Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Several new assays have been developed for high-risk HPV testing of cervical samples; we compare six HPV tests in a screening population.Methods
Residual material from liquid-based PreservCyt samples was assayed. Four tests (Hybrid Capture 2, Cobas, Abbott and Becton-Dickinson (BD)) measured HPV DNA while two used RNA (APTIMA and NorChip).Results
Positivity rates ranged from 13.4 to 16.3% for the DNA-based tests with a significantly lower positivity rate for the Abbott assay. The Gen-Probe APTIMA assay was positive in 10.3% of women, which was significantly lower than all the DNA tests; the NorChip PreTect HPV-Proofer test was much lower at 5.2%. 40 CIN2+ cases were identified, of which 19 were CIN3+. All CIN3+ cases were HPV positive by all tests except for one, which was negative by the Abbott assay and five which were negative by the NorChip test.Conclusion
All HPV tests except NorChip showed high sensitivity for high-grade lesions positive by cytology, suggesting co-testing is unnecessary when using HPV tests. Positivity rates in cytology-negative specimens were similar for the DNA-based tests, but lower for the APTIMA test suggesting this maintains the high sensitivity of DNA tests, but with better specificity.
SUBMITTER: Cuzick J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3590662 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population.
Cuzick J J Cadman L L Mesher D D Austin J J Ashdown-Barr L L Ho L L Terry G G Liddle S S Wright C C Lyons D D Szarewski A A
British journal of cancer 20130131 4
<h4>Background</h4>Several new assays have been developed for high-risk HPV testing of cervical samples; we compare six HPV tests in a screening population.<h4>Methods</h4>Residual material from liquid-based PreservCyt samples was assayed. Four tests (Hybrid Capture 2, Cobas, Abbott and Becton-Dickinson (BD)) measured HPV DNA while two used RNA (APTIMA and NorChip).<h4>Results</h4>Positivity rates ranged from 13.4 to 16.3% for the DNA-based tests with a significantly lower positivity rate for th ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is highly sensitive compared to cytology, with the trade-off of being less specific. We investigated whether select combinations of HPV genotypes, ascertained by Linear Array (LA) and Xpert HPV (GX), can optimize sensitivity/specificity trade-offs to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). In a study in Cape Town, South Africa, 586 women living without and 535 living with HIV, aged 30-65 years, were recruited. Each woman underwent a pelvic exam to collect cervical samples (tested by LA and GX for 14 high-risk HPV genotypes) and underwent colposcopy with histological sampling to determine CIN2+. In multivariable logistic regression of LA results, only HPV genotypes 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 52, 58 were significantly associated with CIN2+ (P < .05). Xpert includes these seven types along with HPV 45 within three of the test's five channels and we defined these eight types as restricted genotyping (ie 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58). Full genotyping was defined as all 14 high-risk types. Sensitivity estimates for full genotyping using LA were similar to that of restricted genotyping: 83.9% (full) vs 79.0% (restricted) in women without HIV and 93.0% (full) vs 88.9% (restricted) in women living with HIV. Specificity estimates improved for restricted vs full genotyping: 87.4% (full) vs 90.8% (restricted) in women without HIV and 63.7% (full) vs 71.4% (restricted) in women living with HIV. To optimize the performance of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in high-burden, under-resourced settings like South Africa, only HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58 could be included to define screen-positive. We recommend the inclusion of HPV45 for its known link to adenocarcinoma.
| S-EPMC7520316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing has become a preferred cervical cancer screening. However, most HPV infections are harmless and additional tests are required to screen HPV positive women. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal triage strategies for HPV positive women in China's rural population.MethodsA population-based screening was performed at seven rural counties of Jiangxi province, between October 2014 to January 2016. A total of 18,000 women aged 35-64 years were enrolled in this study. The primary screening was performed using CareHPV, HC-2, Cobas ®4,800 or HybriMax. Positive women were further screened with five triage tests: (1) Liquid-based cytology test (LBC); (2) conventional Pap cytology test (Pap smear); (3) HPV16, 18 detection; (4) viral load; and (5) visual inspection with acetic acid and Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI). Women who were tested positive were referred for colposcopy. The five triage tests were compared with respect to sensitivity, specificity, referral rate, cost and diagnostic time.ResultsComplete data were available for 17,782 women. The HPV prevalence was 13.6%. Referral rates for colposcopy were 4.5%, 2.8%, 2.8%, 6.6%, and 3.7% with LBC, Pap smear, HPV16/18, viral load, and VIA/VILI, respectively. The sensitivity of the above triage tests was 65.8%, 51.9%, 86.8%, 73.3%, and 41.7%, respectively. The specificity was 69.8%, 81.0%, 85.8%, 52.2% and 65.3%, respectively. The average time to diagnosis was significantly lower with HPV16/18, viral load and VIA/VILI than LBC and Pap smear. In addition, screening cost that leads to identify one HSIL+ woman was the lowest with viral load.ConclusionOur data indicate that HPV16/18 and viral load are the optimal triage strategies for HPV screening in China's rural population.
