Search

The strong association of human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer makes it important to study HPV detection methods that may play a role in cervical cancer screening. We compared two DNA methods that are commonly used for HPV research in the United States: the MY09/MY11 L1 consensus primer PCR-based test and the first-generation Hybrid Capture tube method (HCT). Laboratory assays by each method were performed with 596 cervicovaginal specimens collected from participants in a large cohort study conducted in Portland, Oreg. Included were 499 specimens from women whose cytology was normal and 97 specimens from women with squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs). The overall HPV DNA positivity for known types was 22.5% by PCR compared to 13.6% by HCT. When the analysis was restricted to the 14 HPV types detectable by both methods, the sensitivity of HCT, with PCR used as the standard for HPV status, was higher for specimens from women with concurrent SILs (81.0%) than for specimens from women with normal cytology (46.7%). Among specimens testing positive by both methods, 97.2% of the time the two methods agreed on whether specimens were positive for cancer-associated HPV types. Both of these HPV test methods provide information that supplements the information provided by the Pap smear. The PCR method has higher analytic sensitivity than HCT in detecting HPV, but HCT may be helpful in identifying women with concurrent SILs.

A methodologic study was performed to compare the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Southern blot hybridization, two commonly used testing strategies for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Three laboratories tested masked aliquots of exfoliated cervical cell specimens obtained from 120 women by cervicovaginal lavage. The study population included 32 women with condylomatous atypia or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and 88 control women with no known history of cervical neoplasia. Two laboratories used PCR with different sets of consensus primers for HPV detection. The third laboratory used low-stringency Southern blot hybridization to identify all HPV types, followed by high-stringency Southern and/or dot blot hybridization to confirm specific HPV types. One of the PCR primer sets detected HPV types with a differential efficiency that was not predicted by analysis of DNA sequences or direct testing of HPV-containing plasmids. In contrast, the second PCR primer set was shown to be a much broader consensus system, detecting the same HPV types as Southern blotting, though requiring much less clinical specimen. Over 80% of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or condylomatous atypia were found to be HPV infected both by Southern blotting and by the second PCR primer set. Among the control women, 11% were HPV positive by Southern blotting, while 31% were positive with the second set of primers. Most of the HPV infections found only by PCR were not due to HPV type 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, or 45. These known HPV types were uncommon among normal women in the study population, even as determined by the PCR method.