Search

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., (This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.)

Inexpensive and easy-to-perform human papillomavirus (HPV) tests are needed for primary cervical cancer screening in lower-resource regions. In a convenience sample of 516 residual exfoliative cervical specimens from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California and U.S. National Cancer Institute Persistence and Progression Study, we assessed the agreement and clinical performance of a simple, inexpensive real-time PCR assay for the detection of 13 carcinogenic HPV types (the H13 assay; Hybribio, Hong Kong) that is marketed in limited-resource settings compared to previous testing by the Hybrid Capture 2 assay (HC2; Qiagen, Germantown, MD) and the Onclarity assay (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD). The test set was chosen to include many HPV-positive specimens. The reference standard was a combination of HC2 and Onclarity results for HPV detection and histologic diagnosis of controls (less than cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 [

The effective management of women with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, cytology-negative results is critical to the introduction of HPV testing into cervical screening. HPV typing has been recommended for colposcopy triage, but it is not clear which combinations of high-risk HPV types provide clinically useful information. This study included 18,810 women with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2)-positive, cytology-negative results and who were age ≥30 years from Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The median follow-up was 475 days (interquartile range [IQR], 0 to 1,077 days; maximum, 2,217 days). The baseline specimens from 482 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) and 3,517 random HC2-positive noncases were genotyped using 2 PCR-based methods. Using the case-control sampling fractions, the 3-year cumulative risks of CIN3+ were calculated for each individual high-risk HPV type. The 3-year cumulative risk of CIN3+ among all women with HC2-positive, cytology-negative results was 4.6%. HPV16 status conferred the greatest type-specific risk stratification; women with HC2-positive/HPV16-positive results had a 10.6% risk of CIN3+, while women with HC-2 positive/HPV16-negative results had a much lower risk of 2.4%. The next most informative HPV types and their risks in HPV-positive women were HPV33 (5.9%) and HPV18 (5.9%). With regard to the etiologic fraction, 20 of 71 cases of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and adenocarcinoma in the cohort were positive for HPV18. HPV16 genotyping provides risk stratification useful for guiding clinical management; the risk among HPV16-positive women clearly exceeds the U.S. consensus risk threshold for immediate colposcopy referral. HPV18 is of particular interest because of its association with difficult-to-detect glandular lesions. There is a less clear clinical value of distinguishing the other high-risk HPV types., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

Anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infections are common, and the incidence of anal cancer is high in HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM). To evaluate the performance of HPV assays in anal samples, we compared the cobas HPV test (cobas) to the Roche Linear Array HPV genotyping assay (LA) and cytology in HIV-infected MSM. Cytology and cobas and LA HPV testing were conducted for 342 subjects. We calculated agreement between the HPV assays and the clinical performance of HPV testing and HPV genotyping alone and in combination with anal cytology. We observed high agreement between cobas and LA, with cobas more likely than LA to show positive results for HPV16, HPV18, and other carcinogenic types. Specimens testing positive in cobas but not in LA were more likely to be positive for other markers of HPV-related disease compared to those testing negative in both assays, suggesting that at least some of these were true positives for HPV. cobas and LA showed high sensitivities but low specificities for the detection of anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (AIN2/3) in this population (100% sensitivity and 26% specificity for cobas versus 98.4% sensitivity and 28.9% specificity for LA). A combination of anal cytology and HPV genotyping provided the highest accuracy for detecting anal precancer. A higher HPV load was associated with a higher risk of AIN2/3 with HPV16 (P(trend) < 0.001), HPV18 (P(trend) = 0.07), and other carcinogenic types (P(trend) < 0.001). We demonstrate that cobas can be used for HPV detection in anal cytology specimens. Additional tests are necessary to identify men at the highest risk of anal cancer among those infected with high-risk HPV., (Copyright © 2014, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

The cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test (cobas) was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and identifies HPV16 and HPV18 separately as well as detecting a pool of 11 HR-HPV genotypes (HPV31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -59, -68) and also HPV66. We compared cobas, Linear Array (LA), and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assays for detection of carcinogenic HPV DNA, and cobas and LA for detection of HPV16 and HPV18 DNA, among the first 1,852 women enrolled in the HPV Persistence and Progression Cohort (PaP Cohort) study. Specimens were tested by all 3 assays 1 year after an HC2-positive result. In 1,824 specimens with cobas results, cobas had an 85.9% agreement with HC2 and 91.0% agreement with LA for carcinogenic HPV detection. When results between cobas and HC2 disagreed, cobas tended to call more women HPV positive (P < 0.01). Categorizing cobas and LA results hierarchically according to cancer risk (HPV16, HPV18, other carcinogenic HPV genotypes, or carcinogen negative), there was a 90% agreement for all categories of HPV (n = 1,824). We found good agreement between the two U.S. FDA-approved HPV tests, with discrepancies between the two assays due to specific characteristics of the individual assays. Additional studies are needed to compare HC2 and cobas for detecting and predicting CIN3 to understand the clinical implications of the discrepant test results between the two tests.

To explore alternative cervical cancer screening approaches in an underserved population, we compared the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assays in combination with different sample collection methods for primary cervical screening in the Mississippi Delta region. Three specimens were collected from women aged 26 to 65 years who were either routinely undergoing screening (n = 252) or not (n = 191): clinician-collected cervical specimens, clinician-collected cervicovaginal specimens, and self-collected cervicovaginal specimens taken at home. A novel collection device and medium were used for cervicovaginal sampling. Specimens were tested by three HPV DNA assays: hybrid capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen Corp., Gaithersburg, MD), Linear Array (LA; Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA), and Amplicor (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA). Liquid-based cytology was performed on cervical specimens. We compared the overall positivity (a proxy for clinical specificity) for any carcinogenic HPV genotype and calculated the agreement across assay and specimen type using McNemar's test for differences in test positivity. Across all three assays there were no significant differences between clinician-collected and self-collected cervicovaginal specimens (P > 0.01 for all comparisons). For both cervicovaginal specimens (clinician collected and self-collected), fewer women tested positive by HC2 than by LA or Amplicor (P < 0.01 for all comparisons). HC2 had the best agreement between specimens for all assays. HC2 is likely more clinically specific, although possibly less sensitive, than either PCR test. Thus, use of HC2 on cervicovaginal specimens for screening could result in fewer referrals compared to LA and Amplicor.