Hesselink A T, van Ham M A P C, Heideman D A M, Groothuismink Z M A, Rozendaal L, Berkhof J, van Kemenade F J, Massuger L A F G, Melchers W J G, Meijer C J L M, Snijders P J F
Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, de Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Oct;46(10):3215-21. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00476-08. Epub 2008 Aug 6.
Using a case control approach, we performed a two-way comparison study between GP5+/6+-PCR and HPV SPF(10)-Line Blot 25 (SPF(10)) assays for detection of 14 types of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) in samples from women with normal cytology results who had or developed grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 3). Samples were pooled from two cohorts, i.e., women participating in population-based screening and women attending a gynecological outpatient clinic. Cases (n = 45) were women with histologically confirmed CIN 3 diagnosed within a median follow-up time of 2.7 (range, 0.2 to 7.9) years. Control samples were from women (n = 264) who had developed CIN 1 lesions at maximum (median follow-up at 5.8 [range, 0 to 10] years). Identical numbers of cases tested positive for 1 or more of the 14 hrHPV types by both systems (40/45; McNemar; P = 1.0). Conversely, SPF(10) scored significantly more controls as hrHPV positive than did GP5+/6+-PCR (95/264 versus 29/264; McNemar; P < 0.001). Consequently, women with normal cytology results and an hrHPV GP5+/6+-PCR-positive test exhibited a risk of CIN 3 that was 4.5 times higher (odds ratio [OR], 65; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 24 to 178) than that seen for women with an hrHPV-positive SPF(10) test (OR, 14; 95%CI, 5 to 38)). Similar results were obtained after analysis of both cohorts separately. Discrepancy analysis by viral load assessment for the most common discordant hrHPV types (HPV16, -18, and -52) showed that samples which were SPF(10) positive only for these types had viral loads significantly lower than those for samples that were positive by both assays (analysis of variance; P < or = 0.006). Our data indicate that GP5+/6+-PCR has a better clinical performance than SPF(10) for women who are diagnosed with CIN 3 after prior normal cytology results. The extra positivity scored by SPF(10) mainly involved infections characterized by low viral loads that do not result in CIN 3.
采用病例对照方法,我们对GP5+/6+-PCR和HPV SPF(10)-线性印迹25法(SPF(10))进行了双向比较研究,以检测细胞学结果正常但已发生或后来发生3级宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN 3)的女性样本中的14种高危型人乳头瘤病毒(hrHPV)。样本来自两个队列,即参与基于人群筛查的女性和就诊于妇科门诊的女性。病例组(n = 45)为组织学确诊为CIN 3的女性,中位随访时间为2.7年(范围0.2至7.9年)。对照组样本来自最多发生CIN 1病变的女性(n = 264)(中位随访时间为5.8年[范围0至10年])。两个系统检测14种hrHPV类型中1种或更多种呈阳性的病例数相同(40/45;McNemar检验;P = 1.0)。相反,与GP5+/6+-PCR相比,SPF(10)将更多对照组判定为hrHPV阳性(95/264对29/264;McNemar检验;P < 0.001)。因此,细胞学结果正常且hrHPV GP5+/6+-PCR检测呈阳性的女性发生CIN 3的风险比hrHPV SPF(10)检测呈阳性的女性高4.5倍(优势比[OR],65;95%置信区间[95%CI],24至178)(OR,14;95%CI,5至38)。分别对两个队列进行分析后得到了类似结果。对最常见的不一致hrHPV类型(HPV16、-18和-52)进行病毒载量评估的差异分析表明,仅这些类型SPF(10)呈阳性的样本的病毒载量显著低于两种检测均呈阳性的样本(方差分析;P ≤ 0.006)。我们的数据表明,对于先前细胞学结果正常后被诊断为CIN 3的女性,GP5+/6+-PCR比SPF(10)具有更好的临床性能。SPF(10)额外判定为阳性的情况主要涉及病毒载量低且不会导致CIN 3的感染。