Cargando…

Comparison of Analytical and Clinical Performance of HPV 9G DNA Chip, PANArray HPV Genotyping Chip, and Hybrid-Capture II Assay in Cervicovaginal Swabs

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can be detected by using several molecular methods, including Hybrid-Capture II (HC2) assay and variable HPV DNA chip tests, although each method has different sensitivities and specificities. METHODS: We performed HPV 9G DNA Chip (9G) and PANArray HP...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jung, Ho Young, Han, Hye Seung, Kim, Hyo Bin, Oh, Seo Young, Lee, Sun-Joo, Kim, Wook Youn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Pathologists and the Korean Society for Cytopathology 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804145/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26763506
http://dx.doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2015.10.21
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can be detected by using several molecular methods, including Hybrid-Capture II (HC2) assay and variable HPV DNA chip tests, although each method has different sensitivities and specificities. METHODS: We performed HPV 9G DNA Chip (9G) and PANArray HPV Genotyping Chip (PANArray) tests on 118 cervicovaginal swabs and compared the results with HC2, cytology, histology, and direct sequencing results. RESULTS: The overall and high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) positivity rates were 62.7% and 44.9% using 9G, and 61.0% and 30.5% using PANArray, respectively. The positivity rates for HR-HPV with these two chips were significantly lower than 55.1% when HC2 was used. The sensitivity of overall HPV positivity in detecting histologically confirmed low-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions or higher was 88.7% for all three tests. The specificity was 58.5% for 9G and 61.5% for PANArray, which was significantly lower than the 72.3% for HC2. With the HR-HPV(+) genotype threshold, the sensitivity decreased to 75.5% for 9G and 52.8% for PANArray, which was significantly lower than the 88.7% for HC2. Comparison of the two chips showed concordant results in 55.1% of the samples, compatible results in 16.9%, and discordant results in 28.0%, exhibiting poor agreement in detecting  certain HPV genotypes. Compared with direct sequencing, 9G yielded no discordant results, whereas PANArray yielded 31 discordant results (26.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with HC2, the HPV genotyping tests showed lower sensitivity in histologic correlation. When the two chips were compared, the 9G was more sensitive and accurate for detecting HR-HPV than the PANArray.