Each test has its own advantages and limitations. It is our hope that upon reading this review article, the readers will have better understanding of molecular diagnostic testing of infectious diseases utilizing commonly sampled cytology specimens in daily practice.

Concordance between the BD Onclarity and Roche cobas assays for detection of HPV DNA in a Chinese population

As cervical cancer screening shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, a major issue involves validating more HPV tests. In recent years, some HPV tests are used for clinical performance verification in China. The purpose of this study was to explore whether the BD Onclarity (Becton, Dickinson and Company)HPV assay differs from the Roche cobas (Roche Molecular Systems)HPV assay, as determined using 944 cervical samples, including 588 with sequencing results. In the nucleic acid assay accuracy verification, the assays showed excellent concordance for detection of HPV16 (κ = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.97) and HPV18 (κ = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97), and very good concordance for the 12 other high-risk types (HPV31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68, κ = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.75-0.83). The overall agreement for HPV DNA detection between Onclarity and cobas was very good (κ = 0.7755). No difference for ≥CIN2 sensitivity was observed between Onclarity and cobas (both 96.5%), whereas the ≥CIN2 specificity for detection of Onclarity (16.6%, 95% CI: 13.7-19.9) was higher than that of cobas (11.5%, 95% CI: 9.1-14.5). Onclarity exhibited comparable screening performance and triage efficiency compared to cobas in the detection of cervical disease in Chinese women.

Current Status of Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Cancer in the Philippines

Cervical cancer is estimated to cause 341,831 deaths each year, with 9 of 10 deaths occurring in developing countries. Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in cervical cancer incidence among women in the Philippines. Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the well-established necessary cause of cervical cancer. Based on limited studies conducted in the Philippines, the prevalence of infection with any HPV genotype was 93.8% for cervical squamous cell carcinoma and 90.9% for cervical adenocarcinomas. HPV types 16 and 18 were the most common HPV genotypes among Filipino patients with cervical cancer. On the other hand, the incidence of HPV infection among Filipino women with normal cervices was 9.2%. The World Health Organization has launched a global agenda of eliminating HPV infection by 2030. One of its key milestones is to vaccinate 90% of girls with the HPV vaccine by 15 years. However, the HPV vaccination rate among Filipino women remains to be unsatisfactory. HPV vaccination has only been included in the Philippine Department of Health's community-based National Immunization Program in 2015. Despite these efforts, the Philippines currently ranks last on HPV program coverage among low-middle income countries, with coverage of only 23% of the target female population for the first dose and 5% for the final dose. The principal reason for the non-acceptance of HPV vaccines was the perceived high cost of vaccination. The low utilization of available cervical cancer screening tests such as Pap smear and visual inspection with acetic acid hampered the Philippines' control and prevention of HPV infection and cervical cancer. Among those diagnosed with cervical cancer in the Philippines, only an estimated 50% to 60% receive some form of treatment. To this end, we summarize the burden of HPV infection and cervical cancer on Filipinos and the risk factors associated with the disease. We present the current screening, diagnostics, treatment, and prevention of HPV-related diseases in the Philippines. Lastly, we also propose solutions on how each building block in health systems can be improved to eliminate HPV infection and reduce the burden of cervical cancer in the Philippines.

A positive HPV test with positive p16/Ki-67 double staining in self-sampled vaginal material is an accurate tool to detect women at risk for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

