Hybrid capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA testing for women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance papanicolaou results in SurePath and ThinPrep specimens

• Published in: Cancer 2009-10, Vol.117 (5), p.318-325
• Main Authors: Siddiqi, Anwer, Spataro, Michael, McIntire, Holly, Akhtar, Israh, Baliga, Mithra, Flowers, Rhyne, Lin, E, Guo, Ming
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alphapapillomavirus - genetics; Biopsy; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - virology; DNA, Viral - analysis; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Histocytological Preparation Techniques; human papillomavirus; Humans; Hybrid Capture 2; Papanicolaou Test; Papillomavirus Infections - diagnosis; SurePath; ThinPrep; Vaginal Smears; Virology - methods
• ISSN: 1934-662X; 0008-543X; 1934-6638
• DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20043

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing using Hybrid Capture 2 assay with ThinPrep Papanicolaou (Pap) collection is the only US Food and Drug Administration‐approved method for the triage of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS). Although SurePath Pap collection has been used for Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA testing, clinical validation of this method has been scarce. METHODS: From a cervical cancer‐screening program in Mississippi, we analyzed data from screenings of 8380 women with ASCUS Pap results who underwent reflex Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA tests during a course of 4 years. Of these, 4145 were screened with the ThinPrep collection system, and 4235 were screened with SurePath. Results of follow‐up biopsies within 3 months of Pap tests were available for the ThinPrep group (229 cases) and the SurePath group (455 cases). Hybrid Capture 2 positive rates and the follow‐up biopsy results from both groups were compared. RESULTS: Hybrid Capture 2 detected high‐risk HPV DNA in 68.8% of ThinPrep and 66.7% of SurePath‐collected specimens (P = .37). Detection rates for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were also comparable between ThinPrep (21.4%, 3.1%) and SurePath (15.4%, 4.2%) using Hybrid Capture 2 (P = .06, P = .45). In ThinPrep‐collected specimens, 4.4% were quantitatively insufficient for Hybrid Capture 2 testing. Significantly more equivocal Hybrid Capture 2 results were observed in SurePath (11.4%) than in ThinPrep specimens (3.2%). However, 67.4% of women with equivocal Hybrid Capture 2 results had negative 1‐year Pap cytology follow‐up in the SurePath group. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid Capture 2 positive rates and CIN2‐3 detection rates were comparable for the SurePath and ThinPrep Pap collection systems, thus supporting the use of SurePath for Hybrid Capture 2 testing. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society. Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing was compared in 4235 specimens collected using the SurePath Papanicolaou (Pap) collection system and 4145 specimens collected by the ThinPrep method. HPV DNA was detected in 68.8% of ThinPrep and 66.7% of SurePath specimens (P = .37). Results of follow‐up biopsies within 3 months of Pap tests were available to compare the SurePath (455 cases) and the ThinPrep groups (229 cases). Detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2+ and CIN3+ were comparable between ThinPrep (21.4%, 3.1%) and SurePath (15.4%, 4.2%) using Hybrid Capture 2