Yimin Ge1,2, Paul Christensen1, Eric Luna3, Donna Armylagos3, Jiaqiong Xu2,4, Mary R Schwartz1, Dina R Mody1,2. 1. Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX. 2. Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY. 3. BioReference Laboratories, Houston, TX. 4. Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and genotyping (GT) have been used in clinical risk assessment. The purpose of this study was to analyze the performance of 2 common HPV testing platforms in risk evaluation for high-grade cervical lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, a total of 4,562 Pap tests with follow-up biopsies in our laboratory database were analyzed along with HPV tests performed on Cobas (CHPV, n = 3,959) or Aptima (AHPV, n = 603) platforms. RESULTS: The sensitivity for biopsy-confirmed HSIL or worse lesions was 97% for both CHPV and AHPV (p = .75). AHPV showed significantly lower positive rates than CHPV in benign (56% vs 86%) or LSIL (66% vs 90%) biopsies, resulting in significantly higher specificity for HSIL or worse than CHPV (38% vs 12%, p < .001). AHPV demonstrated significantly higher positive predictive value for HSIL or worse (24% vs 16%, p < .001) and overall accuracy (48% vs 24%, p < .001) than CHPV. AHPV GT also had significantly higher specificity for biopsy-confirmed HSIL or worse than CHPV (88% vs 72%, p < .001) with comparable sensitivity (50% vs 51%, p = .75). Women with HPV 16 on AHPV were significantly more likely to have HSIL or worse on biopsies than those with HPV 16 on CHPV (likelihood ratio = 4.3 vs 2.0, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Although both AHPV and CHPV were highly sensitive for biopsy-confirmed HSIL or worse lesions, AHPV and GT demonstrated significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value than CHPV. The difference is probably related to E6/E7 overexpression after viral DNA integration in high-grade lesions. The significantly higher specificity and overall accuracy of AHPV and GT for HSIL or worse lesions may be useful in clinical risk management.
OBJECTIVE:Human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and genotyping (GT) have been used in clinical risk assessment. The purpose of this study was to analyze the performance of 2 common HPV testing platforms in risk evaluation for high-grade cervical lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, a total of 4,562 Pap tests with follow-up biopsies in our laboratory database were analyzed along with HPV tests performed on Cobas (CHPV, n = 3,959) or Aptima (AHPV, n = 603) platforms. RESULTS: The sensitivity for biopsy-confirmed HSIL or worse lesions was 97% for both CHPV and AHPV (p = .75). AHPV showed significantly lower positive rates than CHPV in benign (56% vs 86%) or LSIL (66% vs 90%) biopsies, resulting in significantly higher specificity for HSIL or worse than CHPV (38% vs 12%, p < .001). AHPV demonstrated significantly higher positive predictive value for HSIL or worse (24% vs 16%, p < .001) and overall accuracy (48% vs 24%, p < .001) than CHPV. AHPV GT also had significantly higher specificity for biopsy-confirmed HSIL or worse than CHPV (88% vs 72%, p < .001) with comparable sensitivity (50% vs 51%, p = .75). Women with HPV 16 on AHPV were significantly more likely to have HSIL or worse on biopsies than those with HPV 16 on CHPV (likelihood ratio = 4.3 vs 2.0, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Although both AHPV and CHPV were highly sensitive for biopsy-confirmed HSIL or worse lesions, AHPV and GT demonstrated significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value than CHPV. The difference is probably related to E6/E7 overexpression after viral DNA integration in high-grade lesions. The significantly higher specificity and overall accuracy of AHPV and GT for HSIL or worse lesions may be useful in clinical risk management.
Authors: Gypsyamber D'Souza; Gwendolyn Clemens; Tanya Troy; Rachel G Castillo; Linda Struijk; Tim Waterboer; Noemi Bender; Phillip M Pierorazio; Simon R Best; Howard Strickler; Dorothy J Wiley; Robert I Haddad; Marshall Posner; Carole Fakhry Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: Ana Cristina L Macedo; João Carlos N Gonçalves; Daniela Vicente Bavaresco; Antonio José Grande; Napoleão Chiaramonte Silva; Maria Inês Rosa Journal: J Oncol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.375