| S-EPMC6927345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective.MethodsThe previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG.ResultsAmong the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy.ConclusionsThis study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.
| S-EPMC7850547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScreening instruments for mental disorders need to be short, engaging, and valid. Current screening instruments are usually questionnaire-based and may be opaque to the user. A prototype approach where individuals identify with a description of an individual with typical symptoms of depression, anxiety, social phobia or panic may be a shorter, faster and more acceptable method for screening. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of four new prototype screeners for predicting depression and anxiety disorders and to compare their performance with existing scales.MethodsShort and ultra-short prototypes were developed for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Panic Disorder (PD) and Social Phobia (SP). Prototypes were compared to typical short and ultra-short self-report screening scales, such as the Centre for Epidemiology Scale, CES-D and the GAD-7, and their short forms. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) version 6 1 was used as the gold standard for obtaining clinical criteria through a telephone interview. From a population sample, 225 individuals who endorsed a prototype and 101 who did not were administered the MINI. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for the short and ultra short prototypes and for the short and ultra short screening scales.ResultsThe study found that the rates of endorsement of the prototypes were commensurate with prevalence estimates. The short-form and ultra short scales outperformed the short and ultra short prototypes for every disorder except GAD, where the GAD prototype outperformed the GAD 7.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that people may be able to self-identify generalised anxiety more accurately than depression based on a description of a prototypical case. However, levels of identification were lower than expected. Considerable benefits from this method of screening may ensue if our prototypes can be improved for Major Depressive Disorder, Social Phobia and Panic Disorder.
| S-EPMC3235985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays offer a rapid mean to diagnose and isolate infected individuals. However, their utility in population-level screening is unknown. Objectives: The performance of two antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was assessed among individuals randomly selected in the community. Study Design: A prospective study that performed head-to-head comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays. Individuals were recruited during community SARS-CoV-2 screening over 10 working days. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test, a point-of-care chromatographic assay, was conducted immediately, and then the sample was transported to the virology laboratory to perform PCR and the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminesence immunoassay. Results: respiratory samples from 991 individuals were collected, and 62 were positive by PCR. Inconclusive PCR results were observed in 19 samples and were excluded. The median age of participants was 40.2 years (IQR 32.3-47.8), and 932 (94%) were males. Most (77.4%) of infections were asymptomatic. The sensitivity and the specificity of the LIAISON assay were 43.3% (95%CI 30.6-56.8) and 99.9% (95%CI 99.3-100). The Standard Q assay had lower sensitivity (30.6%, 95%CI 19.6-43.7) but similar specificity (98.8%, 95%CI, 97.8-99.4). Similarly, the LIAISON assay had higher positive predictive value (96.3%, 95%CI 81-99.9% vs. 63.3%, 95%CI, 43.9-80.1%). Both assays performed better in symptomatic patients and among samples with a low-cycle threshold (Ct < 25). Conclusion: In our setting of random community surveillance, rapid antigen testing of nasopharyngeal swabs by either LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag (DiaSorin) or Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor) was less sensitive to detecting SARS-CoV-2 than the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR.
| S-EPMC8733308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTwo transport media, PreservCyt and SurePath, are widely used for cervical cytology screening. There are concerns that they may perform differently for HPV testing.ObjectivesA comparison of the performance of six different HPV tests in SurePath and PreservCyt in a referral population using two samples from each woman. The primary goal was to compare the performance of each test in the two media. Comparisons between assays and viral load comparisons between media were secondary aims.Study designTwo cervical samples were collected in random order at the same visit in women with abnormal cytology. One sample was placed in 20ml of PreservCyt and the other in 10ml of SurePath. Aliquots were taken for 4 DNA based tests: digene HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test, Abbott Realtime, BD Onclarity and Genera PapType, an RNA based test-: Hologic Aptima and a protein test: OncoHealth.Results630 sample pairs were included in the analyses. For all tests except the protein test sensitivities were in excess of 90% for CIN2+ and 95% for CIN3+ for both media and with no significant differences except for a lower sensitivity for CIN2+ of Aptima in SurePath (93% vs 98%, P=0.005). Specificity for <CIN2 was significantly better in Surepath for HC2, RealTime and Aptima, and generally lower relative signal strengths were seen with SurePath except for Onclarity, especially when it was the second sample.ConclusionsWe found similar sensitivity for CIN3+ in PreservCyt and SurePath for 5 nucleic acid tests in the two media in a referral population, but signal strength and positivity rates were lower in SurePath except for the Onclarity test. These results need to be replicated in a screening population.