The development of efficient strategies for managing high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV)-positive women is a major challenge when human papillomavirus-based primary screening is being performed. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of HR-HPV testing based on self-collection (SC) and HR-HPV testing based on collection by a health professional (HP) and to assess the potential usefulness of HR-HPV testing combined with testing with the biomarkers p16/Ki-67, α-mannosidase, and superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of 232 women admitted for colposcopy because of an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. The collected material underwent liquid-based cytology, HR-HPV detection, and immunocytochemical testing (p16/Ki-67, α-mannosidase, and SOD2). The gold standard was the histopathological result; the positive reference was CIN2+.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of HR-HPV testing was 76.6%; the results for the SC group (78.1%) and the HP group (75.2%) were similar. The positive predictive values (HP, 76.5%; SC, 80.0%), the negative predictive values (HP, 66.7%; SC, 64.3%), the positive likelihood values (HP, 1.35; SC, 1.36), and the negative likelihood values (HP, 0.21; SC, 0.19) were also similar. p16/Ki-67 showed higher sensitivity than the other 2 biomarkers: 78.1% versus 45.8% for α-mannosidase and 44.5% for SOD2. The specificities of the biomarkers were equivalent: 71.4% for p16/Ki-67, 77.8% for α-mannosidase, and 71.2% for SOD2. In the HP group, accuracy also leaned more heavily toward the final score (using α-mannosidase and SOD2) without statistical significance (80.8% vs 77.9%). The contrast with the SC group yielded the same level of accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

SC, when associated with testing with biomarkers, is as accurate as collection by HPs in the detection of women at risk for cervical cancer.

Evaluation of the Onclarity HPV assay on the high-throughput COR system

Background: Here we compare the performance of the high-throughput BD COR System (COR) to the Viper LT System (Viper) using the BD Onclarity HPV assay.Research Design and Methods: Remnant clinical specimens, contrived specimens in SurePath (BD) and PreservCyt (Hologic) media, and prospective clinical specimens in BD Cervical Brush Diluent (CBD) were tested. Outcomes included intra-laboratory agreement of Onclarity results on COR and inter-system agreement between COR and Viper.Results: Onclarity reproducibility on COR resulted in standard deviation and correlation of variation of Ct values ranging from 0.14 to 1.98 and 0.49% to 2.15%, respectively, for contrived specimens, and 0.9-3.08 and 2.89-9.21%, respectively, for clinical specimens. In the COR and Viper clinical agreement study, OPA for Onclarity ranged from 97.1%-98.9%, depending on the collection media type. PPA values for pooled, HPV(+) specimens at low positive (C₉₅), and moderate positive (3XC₉₅) target concentrations were ≥95.0% and 100%, respectively; PPA values associated with HPV 16, 18, 31, 45, 33/58, 52, 35/39/68, 51, and 56/59/66, individually, ranged from 93.8%-100%.Conclusions: Onclarity performance on COR is equivalent to Viper, and is accurate and reproducible for detection of all high-risk HPV genotypes, with a throughput of 330 results from a single 8-hour shift.

Human Papillomavirus-Negative Cervical Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been the leading cause of cervical cancer for over 25 years. Approximately 5.5–11% of all cervical cancers are reported to be HPV-negative, which can be attributed to truly negative and false-negative results. The truly HPV-negative cervical cancers are almost all cervical adenocarcinomas with unclear etiology. False HPV negativity can arise from histological misclassification, latent HPV infection, disruption of the targeting fragment, non-high risk HPV infection, and HPV testing methods. HPV-negative cervical cancers are often diagnosed at an advanced FIGO stage and have a poor prognosis; thus, the management of these cases requires greater attention.

Analytical and Clinical Sample Performance Characteristics of the Onclarity Assay for the Detection of Human Papillomavirus

The objective of this study was to determine the result reproducibility and performance of the BD Onclarity human papillomavirus (HPV) assay (Onclarity) on the BD Viper LT platform using both contrived and clinical specimens. Reproducibility was assessed in BD SurePath liquid-based cytology (LBC) medium (SurePath) using contrived panels (HPV genotype 16 [HPV16] positive, HPV18 positive, or HPV45 positive) or clinical specimens (HPV16, -18, -31, -33/58, -45, or -52 positive or HPV negative). In addition, specimens from 3,879 individuals from the Onclarity trial were aliquoted prior to or following cytology processing and tested for HPV. Finally, specimens were collected using either the Cervex-Brush or Cytobrush (or Cytobrush/spatula) for comparison of HPV results. Contrived specimens showed >95% concordance with the expected results, and pooled clinical specimens had standard deviations and coefficients of variation ranging from 0.87 to 1.86 and 2.9% to 5.6%, respectively. For precytology and postcytology aliquot analyses, specimens showed >98.0% overall agreement and mean differences in cycle threshold (C_T ) scores for HPV ranging from -0.07 to 0.31. Positivity rates were close between the Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush/spatula for all age groups tested. Onclarity results are reproducible and reliable, regardless of sample collection before or after cytology aliquoting. Onclarity performs well regardless of the method of specimen collection (Cervex-Brush or Cytobrush/spatula) for cervical cancer screening.

