Morris B J, Rose B R, Flanagan J L, McKinnon K J, Loo C Y, Thompson C H, Flampoulidou M, Ford R M, Hunter J C, Nightingale B N
Department of Physiology, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
J Med Virol. 1990 Sep;32(1):22-30. doi: 10.1002/jmv.1890320105.
The aim of the present study was to compare the recently developed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique with conventional dot-blot DNA hybridization for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection. Cells were collected by cervicovaginal lavage from a study group of 109 women attending a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Using a machine that we developed for alternation of temperature cycles, HPV was detected in 51% of patients by PCR. By dot-blot hybridization, 44% of the patients were positive. Concordance of combined positive and negative results between PCR and dot blot was 69%. The greater sensitivity of PCR may have accounted for 19% of specimens that were PCR positive but dot-blot negative. Unexpectedly, however, 12% of specimens were dot-blot positive but negative by PCR, and several specimens were discordant for type of HPV. Both HPV DNA tests agreed with cytology in 41% of women, and in 33% cytology was negative in the face of positive PCR and dot blot. Concordance of cytology with just PCR was 59%, and only with dot blot was 56%. Cervicography agreed with both HPV DNA tests in 41% of patients, with PCR alone in 55%, and with dot blot alone in 58%. Biopsy results did not reveal a strong correlation between histopathological criteria of HPV infection and detection of HPV DNA by either PCR or dot-blot hybridization. Thus the present study has shown that PCR is a slightly more sensitive indicator of HPV infection than dot-blot hybridization. Agreement of HPV DNA results with conventional screening tests was not strong, an observation consistent with many comparative studies by others. In conclusion, PCR is slightly more sensitive than DNA hybridization for detection of HPV, it can be used in conjunction with specimen collection by gentle lavage of the cervicovaginal epithelium, and the possibility remains that it may prove suitable as a screening test.
本研究的目的是比较最近开发的聚合酶链反应（PCR）技术与传统的点杂交DNA杂交技术在检测人乳头瘤病毒（HPV）方面的差异。通过宫颈阴道灌洗收集了109名到性传播疾病诊所就诊的女性研究组的细胞。使用我们开发的用于改变温度循环的仪器，通过PCR在51%的患者中检测到HPV。通过点杂交，44%的患者呈阳性。PCR和点杂交之间的阳性和阴性结果的一致性为69%。PCR更高的灵敏度可能解释了19%的标本PCR呈阳性但点杂交呈阴性。然而，出乎意料的是，12%的标本点杂交呈阳性但PCR呈阴性，并且有几个标本在HPV类型上不一致。两种HPV DNA检测在41%的女性中与细胞学结果一致，在33%的女性中，尽管PCR和点杂交呈阳性，但细胞学结果为阴性。细胞学与仅PCR的一致性为59%，仅与点杂交的一致性为56%。宫颈造影在41%的患者中与两种HPV DNA检测结果一致，仅与PCR一致的为55%，仅与点杂交一致的为58%。活检结果并未显示HPV感染的组织病理学标准与通过PCR或点杂交检测HPV DNA之间存在强烈相关性。因此，本研究表明，PCR在检测HPV感染方面比点杂交略敏感。HPV DNA检测结果与传统筛查试验的一致性不强，这一观察结果与其他人的许多比较研究一致。总之，PCR在检测HPV方面比DNA杂交略敏感，它可以与通过轻柔灌洗宫颈阴道上皮收集标本结合使用，并且它仍有可能被证明适合作为一种筛查试验。
Zotero 插件