| S-EPMC4994427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main risk factor associated with the development of cervical cancer (CC); however, there are other factors, such as immunosuppression caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), that favor progression of the illness. This study was thus aimed at evaluating the functionality of classical PCR-based molecular tests for the generic identification of HPV DNA (GP5+/GP6+, MY09/MY11, and pU1M/2R primers, individually or in combination) using cervical and urine samples from 194 HIV-positive women. Infected samples were tested with type-specific primers for six high-risk types (HPV-16, -18, -31, -33, -45, and -58) and two low-risk types (HPV-6 and -11). HPV infection prevalence rates were 70.1% for the cervical samples and 63.9% for the urine samples. HPV-16 was the most prevalent viral type in the cervical and urine samples, with higher rates of multiple infections than single infections detected in such samples. HPV DNA detection by PCR (mainly with the pU1M/2R primer set) in urine samples was positively associated with abnormal cytological findings (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/squamous intraepithelial lesions [ASCUS/SIL]). It was determined that the operative characteristics for detection of cytological abnormalities were similar for cervical and urine samples. This suggested using PCR for the detection of HPV DNA in urine samples as a potential screening strategy for CC prevention in future prevention and control programs along with currently implemented strategies for reducing the impact of the disease, i.e., urine samples are economical, are easy to collect, have wide acceptability among women, and have operative characteristics similar to those of cervical samples.
| S-EPMC3889752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSerological screening tests play a crucial role to diagnose gambiense human African trypanosomiasis (gHAT). Presently, they preselect individuals for microscopic confirmation, but in future "screen and treat" strategies they will identify individuals for treatment. Variability in reported specificities, the development of new rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and the hypothesis that malaria infection may decrease RDT specificity led us to evaluate the specificity of 5 gHAT screening tests.MethodsDuring active screening, venous blood samples from 1095 individuals from Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea were tested consecutively with commercial (CATT, HAT Sero-K-SeT, Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0) and prototype (DCN HAT RDT, HAT Sero-K-SeT 2.0) gHAT screening tests and with a malaria RDT. Individuals with ≥ 1 positive gHAT screening test underwent microscopy and further immunological (trypanolysis with T.b. gambiense LiTat 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6; indirect ELISA/T.b. gambiense; T.b. gambiense inhibition ELISA with T.b. gambiense LiTat 1.3 and 1.5 VSG) and molecular reference laboratory tests (PCR TBRN3, 18S and TgsGP; SHERLOCK 18S Tids, 7SL Zoon, and TgsGP; Trypanozoon S2-RT-qPCR 18S2, 177T, GPI-PLC and TgsGP in multiplex; RT-qPCR DT8, DT9 and TgsGP in multiplex). Microscopic trypanosome detection confirmed gHAT, while other individuals were considered gHAT free. Differences in fractions between groups were assessed by Chi square and differences in specificity between 2 tests on the same individuals by McNemar.ResultsOne gHAT case was diagnosed. Overall test specificities (n = 1094) were: CATT 98.9% (95% CI: 98.1-99.4%); HAT Sero-K-SeT 86.7% (95% CI: 84.5-88.5%); Bioline HAT 2.0 82.1% (95% CI: 79.7-84.2%); DCN HAT RDT 78.2% (95% CI: 75.7-80.6%); and HAT Sero-K-SeT 2.0 78.4% (95% CI: 75.9-80.8%). In malaria positives, gHAT screening tests appeared less specific, but the difference was significant only in Guinea for Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 (P = 0.03) and HAT Sero-K-Set 2.0 (P = 0.0006). The specificities of immunological and molecular laboratory tests in gHAT seropositives were 98.7-100% (n = 399) and 93.0-100% (n = 302), respectively. Among 44 reference laboratory test positives, only the confirmed gHAT patient and one screening test seropositive combined immunological and molecular reference laboratory test positivity.ConclusionsAlthough a minor effect of malaria cannot be excluded, gHAT RDT specificities are far below the 95% minimal specificity stipulated by the WHO target product profile for a simple diagnostic tool to identify individuals eligible for treatment. Unless specificity is improved, an RDT-based "screen and treat" strategy would result in massive overtreatment. In view of their inconsistent results, additional comparative evaluations of the diagnostic performance of reference laboratory tests are indicated for better identifying, among screening test positives, those at increased suspicion for gHAT.Trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered under NCT05466630 in clinicaltrials.gov on July 15 2022.