Clinical performance of Onclarity HPV assay and Cobas HPV test in detection of cervical precancer and cancer in Chinese women

OBJECTIVE

The Roche Cobas (Cobas) and BD Onclarity (Onclarity) human papillomavirus (HPV) assays are convenient, PCR-based, HPV DNA tests; currently, data on performance of Onclarity in Chinese women is limited. We aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of Onclarity for detecting cervical lesions in Chinese women.

METHODS

In total, 1122 women were enrolled into this study. Exfoliated cervical cells were collected in PreservCyt medium and were tested using Cobas and Onclarity. Cytology and histology were interpreted by senior cytologists and a panel of pathologists, respectively, at Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

RESULTS

The assays showed excellent concordance for HPV16 (kappa = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.97) and for 12 other high-risk types (HPV31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68, kappa = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.90), and very good concordance for HPV18 (kappa = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.69-0.81). No difference for ≥CIN2 sensitivity was observed between Onclarity and Cobas (both 90.5%); and the <CIN2 specificity for detection was similar between Onclarity (84.2%, 95% CI: 81.6-86.4) and Cobas (80.4%, 95% CI: 77.6-82.8). When combined with cytology triage, the colposcopy referral rate point estimate was slightly lower for Onclarity (9.0%) than for Cobas (11.0%), with the same ≥CIN2 sensitivity of 75.0% (95% CI: 53.1-88.8) for Onclarity and Cobas.

CONCLUSIONS

Onclarity exhibited comparable screening performance and triage efficiency compared to Cobas in detection of cervical lesions in Chinese women.

Performance of HPV Genotyping Combined with p16/Ki-67 in Detection of Cervical Precancer and Cancer Among HPV-Positive Chinese Women

Women with positive high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) need efficient triage testing to determine colposcopy referrals. Triage strategies of combining p16/Ki-67 with extended HPV genotyping were evaluated in this study. In total, 899 women attending cervical cancer screening program and 858 women referred to colposcopy from five hospitals were recruited. All the participants were tested by HPV assays and p16/Ki-67 dual staining. Colposcopy and biopsy were performed on women with any abnormal results. HPV genotypes were divided into four strata (HPV16/18, HPV31/33/58/52, HPV45/59/56/66, and HPV51/39/68/35) according to their risks for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). The positive rates of four genotype strata among CIN3+ women were 3.47% (HPV51/39/68/35), 7.73% (HPV45/59/56/66), 14.7% (HPV31/33/58/52), and 78.1% (HPV16/18), respectively (P _trend < 0.001). The positive rates of p16/Ki-67 increased with the elevation of HPV risk hierarchical from 65.0% in HPV51/39/68/35-positive women to 88.0% in HPV16/18-positive women (P _trend < 0.001). p16/Ki-67 was an effective method for risk stratification of CIN2+ among HPV31/33/58/52- and HPV45/59/56/66-positive women [HPV31/33/58/52: OR for dual stain+ (OR_DS+) of 26.7 (16.8-42.4) and OR for dual stain- (OR_DS-) of 3.87(1.89-7.91); HPV45/59/56/66: OR_DS+ of 10.3(5.05-21.0) and OR_DS- of 1.27(0.38-4.26)]. The combination of HPV16/18 genotyping and p16/Ki-67 triage of HPV31/33/58/52/45/59/56/66-positive women resulted in a lower referral rate (40.1% vs. 41.3%; P < 0.001) as compared with triage of 12 other HPV-positive women with p16/Ki-67, although sensitivity and specificity levels for these two strategies were identical. Combining HPV extended genotyping and p16/Ki-67 can be considered as a promising strategy for cervical cancer screening and triage.

