Search

Your search keyword '"Mesmaekers S"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Mesmaekers S" Publication Year Range Last 10 years
2 results on '"Mesmaekers S"'

1. Comparative analysis of cervical cytology and human papillomavirus genotyping by three different methods in a routine diagnostic setting

Author

Bamelis M, Davy Vanden Broeck, Van Renterghem L, De Mey A, Kathleen Lambein, Mesmaekers S, Ryckaert I, Vastenavond H, Marleen Praet, Y. Sturtewagen, Ali-Risasi C, Steven Weyers, and Elizaveta Padalko

Subjects
Adult, Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Adolescent, Genotype, Epidemiology, Cytodiagnosis, Concordance, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Young Adult, Cytology, Atypical Squamous Cells of the Cervix, Humans, Medicine, Papillomaviridae, Genotyping, Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Vaginal Smears, Gynecology, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, business.industry, Papillomavirus Infections, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, virus diseases, Cancer, Cervical cytology, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, medicine.disease, female genital diseases and pregnancy complications, Real-time polymerase chain reaction, Oncology, Case-Control Studies, DNA, Viral, Female, business, Follow-Up Studies
Abstract

Application of Bethesda guidelines on cervical cytology involves human papillomavirus (HPV) determinations on all ASC-US and ASC-H results. We compared HPV DNA results in view of the eventual development of a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesion determined either on cytology or histology. A total of 214 liquid-based cytology samples were analysed. Three different HPV DNA methods were applied: the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test, INNO-Lipa HPV Genotyping Extra and Full Spectrum PCR HPV Amplification and Detection/Genotyping System by Lab2Lab Diagnostic Service. A comparison of these three methods showed full concordance only for 49 samples (23%), and 27 (13%) of the samples were discordant in indicating the presence of the high-risk HPV type. Out of 214 patients, 88 were selected who presented with a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or a VAIN lesion at follow-up cytology or histology. In this group, full concordance with HPV genotyping was present only in 19 (22%) follow-up samples. Nine (10%) follow-up samples showed discordant results for the presence of a high-risk genotype between the three genotyping methods tested either by negativity for high-risk HPV by one of the methods (n=6) or by failure to genotype HPV (n=2), or by a combination of both (n=1). Moreover, discordance for the detection of HPV16 or HPV18 was observed between the three HPV DNA genotyping methods used in 9 (10%) follow-up samples. In addition, the performance of genotyping methods on 20 external quality samples was assessed, showing discordant results for HPV16 and HPV18. Major differences were found in the genotyping results according to the HPV DNA method. Our findings highlight the importance of careful interpretation of data from studies using different HPV genotyping methods and underline the need for standardization by method validation in clinical laboratories, especially in the setting of primary HPV screening.

Published
2015

2. Comparative analysis of cervical cytology and human papillomavirus genotyping by three different methods in a routine diagnostic setting.

Author

Padalko E, Ali-Risasi C, Mesmaekers S, Ryckaert I, Van Renterghem L, Lambein K, Bamelis M, De Mey A, Sturtewagen Y, Vastenavond H, Broeck DV, Weyers S, and Praet M

Subjects
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Atypical Squamous Cells of the Cervix metabolism, Atypical Squamous Cells of the Cervix virology, Case-Control Studies, Cervix Uteri metabolism, Cervix Uteri virology, DNA, Viral genetics, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Genotype, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Papillomaviridae classification, Papillomavirus Infections genetics, Papillomavirus Infections virology, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Prognosis, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms genetics, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms virology, Vaginal Smears, Young Adult, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia genetics, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia virology, Atypical Squamous Cells of the Cervix pathology, Cervix Uteri pathology, Cytodiagnosis methods, Diagnostic Tests, Routine methods, Papillomaviridae genetics, Papillomavirus Infections diagnosis, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms diagnosis, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia diagnosis
Abstract

Application of Bethesda guidelines on cervical cytology involves human papillomavirus (HPV) determinations on all ASC-US and ASC-H results. We compared HPV DNA results in view of the eventual development of a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesion determined either on cytology or histology. A total of 214 liquid-based cytology samples were analysed. Three different HPV DNA methods were applied: the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test, INNO-Lipa HPV Genotyping Extra and Full Spectrum PCR HPV Amplification and Detection/Genotyping System by Lab2Lab Diagnostic Service. A comparison of these three methods showed full concordance only for 49 samples (23%), and 27 (13%) of the samples were discordant in indicating the presence of the high-risk HPV type. Out of 214 patients, 88 were selected who presented with a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or a VAIN lesion at follow-up cytology or histology. In this group, full concordance with HPV genotyping was present only in 19 (22%) follow-up samples. Nine (10%) follow-up samples showed discordant results for the presence of a high-risk genotype between the three genotyping methods tested either by negativity for high-risk HPV by one of the methods (n=6) or by failure to genotype HPV (n=2), or by a combination of both (n=1). Moreover, discordance for the detection of HPV16 or HPV18 was observed between the three HPV DNA genotyping methods used in 9 (10%) follow-up samples. In addition, the performance of genotyping methods on 20 external quality samples was assessed, showing discordant results for HPV16 and HPV18. Major differences were found in the genotyping results according to the HPV DNA method. Our findings highlight the importance of careful interpretation of data from studies using different HPV genotyping methods and underline the need for standardization by method validation in clinical laboratories, especially in the setting of primary HPV screening.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results