Search

Background: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection and genotyping by Cobas HPV test has become an important technical platform in cervical cancer screening. It may be used as a co-test with cervical cytology or as a standalone test. Aptima HPV assay (AHPV) is another hrHPV test detecting 13 genotypes through qPCR based amplification of viral E6/E7 transcripts. Partial genotyping with Aptima HPV 16 18/45 genotype assay (AHPV GT) on positive samples is possible. Evidence supporting the performance of AHPV in Asian populations is scarce., Objective: To compare the performances of Cobas and AHPV in detection of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) and triage of cytologically equivocal smears in a cohort of Hong Kong women., Study Design: 442 liquid based cytology (LBC) residues with biopsy confirmed diagnoses were evaluated by both AHPV and Cobas HPV tests., Results: Overall, there was a moderate agreement between AHPV and Cobas (κ = 0.5082, 95% CI: 0.492-0.672). The sensitivities of AHPV and Cobas for detecting biopsy confirmed HSIL or worse lesions (HSIL+) were 96.71% (95% CI: 92.49%-98.92%) and 97.37% (95% CI: 93.40%-99.28%) respectively. AHPV demonstrated significantly higher specificity than Cobas (37.85% vs 23.96%, p < 0.0001). Both tests could identify all ASC-US and AGC cases with HSIL + in follow-up biopsies, but AHPV showed a significantly higher specificity in both settings (ASC-US: 28.81% vs 11.86%, p < 0.0001; AGC: 55.00% vs 20.00%, p = 0.0233)., Conclusions: Both AHPV and Cobas were equally sensitive in detecting high-grade SIL in both scenarios of screening and ASC-US or AGC triage but AHPV showed a higher specificity., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: To compare the PathVysion fluorescence in-situ hybridisation assay with the INFORM HER2 Dual in-situ hybridisation assay on 104 invasive breast cancers with a broad spectrum of immunohistochemistry scores., Methods: This case series involved consecutive patients diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma with equivocal immunohistochemistry score and referred for further HER2 assessment from the departments of Surgery and/or Clinical Oncology of the two hospitals between January 2013 and February 2014. An additional 10 cases with negative HER2 immunohistochemistry and 11 cases with positive HER2 immunohistochemistry were further included., Results: The results of both fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and dual in-situ hybridisation were available in 99 of 104 cases, respectively. Student’st test showed no statistically significant difference in the mean number of HER2 count, CEP17 copies, or HER2/CEP17 ratio between that obtained by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and that obtained by dual in-situ hybridisation. Pearson’s correlation of results for the two assays was strong for HER2/CEP17 signal ratio (R=0.963, P<0.001) and mean HER2 copies per nucleus (R=0.897, P<0.001). Overall agreement was 96.0% (95 out of 99 cases, ĸ0.882). Three of the four discordant cases were equivocal for either fluorescence in-situ hybridisation or dual in-situ hybridisation. The results of immunohistochemistry 0/1+ and 3+ cases showed 100% concordance between the two assays. The failure rate was 0.96% for fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and 3.85% for dual in-situ hybridisation. Cases that failed for fluorescence in-situ hybridisation were successful for dual in-situ hybridisation and vice versa., Conclusions: Our study showed that dual in-situ hybridisation is a reliable and useful option for HER2 testing in breast cancer.