Machine Learning Interpretation of Extended Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Onclarity in an Asian Cervical Cancer Screening Population

This study aimed (i) to compare the performance of the BD Onclarity human papillomavirus (HPV) assay with the Cobas HPV test in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 or above (CIN2/3+) in an Asian screening population and (ii) to explore improving the cervical cancer detection specificity of Onclarity by machine learning. We tested 605 stratified random archived samples of cervical liquid-based cytology samples with both assays. All samples had biopsy diagnosis or repeated negative cytology follow-up. Association rule mining (ARM) was employed to discover coinfection likely to give rise to CIN2/3+. Outcome classifiers interpreting the extended genotyping results of Onclarity were built with different underlying models. The sensitivities (Onclarity, 96.32%; Cobas, 95.71%) and specificities (Onclarity, 46.38%; Cobas, 45.25%) of the high-risk HPV (hrHPV) components of the two tests were not significantly different. When HPV16 and HPV18 were used to further interpret hrHPV-positive cases, Onclarity displayed significantly higher specificity (Onclarity, 87.10%; Cobas, 80.77%). Both hrHPV tests achieved the same sensitivities (Onclarity, 90.91%; Cobas, 90.91%) and similar specificities (Onclarity, 48.46%; Cobas, 51.98%) when used for triaging atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Positivity in both HPV16 and HPV33/58 of the Onclarity channels entails the highest probability of developing CIN2/3+. Incorporating other hrHPVs into the outcome classifiers improved the specificity of identifying CIN2/3 to up to 94.32%. The extended genotyping of Onclarity therefore can help to highlight patients having the highest risk of developing CIN2/3+, with the potential to reduce unnecessary colposcopy and negative psychosocial impact on women receiving the reports.

A review of the FDA-approved molecular testing platforms for human papillomavirus

The advent of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) has resulted in a dramatic shift from cytological testing alone to a combination of cytology and molecular testing for primary HPV screening. HPV testing has quickly become an essential component of daily practice in most laboratories and clinical practices. Although the principle of HPV testing is now familiar, it is important to understand the mechanisms behind these platforms in order to properly interpret the results and understand the limits of each method. HPV tests are more automated and reproducible than cytology, but are by no means perfect. None of these platforms will identify every HSIL/CIN2+ or cancer. This fact must be kept in mind when correlating the results of HPV testing with cytology or biopsy findings. The goal of this paper is to review the FDA- approved molecular testing platforms for HPV, including methodology, limitations, and specifications. The concordance between the platforms will also be discussed. Package inserts of the 5 FDA- approved molecular testing platforms for HPV, as well as a literature review of the platforms, were reviewed and assimilated into the article. Due to the multiple modalities available for detection of hrHPV, the concordance between these assays becomes important. Prior publications have compared HC2, Cervista, cobas, and Aptima, with most studies comparing to HC2 because it is considered the reference standard. With the newly approved BD platform, concordance studies were reviewed as well.

Profile of MeltPro® HPV test for human papillomavirus genotyping and cervical precancer screening

Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common viral infection of the reproductive tract. The persistent infection of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) is associated with cervical cancer. There exists a trend from no hrHPV genotyping, to partial and expanded hrHPV genotyping for the primary screening of cervical precancer. Areas covered: The authors first review HPV assays for screening use on the market. Then, they describe and compare the Zeesan MeltPro® HPV genotyping assay, a semi-automated full hrHPV genotyping assay working on a real-time PCR platform. Based on multicolor melting curve analysis, this assay allows individual identification of 14 hrHPV genotypes in a single reaction. Expert opinion: MeltPro® HPV genotyping assay provides a flexible choice for both high- and low-throughput screening. It is robust in diverse settings ranging from remote and underdeveloped areas to large screening centers. Extra merits such as low cost and ease-of-use would facilitate its implementation in cervical precancer screening, control, and prevention.

