| Literature DB >> 32562292 |
Anne J M Loonen1,2, Cornelis J J Huijsmans1, Willemina R R Geurts-Giele3, Cindy Leeijen1, Johannes C van der Linden1, Adriaan J C van den Brule1.
Abstract
Primary high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing has been introduced in several countries worldwide, including The Netherlands. The objective of this study was to compare 3 automated workflow procedures for hrHPV testing of which the hrHPV detection assays meet the international guidelines for HPV testing. To mimic a realistic screening situation, we aimed to process 15,000 residual PreservCyt cervical samples in a period of 3 months. During a 3 months-period, 4 technicians were involved in processing 5,000 specimens per month on 3 automated platforms, 1) Qiagen Digene® HC2 HPV DNA test (HC2, signal amplification); 2) Roche Cobas® HPV test (DNA amplification) and 3) Hologic Aptima® HPV test (RNA amplification). We measured and scored general aspects (time-to-results, hands-on-time (HOT)), maintenance, pre-run, run and post-run aspects, inventory (orders, storage) and number of errors on a scale from 1-10. As determined for 1 complete workflow each, maximum processing capacity and HOT were 296 samples and 2h:55m, 282 samples and 3h:20m and 264 samples and 4h:15m for Aptima, Cobas and HC2, respectively. The mean throughput time per run was 5h:51m for Cobas in which 94 samples could be processed. For Aptima the mean throughput time per run was 6h:30m for 60 samples. Mean throughput time for HC2 is longer since results were provided on day 2. In this study, the fully automated Aptima workflow scores best with a 7.2, followed by Cobas with a score of 7.1 and HC2 with a score of 5.8. Although all HPV tests used in this comparison meet the international test guidelines, the performance (workflow) characteristics of the assays vary widely. A specific choice of a lab for high throughput testing can be different based on the labs demands, but also hands-on-time, time-to-results / # samples, maintenance, pre-run, run and post-run parameters, consumables, technical support and number of errors are important operational factors for the selection of a fully automated workflow for hrHPV testing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: automation; hrHPV testing; performance analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32562292 DOI: 10.1111/apm.13064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: APMIS ISSN: 0903-4641 Impact factor: 3.205