BACKGROUND: We were interested in comparing the performance of Linear Array (LA; Roche Molecular Systems) to Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2; Digene) for the detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical precancer. METHODS: LA and hc2 results were compared on baseline specimens collected from women with an atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) Pap referred into ASCUS and Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (n = 3,488). hc2 was conducted at the time of the study on liquid cytology specimens. LA was conducted retrospectively on aliquots from a second, stored cervical specimen masked to the hc2 results and clinical data. Paired LA and hc2 results (n = 3,289; 94%) were compared for the detection of carcinogenic HPV (HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68) and 2-year cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade >or=3 as diagnosed by the quality-control pathology review. RESULTS: LA was more likely to test positive for carcinogenic HPV than hc2 (55% versus 53%; P = 0.001). For 2-year cumulative >or=CIN3, LA and hc2 had similar sensitivities (93.3% versus 92.6%, respectively; P = 1), and LA was marginally less specific than hc2 (48.1% versus 50.6%, respectively; P = 0.05). LA and hc2 had similar negative predictive values (98.70% versus 98.64% respectively; P = 0.4), and LA had a slightly lower positive predictive value than hc2 (14.6% versus 15.1%, respectively; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We observed that LA and hc2 performed similarly in the detection of carcinogenic HPV and identification of CIN3 among women with an ASCUS Pap.
BACKGROUND: We were interested in comparing the performance of Linear Array (LA; Roche Molecular Systems) to Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2; Digene) for the detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical precancer. METHODS: LA and hc2 results were compared on baseline specimens collected from women with an atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) Pap referred into ASCUS and Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (n = 3,488). hc2 was conducted at the time of the study on liquid cytology specimens. LA was conducted retrospectively on aliquots from a second, stored cervical specimen masked to the hc2 results and clinical data. Paired LA and hc2 results (n = 3,289; 94%) were compared for the detection of carcinogenic HPV (HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68) and 2-year cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade >or=3 as diagnosed by the quality-control pathology review. RESULTS: LA was more likely to test positive for carcinogenic HPV than hc2 (55% versus 53%; P = 0.001). For 2-year cumulative >or=CIN3, LA and hc2 had similar sensitivities (93.3% versus 92.6%, respectively; P = 1), and LA was marginally less specific than hc2 (48.1% versus 50.6%, respectively; P = 0.05). LA and hc2 had similar negative predictive values (98.70% versus 98.64% respectively; P = 0.4), and LA had a slightly lower positive predictive value than hc2 (14.6% versus 15.1%, respectively; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We observed that LA and hc2 performed similarly in the detection of carcinogenic HPV and identification of CIN3 among women with an ASCUS Pap.
Authors: K L Liaw; A G Glass; M M Manos; C E Greer; D R Scott; M Sherman; R D Burk; R J Kurman; S Wacholder; B B Rush; D M Cadell; P Lawler; D Tabor; M Schiffman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-06-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Harriet Richardson; Michal Abrahamowicz; Pierre-Paul Tellier; Gail Kelsall; Roxane du Berger; Alex Ferenczy; François Coutlée; Eduardo L Franco Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler; Diane Solomon; Mark Schiffman; Cheri L Peyton Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: J Cuzick; A Szarewski; H Cubie; G Hulman; H Kitchener; D Luesley; E McGoogan; U Menon; G Terry; R Edwards; C Brooks; M Desai; C Gie; L Ho; I Jacobs; C Pickles; P Sasieni Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-12-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas C Wright; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; J Thomas Cox; Francisco Garcia; Sue Goldie; Kenneth Hatch; Kenneth L Noller; Nancy Roach; Carolyn Runowicz; Debbie Saslow Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: F X Bosch; M M Manos; N Muñoz; M Sherman; A M Jansen; J Peto; M H Schiffman; V Moreno; R Kurman; K V Shah Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-06-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mark E Sherman; Attila T Lorincz; David R Scott; Sholom Wacholder; Philip E Castle; Andrew G Glass; Iwona Mielzynska-Lohnas; Brenda B Rush; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nancy E Joste; Brigitte M Ronnett; William C Hunt; Amanda Pearse; Erika Langsfeld; Thomas Leete; MaryAnn Jaramillo; Mark H Stoler; Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Julia C Gage; Mark Sadorra; Brandon J Lamere; Randi Kail; Carrie Aldrich; Walter Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cosette M Wheeler; William C Hunt; Jack Cuzick; Erika Langsfeld; Amanda Pearse; George D Montoya; Michael Robertson; Catherine A Shearman; Philip E Castle Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Qinghua Feng; Stephen Cherne; Rachel L Winer; Akhila Balasubramanian; Shu-Kuang Lee; Stephen E Hawes; Nancy B Kiviat; Laura A Koutsky Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Elissa Meites; Carol Lin; Elizabeth R Unger; Martin Steinau; Sonya Patel; Lauri E Markowitz; Susan Hariri Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Randy L Carter; Le Kang; Kathleen M Darcy; James Kauderer; Shu-Yuan Liao; William H Rodgers; Joan L Walker; Heather A Lankes; S Terence Dunn; Eric J Stanbridge Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: R Ibáñez; M Félez-Sánchez; J M Godínez; C Guardià; E Caballero; R Juve; N Combalia; B Bellosillo; D Cuevas; J Moreno-Crespi; L Pons; J Autonell; C Gutierrez; J Ordi; S de Sanjosé; I G Bravo Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Philip E Castle; Stephen Follansbee; Sylvia Borgonovo; Diane Tokugawa; Lauren M Schwartz; Thomas S Lorey; Brandon LaMere; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Teresa M Darragh; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 4.254