The burden of 14 hr-HPV genotypes in women attending routine cervical cancer screening in 20 states of Mexico: a cross-sectional study

In Mexico, HPV vaccines available immunize against genotypes 16/18 and 16/18/6/11; however, there is limited surveillance about carcinogenic subtypes in different states of the country that allow evaluating the effectiveness of vaccination and cervical cancer screening programs. Here, we report the regional and age-specific prevalence of 14 hr-HPV genotypes as well as their prevalence in abnormal cytology (from ASCUS to cervical cancer) among Mexican women which were undergoing from cervical cancer screening in the Salud Digna clinics in 20 states of the country. This study includes women with social security from the majority of public health institutions (IMSS, ISSSTE, SEMAR, and PEMEX), and women without social security. For cervical cancer screening, we used the SurePath liquid-based cytology and the BD Onclarity HPV Assay. From December 1, 2016, to August 2, 2018, the hr-HPV prevalence among 60,135 women was 24.78%, the most prevalent types were HPV 16 (4.13%), HPV 31 (4.12%) and HPV 51 (3.39%), while HPV 18 (1.70%) was less prevalent among infected women. Interestingly, the genotypes not covered by current vaccines in Mexico were commonly found in precancerous lesions, evidencing their carcinogenic potential, so it is necessary to increase their surveillance and inclusion in cervical cancer screening triage.

Onclarity Human Papillomavirus Extended Genotyping in the Management of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 2+ Lesions

OBJECTIVE

Many methods are available today for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing; they differ for technology, targets, and information on the genotypes detected. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the Onclarity HPV assay in detection and follow-up of cervical preneoplastic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred sixty-seven women referred to the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, for treatment of cervical lesions were enrolled. We investigated the utility of Onclarity extended genotyping HPV test in the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ preneoplastic lesion.

RESULTS

At baseline, the concordance was 92% (150/163) between Onclarity and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and 93% (142/152) between Onclarity and linear array, respectively. At follow-up, the concordance between Onclarity and HC2 was 80%. Seven women relapsed: 6 had persistence of the same genotypes and 1 patient tested negative not only with Onclarity but also with HC2 for the presence of a low-risk genotype in the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the evaluation of the HPV genotype persistence may represent a valid option to monitor patients treated for CIN 2+ lesions, because relapses were detected only in patients with persistence of the same genotype detected at baseline.

Comparison Study of BD Onclarity HPV With digene HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test and Roche Cobas 4800 HPV for Detecting High-Risk Human Papillomavirus in Japan

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical performance of novel detection kits for 14 high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types with the BD Onclarity HPV Assay (Onclarity; Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD).

Methods

Two cervical specimens from 144 women were obtained and placed in BD SurePath Collection Vials. The first specimen was used for cervical cytology and digene HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test (HC2; Qiagen, Germantown, MD), and the second specimen was used for Onclarity and Roche Cobas 4800 HPV (Cobas; Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA). Other HPV genotyping kits were used for specimens identified as positive by Onclarity or Cobas.

Results

Fifty-three of 144 specimens were positive by Onclarity. Overall agreement rates of Onclarity with HC2 and Cobas were 93.8% and 94.4%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia type 2 or higher of Onclarity were similar to HC2 and Cobas.

Conclusion

The results showed that the clinical performance of Onclarity was equivalent to HC2 and Cobas.

Validation of a Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Cervical Screening Test That Provides Expanded HPV Typing

As cervical cancer screening shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, a major question is the clinical value of identifying individual HPV types. We aimed to validate Onclarity (Becton Dickinson Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), a nine-channel HPV test recently approved by the FDA, by assessing (i) the association of Onclarity types/channels with precancer/cancer; (ii) HPV type/channel agreement between the results of Onclarity and cobas (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA), another FDA-approved test; and (iii) Onclarity typing for all types/channels compared to typing results from a research assay (linear array [LA]; Roche). We compared Onclarity to histopathology, cobas, and LA. We tested a stratified random sample (n = 9,701) of discarded routine clinical specimens that had tested positive by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen, Germantown, MD). A subset had already been tested by cobas and LA (n = 1,965). Cervical histopathology was ascertained from electronic health records. Hierarchical Onclarity channels showed a significant linear association with histological severity. Onclarity and cobas had excellent agreement on partial typing of HPV16, HPV18, and the other 12 types as a pool (sample-weighted kappa value of 0.83); cobas was slightly more sensitive for HPV18 and slightly less sensitive for the pooled high-risk types. Typing by Onclarity showed excellent agreement with types and groups of types identified by LA (kappa values from 0.80 for HPV39/68/35 to 0.97 for HPV16). Onclarity typing results corresponded well to histopathology and to an already validated HPV DNA test and could provide additional clinical typing if such discrimination is determined to be clinically desirable.

