Comparison of different commercial methods for HPV detection in follow-up cytology after ASCUS/LSIL, prediction of CIN2–3 in follow up biopsies and spontaneous regression of CIN2–3

• Published in: Gynecologic oncology 2011-11, Vol.123 (2), p.278-283
• Main Authors: Ovestad, Irene T, Vennestrøm, Undis, Andersen, Liv, Gudlaugsson, Einar, Munk, Ane Cecilie, Malpica, Anais, Feng, Weiwei, Voorhorst, Feja, Janssen, Emiel A.M, Baak, Jan P.A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; ASCUS; Biopsy; Cervical cancer screening; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - pathology; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - virology; Clinical sensitivity and specificity; Colposcopy; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Genotyping Techniques; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; HPV DNA and mRNA tests; Humans; LSIL; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Regression, Spontaneous; Obstetrics and Gynecology; Papillomaviridae - genetics; Papillomaviridae - isolation & purification; Predictive Value of Tests; Regression; Sensitivity and Specificity; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - virology
• ISSN: 0090-8258; 1095-6859
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.07.024

Abstract Objective Different Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) tests are currently used. An integrated comparison of the Amplicor, Cobas4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer and APTIMA HPV tests has not been done. Methods We compared the high-risk HPV detection power of these HPV tests in 528 consecutive population-based follow-up Liquid-Based Cytology samples (LBC) after ASCUS/LSIL index cytology. Their sensitivity and specificity to detect HPV in LBC, their predictive values of histopathologic CIN2–3 in follow-up punch biopsies and CIN2–3 regression in the subsequent cones was assessed. The HPV subtypes detected by the Linear Array genotyping-test (LA), PreTect HPV-Proofer and Cobas4800 were also compared. The follow-up histopathology was consensus expert-reviewed and Ki67/p16-supported. The predictive values of the HPV results in LBC by the different tests for presence of CIN2–3 in follow-up biopsies, and regression in subsequent cones, was assessed. Results Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA show good agreement for HPV-positivity/negativity. PreTect HPV-Proofer has many discrepancies versus any of the other methods. The sensitivities for Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA to detect CIN2–3 were very high (96–100%), but rather low for PreTect HPV-Proofer (53%). Specificity in case of CIN1 or less in follow-up biopsies of Amplicor and Cobas4800 is lower than APTIMA and highest for PreTect HPV-Proofer. HPV subtyping by LA agreed in 90% with Cobas4800 but 70% with PreTect HPV-Proofer. Conclusions The Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA give comparable results but PreTect HPV-Proofer differs from the other tests, with low sensitivity but higher specificity. None of the methods predicted regression of CIN2–3.