| S-EPMC11229219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the trade-off between the sensitivity and the specificity for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at hybrid capture 2 cut-off values above the standard ≥ 1 relative light units/cut-off level (rlu/co).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials in primary cervical screening using hybrid capture 2 testing in the intervention arms. Articles published until August 2010 were included if the numbers of women with positive test results and with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were stratified by hybrid capture 2 cut-off levels.ParticipantsWomen in the baseline screening rounds of the trials.InterventionsHybrid capture 2 screening in the baseline round including the diagnostic follow-up as practised in the randomised controlled trials and as reported by hybrid capture 2 cut-off values.ResultsOwing to heterogeneity in the trials, meta-analysis was not possible. Including cut-off values up to ≥ 10 rlu/co, 25 observation points were available for analysis. The relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III or higher at cut-off levels of ≥ 2, ≥ 4 or ≥ 5, and ≥ 10 rlu/co compared with a cut-off level of ≥ 1 rlu/co varied by trial, but at their lowest they were 0.97, 0.92, and 0.91, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II or higher. The specificity would increase by at least 1%, 2%, and 3%, respectively, so that up to 24%, 39%, and 53%, of positive hybrid capture 2 test results not associated with high grade neoplasia could be avoided. Only two outliers existed to this general pattern.ConclusionsAlthough the data were derived from the baseline screening rounds only, the decrease in the sensitivity for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using a hybrid capture 2 cut-off level between ≥ 2 rlu/co and ≥ 10 rlu/co seemed acceptable given the international recommendations for testing for human papillomavirus DNA in cervical screening, which require 90% or more sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II or higher compared with hybrid capture 2 at ≥ 1 rlu/co. The data suggest that the hybrid capture 2 cut-off level could be increased in primary screening; this seems reasonably safe and is significantly less burdensome for women.
| S-EPMC3099543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing could reduce barriers to cervical cancer screening, with performance comparable to clinician-collected specimens. The ability of self-collected specimens to cross-sectionally and prospectively detect precursor lesions was investigated in an HPV vaccine randomized trial in Costa Rica.MethodsIn the trial, 7466 women age 18 to 25 years received an HPV16/18 or control vaccine and were followed at least annually for four years. In this secondary analysis, we included all women who provided a self-collected cervicovaginal specimen six months after enrollment (5109 women = full analytical cohort). A subset (615 women = restricted cohort) also had clinician-collected specimens at the six-month postenrollment visit. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or repeat low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion prompted colposcopic referral throughout the study. HPV testing was performed with SPF10PCR/DEIA/LiPA25. Cross-sectional and prospective sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were estimated.ResultsIn the full cohort, one-time HPV testing on self-collected samples detected prevalent CIN2+ with a sensitivity of 88.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] =77.0% to 95.7%) and a specificity of 68.9% (95% CI = 67.6% to 70.1%). For predicting incident CIN2+ in the subsequent four years, sensitivity was 73.9% (95% CI = 65.8% to 81.0%) and specificity 69.4% (95% CI = 68.1% to 70.7%). In the restricted cohort, for incident CIN2+, self-collected HPV was much more sensitive than cytology (80.0% vs 10.0%); relative sensitivity was 0.1 (95% CI = 0.03% to 0.5%). Furthermore, three times more women with normal baseline cytology developed incident CIN2+ than those with negative self-collected HPV. Self-collected and clinician-collected HPV testing had comparable performance. Agreement between self- and clinician-collected samples was 89.7% (kappa = 0.78, McNemar χ2 = 0.62) for carcinogenic HPV types.ConclusionsSelf-collected specimens can be used for HPV-based screening, providing sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected specimens and detecting disease earlier than cytology.
| S-EPMC4271079 | biostudies-literature