Multiple HPV genotype infection impact on invasive cervical cancer presentation and survival

Background

Invasive cervical cancer (ICC) is the third most common malignant neoplasm affecting Brazilian women. Little is known about the impact of specific HPV genotypes in the prognosis of ICC. We hypothesized that HPV genotype would impact ICC clinical presentation and survival.

Methods

Women diagnosed with ICC at the Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP) between May 2008 and June 2012 were included in the study and were followed until December 2015. HPV genotype was detected from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue samples using Onclarity™ system (BD Viper™ LT automated system).

Results

292 patients aged 50±14 years were analyzed. HPVDNA was detected in 84% of patients. The HPV genotypes studied were: HPV16 (64%), HPV18 (10%), HPV33-58 (7%), HPV45 (5%), HPV31 (4%) and other high-risk HPV genotypes (11%). HPV genotypes showed different distributions regarding histological type and clinical stage. Patients were followed for 35±21 months. The overall survival at 5 years after diagnosis of cervical cancer was 54%. Age, clinical staging, histological type and multiple HPV genotypes infection detected in the same tumor specimen were associated with poorer overall survival on multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis (p<0.05). No specific HPV genotype affected survival.

Conclusion

Multiple HPV genotype infection was associated with poorer ICC survival in our study, compared with single genotype infection. HPV genotyping from FFPE tumor tissue using an automated assay such as the Onclarity BD™ assay provides a simpler alternative for routine clinical use.

Impact

This is the largest study employing an automated HPV genotyping assay using FFPE of ICC. Multiple HPV genotype infection adversely influenced survival.

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

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.

Clinical and analytical performance of the BD Onclarity™ HPV assay for detection of CIN2+ lesions on SurePath samples

Background

The novel BD Onclarity^TM HPV assay (Onclarity) on the BD Viper™ LT system (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), detects E6/E7 DNA from 13 high-risk HPV genotypes and HPV66. We compared the analytical and clinical performance of the Onclarity Assay to that of Hybrid Capture 2 and LINEAR ARRAY using adjudicated histological outcomes from Danish women referred for colposcopy.

Methods

276 women from Copenhagen, Denmark were referred for colposcopy with abnormal cytology and/or a positive HPV test. Two samples for HPV analysis were taken in BD SurePath™ and in the BD cervical brush diluent (CBD) media. ClinicalTrial gov. identifier: NCT01671462, Ethical Approval: H-4-2012-070.

Results

Histology was normal in 84 (31%) women, 70 (26%) had CIN1, 47 (17%) CIN2, and 68 (25%) had CIN3. The Onclarity assay detected 67 out of 68 (99%) ≥CIN3 and 113/115 (98%) ≥CIN2. The specificities for <CIN2 were 21%, 17%, and 22%, for HC2, Onclarity and LA, respectively.

Conclusion

Overall, the Onclarity HPV assay performed well on SurePath LBC and CBD media, with clinical sensitivity and specificity matching those of HC2 and LA.

Sensitivity of APTIMA HPV E6/E7 mRNA test in comparison with hybrid capture 2 HPV DNA test for detection of high risk oncogenic human papillomavirus in 396 biopsy confirmed cervical cancers

