Article
Human papillomavirus load in Hybrid Capture II assay: does increasing the cutoff improve the test?
Department of Anatomical Pathology, IDIBAPS-Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, School of Medicine, C/Villarroel 170, 08036-Barcelona, Spain.
Gynecologic Oncology (impact factor:
3.89).
11/2005;
99(2):313-9.
DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.07.011
pp.313-9
Source: PubMed
-
Citations (0)
- Cited In (1)
-
Article: Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8%) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8%) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (> or =CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97% (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91% (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as > or =CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of >or =CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for > or =CIN3 in population-based cervical screening.Journal of Clinical Microbiology 10/2006; 44(10):3680-5. · 4.15 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
1 RLU
2 RLU
3 RLU
5 RLU
atypical cells
carcinomas
cervical carcinoma
colposcopic clinic
colposcopy
detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions
HR-HPV
HR-HPV detection
Hybrid Capture II
lesion
low-grade SIL
negative predictive value
new Pap test
relative light units
suspicious areas
unknown significance