| Literature DB >> 28097135 |
Taek Soo Kim1, Mi Suk Lim2, Yun Ji Hong2, Sang Mee Hwang2, Kyoung Un Park3, Junghan Song3, Eui-Chong Kim4.
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is an important etiologic factor in cervical carcinogenesis. Various HPV DNA detection methods have been evaluated for clinicopathological level. For the specimens with normal cytological finding, discrepancies among the detection methods were frequently found and adequate interpretation can be difficult. 6,322 clinical specimens were submitted and evaluated for real-time PCR and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2). 573 positive or "Not Detected but Amplified" (NDBA) specimens by real-time PCR were additionally tested using genetic analyzer. For the reliability of real-time PCR, 325 retests were performed. Optimal cut-off cycle threshold (CT ) value was evaluated also. 78.7% of submitted specimens showed normal or nonspecific cytological finding. The distributions of HPV types by real-time PCR were not different between positive and NDBA cases. For positive cases by fragment analysis, concordance rates with real-time PCR and HC2 were 94.2% and 84.2%. In NDBA cases, fragment analysis and real-time PCR showed identical results in 77.0% and HC2 revealed 27.6% of concordance with fragment analysis. Optimal cut-off CT value was different for HPV types. NDBA results in real-time PCR should be regarded as equivocal, not negative. The adjustment of cut-off CT value for HPV types will be helpful for the appropriate result interpretation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28097135 PMCID: PMC5209590 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5170419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Distribution of high risk HPV types for positive and NDBA results by real-time PCR.
| Type 16 | Type 18 | HRC | Type 16 & HRC | Type 18 & HRC | Types 16 & 18 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | 55 | 33 | 482 | 12 | 10 | 1 | 593 |
|
| 25.1 | 26.5 | 25.6 | 25.0/26.9 | 25.2/25.4 | 24.1/23.2 | |
| NDBA | 19 | 21 | 167 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 221 |
|
| 34.6 | 34.9 | 34.0 | 34.6/34.3 | 35.5/34.0 | — |
Result comparison of real-time PCR with HC2 and fragment analysis.
| Real-time PCR | HC2 | Fragment analysis | Total | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Error | Type 16 | Type 18 | HRCa | Type 16 & HRC | Type 18 & HRC | Types 16 & 18 | Not tested | Not detected | |||
| Positive | Type 16 | 40 (72.7%) | 14 | 1 | 39 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 55 |
| Type 18 | 22 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 33 | |
| HRC | 395 (82.0%) | 86 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 375 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 38 | 53 | 482 | |
| Type 16 & HRC | 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | |
| Type 18 & HRC | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | |
| Types 16 & 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Total | 479 | 111 | 3 | 46 | 24 | 380 | 27 | 8 | 1 | 48 | 59 | 593 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| NDBA | Type 16 | 4 | 15 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 19 |
| Type 18 | 8 | 13 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 14 | 21 | |
| HRC | 34 | 127 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 58 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 103 | 167 | |
| Type 16 & HRC | 0 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 9 | |
| Type 18 & HRC | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | |
| Types 16 & 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 46 | 169 | 6 | 13 | 1 | 68 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 130 | 221 | |
aHigh risk common.
Result comparison of fragment analysis with real-time PCR and HC2 in positive results with real-time PCR.
| Fragment analysis | Real-time PCR | HC2 | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type 16 | Type 18 | HRCa | Type 16 & HRC | Type 18 & HRC | Types 16 & 18 | Positive | Negative | Error | ||
| Type 16 | 39 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 14 | 1 | 46 |
| Type 18 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 24 |
| HRC | 1 | 1 | 375 (98.7%) | 1 | 2 | 0 | 331 | 48 | 1 | 380 |
| Type 16 & HRC | 8 | 0 | 12 | 7 (25.9%) | 0 | 0 | 22 | 5 | 0 | 27 |
| Type 18 & HRC | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Types 16 & 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 48 | 25 | 391 | 12 | 9 | 1 | 409 | 74 | 3 | 486 |
aHigh risk common.
Result comparison of fragment analysis with real-time PCR and HC2 in NDBA results with real-time PCR.
| Fragment analysis | Real-time PCR | HC2 | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type 16 | Type 18 | HRCa | Type 16 & HRC | Type 18 & HRC | Types 16 & 18 | Positive | Negative | Error | ||
| Type 16 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 (23.1%) | 9 | 1 | 13 |
| Type 18 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| HRC | 6 | 2 | 58 (84.1%) | 2 | 1 | 0 | 21 (30.4%) | 44 | 4 | 69 |
| Type 16 & HRC | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Type 18 & HRC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Types 16 & 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 14 | 5 | 62 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 24 | 58 | 5 | 87 |
aHigh risk common.
Comparison of four cut-off C values in real-time PCR to fragment analysis for detection of high risk HPV (n = 763).
| HPV type | Cut-off | Number of specimens with results | % Sensitivity | % Specificity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPb | FPc | TNd | FNe | ||||
| 16 | 31 | 54 | 2 | 671 | 36 | 60.0 | 99.7 |
| 32 | 59 | 2 | 671 | 31 | 65.6 | 99.7 | |
| 33 | 62 | 2 | 671 | 28 | 68.9 | 99.7 | |
| 34 | 65 | 6 | 667 | 25 | 72.2 | 99.1 | |
|
| |||||||
| 18 | 31 | 31 | 7 | 721 | 4 | 88.6 | 99.0 |
| 32 | 32 | 9 | 713 | 3 | 91.4 | 98.8 | |
| 33 | 33 | 10 | 718 | 2 | 94.3 | 98.6 | |
| 34 | 33 | 12 | 716 | 2 | 94.3 | 98.4 | |
|
| |||||||
| HRCa | 31 | 369 | 49 | 218 | 127 | 74.4 | 81.6 |
| 32 | 403 | 62 | 205 | 93 | 81.3 | 76.8 | |
| 33 | 424 | 81 | 186 | 72 | 85.5 | 69.7 | |
| 34 | 447 | 107 | 160 | 49 | 90.1 | 59.9 | |
aHigh risk common.
bTrue positive.
cFalse positive.
dTrue negative.
eFalse negative.
Figure 1Difference plot in real-time PCR results for detection of specific HPV type. (a) Type 16: 43 specimens. (b) Type 18: 15 specimens. (c) High risk common: 265 specimens.