The sensitivity of E6/E7 mRNA-based Aptima HPV test (AHPV; Hologic, Inc.) for detection of cervical cancer has been reported based on only a small number of cases. We determined the sensitivity of AHPV in comparison with the DNA-based Hybrid Capture 2 HPV test (HC2; Qiagen) for the detection of oncogenic HPV in a large number of cervical cancers at the time of diagnosis using cervical samples obtained in ThinPrep (Hologic). Samples yielding discordant results were genotyped using Linear Array assay (LA; Roche). Of 396 cases tested, AHPV detected 377 (sensitivity, 95.2%; 95%CI: 93.1-97.3), and HC2 376 (sensitivity, 94.9%; 95%CI: 92.7-97.1) with an agreement of 97.2% (kappa 0.7; 95%CI: 0.54-0.87). Among six AHPV+/HC2- cases, LA identified oncogenic HPV types in four including a type 73 and was negative in two. Among five AHPV-/HC2+ cases, LA detected oncogenic HPV types in two including a type 73 and was negative in three. Of 14 AHPV-/HC2- cases, 13 were genotyped. LA detected oncogenic HPV types in six, non-oncogenic types in three, and was negative in four. This is the largest study to demonstrate the sensitivity of AHPV for the detection of invasive cervical cancer and this assay showed equal sensitivity to HC2.

Triage of HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening

Despite HPV vaccines, screening will remain central for decades to control cervical cancer. Recently, HPV testing alone or with cytology was introduced as an alternative to cytology screening. However, most HPV infections are harmless and additional tests are required to identify women with progressing infections or precancer. With three options for primary screening, and without clear strategies for triage of screen-positive women, there is great confusion about the best approach. Also, increasing HPV vaccination coverage will lead to lower disease prevalence, and force new screening approaches. Currently recommended triage strategies for primary HPV screening include HPV genotyping for HPV16 and HPV18 and cytology. Other alternatives that are currently evaluated include p16/Ki-67 dual stain cytology, host methylation, and viral methylation testing. Clinical management of women with cervical cancer screening results is moving to use risk thresholds rather than individual test results. Specific risk thresholds have been defined for return to primary screening, repeat testing, referral to colposcopy, and immediate treatment. Choice of test algorithms is based on comparison of absolute risk estimates from triage tests with established clinical thresholds. Importantly, triage tests need to be evaluated together with the primary screening test and the downstream clinical management. An optimal integrated screening and triage strategy should reassure the vast majority of women that they are at very low risk of cervical cancer, send the women at highest risk to colposcopy at the right time, when disease can be colposcopically detected, and minimize the intermediate risk group that requires continued surveillance.

A study of HPV typing for the management of HPV-positive ASC-US cervical cytologic results

BACKGROUND

In US cervical screening, immediate colposcopy is recommended for women with HPV-positive ASC-US (equivocal) cytology. We evaluated whether partial typing by Onclarity™ (BD) might identify HPV-positive women with low enough CIN3+ risk to permit 1-year follow-up instead.

METHODS

The NCI-Kaiser Permanente Northern California Persistence and Progression cohort includes a subset of 13,890 women aged 21+ with HC2 (Qiagen)-positive ASC-US at enrollment; current median follow-up is 3.0years. Using stratified random sampling, we typed 2079 archived enrollment specimens including 329 women subsequently diagnosed with CIN3+, 563 with CIN2, and 1187 with

RESULTS

The 3-year CIN3+ risk for all HC2-positive women with ASC-US was 5.2%; this establishes the "benchmark" risk for colposcopic referral. Hierarchically, 3-year cumulative risks for each typing channel were 16.0% for HPV16, 7.4% for HPV18, 7.0% for HPV31, 7.1% for grouped HPV33/58, 4.3% for HPV52, 3.9% for HPV45, 2.7% for HPV51, 1.6% for HPV39/68/35, and 1.3% for HPV59/56/66.

DISCUSSION

ASC-US linked to HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, or HPV33/58 warrants immediate colposcopy. Optimal management of women with HPV52 or HPV45 is uncertain. Risk of women with only HPV51, HPV39/68/35, or HPV59/56/66 might be low enough to recommend 1-year retesting permitting viral clearance. This strategy would defer colposcopy for 40% of women with HPV-positive ASC-US, half of whom would be cotest-negative at 1-year return. Approximately 10% of those with CIN3 diagnosable at enrollment would be delayed 1year instead. Cost-effectiveness analyses are needed.

