Yong Kwan Lim1, Jee-Hye Choi1, Serah Park1, Oh Joo Kweon1, Ae Ja Park2. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ajcp@unitel.co.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-risk type human papilloma virus (HPV) is the most important cause of cervical cancer. Recently, real-time polymerase chain reaction and reverse blot hybridization assay-based HPV DNA genotyping kits are developed. So, we compared the performances of different three HPV genotyping kits using different analytical principles and methods. METHODS: Two hundred positive and 100 negative cervical swab specimens were used. DNA was extracted and all samples were tested by the MolecuTech REBA HPV-ID, Anyplex II HPV28 Detection, and HPVDNAChip. Direct sequencing was performed as a reference method for confirming high-risk HPV genotypes 16, 18, 45, 52, and 58. RESULTS: Although high-level agreement results were observed in negative samples, three kits showed decreased interassay agreement as screening setting in positive samples. Comparing the genotyping results, three assays showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity for the detection of HPV 16 and 18. Otherwise, various sensitivities showed in the detection of HPV 45, 52, and 58. CONCLUSIONS: The three assays had dissimilar performance of HPV screening capacity and exhibited moderate level of concordance in HPV genotyping. These discrepant results were unavoidable due to difference in type-specific analytical sensitivity and lack of standardization; therefore, we suggested that the efforts to standardization of HPV genotyping kits and adjusting analytical sensitivity would be important for the best clinical performance.
BACKGROUND: High-risk type human papilloma virus (HPV) is the most important cause of cervical cancer. Recently, real-time polymerase chain reaction and reverse blot hybridization assay-based HPV DNA genotyping kits are developed. So, we compared the performances of different three HPV genotyping kits using different analytical principles and methods. METHODS: Two hundred positive and 100 negative cervical swab specimens were used. DNA was extracted and all samples were tested by the MolecuTech REBAHPV-ID, Anyplex II HPV28 Detection, and HPVDNAChip. Direct sequencing was performed as a reference method for confirming high-risk HPV genotypes 16, 18, 45, 52, and 58. RESULTS: Although high-level agreement results were observed in negative samples, three kits showed decreased interassay agreement as screening setting in positive samples. Comparing the genotyping results, three assays showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity for the detection of HPV 16 and 18. Otherwise, various sensitivities showed in the detection of HPV 45, 52, and 58. CONCLUSIONS: The three assays had dissimilar performance of HPV screening capacity and exhibited moderate level of concordance in HPV genotyping. These discrepant results were unavoidable due to difference in type-specific analytical sensitivity and lack of standardization; therefore, we suggested that the efforts to standardization of HPV genotyping kits and adjusting analytical sensitivity would be important for the best clinical performance.
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Silvia de Sanjose; Wim Gv Quint; Laia Alemany; Daan T Geraets; Jo Ellen Klaustermeier; Belen Lloveras; Sara Tous; Ana Felix; Luis Eduardo Bravo; Hai-Rim Shin; Carlos S Vallejos; Patricia Alonso de Ruiz; Marcus Aurelho Lima; Nuria Guimera; Omar Clavero; Maria Alejo; Antonio Llombart-Bosch; Chou Cheng-Yang; Silvio Alejandro Tatti; Elena Kasamatsu; Ermina Iljazovic; Michael Odida; Rodrigo Prado; Muhieddine Seoud; Magdalena Grce; Alp Usubutun; Asha Jain; Gustavo Adolfo Hernandez Suarez; Luis Estuardo Lombardi; Aekunbiola Banjo; Clara Menéndez; Efrén Javier Domingo; Julio Velasco; Ashrafun Nessa; Saibua C Bunnag Chichareon; You Lin Qiao; Enrique Lerma; Suzanne M Garland; Toshiyuki Sasagawa; Annabelle Ferrera; Doudja Hammouda; Luciano Mariani; Adela Pelayo; Ivo Steiner; Esther Oliva; Chris Jlm Meijer; Waleed Fahad Al-Jassar; Eugenia Cruz; Thomas C Wright; Ana Puras; Cecilia Ladines Llave; Maria Tzardi; Theodoros Agorastos; Victoria Garcia-Barriola; Christine Clavel; Jaume Ordi; Miguel Andújar; Xavier Castellsagué; Gloria I Sánchez; Andrzej Marcin Nowakowski; Jacob Bornstein; Nubia Muñoz; F Xavier Bosch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David Mesher; Kate Cuschieri; Sam Hibbitts; Jackie Jamison; Alex Sargent; Kevin G Pollock; Ned Powell; Robbie Wilson; Fiona McCall; Alison Fiander; Kate Soldan Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: L Golfetto; E V Alves; T R Martins; T C M Sincero; J B S Castro; C Dannebrock; J G Oliveira; J E Levi; A S C Onofre; M L Bazzo Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 2.590