Collapse

Key Words

• ASC-US
• Cervical screening
• HPV testing
• Triage

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Atypical Squamous Cells of the Cervix/pathology
• Atypical Squamous Cells of the Cervix/virology
• Female
• Genotype
• Humans
• Papillomaviridae/genetics
• Papillomavirus Infections/virology
• Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix/pathology
• Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix/virology
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/pathology
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
• Vaginal Smears/methods
• Young Adult
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/virology

Collapse

Grants

• Z01 CP010124-12 Intramural NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Mark Schiffman Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, MD, USA.
Laurence M Vaughan BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD, USA
Tina R Raine-Bennett Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA
Philip E Castle Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Bronx, NY, USA
Hormuzd A Katki Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, MD, USA
Julia C Gage Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, MD, USA
Barbara Fetterman Kaiser Regional Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
Brian Befano Information Management Systems, Inc., Calverton, MD, USA
Nicolas Wentzensen Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, MD, USA

Collapse

Clinical and Analytical Performance of the Onclarity HPV Assay Using the VALGENT Framework

As the demand for human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cervical screening increases, emerging HPV tests must be evaluated robustly using well-annotated samples, such as those generated in the Validation of HPV Genotyping Tests (VALGENT) framework. Through VALGENT, we assessed the performance of the BD Onclarity HPV assay, which detects 14 high-risk (HR) types and resolves six individual types and three groups of types. Consecutive samples from a screening population (n = 1,000), enriched with cytologically abnormal samples (n = 300), that had been tested previously with the GP5+/6+ PCR enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and the GP5+/6+ PCR LMNX assay (Diassay) were tested with the Onclarity assay. Type-specific HPV prevalences were analyzed according to age and cytological result. The accuracy of the Onclarity assay for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) and CIN3+ was assessed relative to the GP5+/6+ EIA results by using noninferiority criteria. Overall agreement and type-specific agreement between the Onclarity assay and the GP5+/6+ LMNX assay were assessed. The prevalence of HPV types 16, 18, 31, and 45 increased with the severity of cytological results (P for trend, <0.05). For the detection of CIN2+, the Onclarity assay had a relative sensitivity of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.05; P < 0.001 for noninferiority) and a relative specificity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.00; P = 0.186 for noninferiority). The kappa for agreement between the Onclarity assay and the GP5+/6+ LMNX assay for HR-HPV was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.94), and values for the six individual types ranged from 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.87) for HPV-52 to 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99) for HPV-16. These data suggest that the Onclarity assay offers applications for clinical workstreams while providing genotyping information that may be useful for risk stratification beyond types 16 and 18.

Comparison of Onclarity Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Assay with Hybrid Capture II HPV DNA Assay for Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 and 3 Lesions

Analytical and clinical performance validation is essential before introduction of a new human papillomavirus (HPV) assay into clinical practice. This study compares the new BD Onclarity HPV assay, which detects E6/E7 DNA from 14 high-risk HPV types, to the Hybrid Capture II (HC2) HPV DNA test, to concurrent cytology and histology results, in order to evaluate its performance in detecting high-grade cervical lesions. A population of 567 women, including 325 with ≥ASCUS (where ASCUS stands for atypical cells of undetermined significance) and any HC2 result and 242 with both negative cytology and negative HC2 results, were prospectively enrolled for the study. The overall agreement between Onclarity and HC2 was 94.6% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 92.3% to 96.2%). In this population with a high prevalence of disease, the relative sensitivities (versus adjudicated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 [CIN2+] histology endpoints) of the Onclarity and HC2 tests were 95.2% (95% CI, 90.7% to 97.5%) and 96.9% (95% CI, 92.9% to 98.7%), respectively, and the relative specificities were 50.3% (95% CI, 43.2% to 57.4%) for BD and 40.8% (95% CI, 33.9%, 48.1%) for HC2. These results indicate that the BD Onclarity HPV assay has sensitivity comparable to that of the HC2 assay, with a trend to an increased specificity. Moreover, as Onclarity gives the chance to discriminate between the different genotypes, we calculated the genotype prevalence and the absolute risk of CIN2+: HPV 16 was the most prevalent genotype (19.8%) with an absolute risk of CIN2+ of 77.1%.