Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Nov;123(2):278-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.07.024. Epub 2011 Aug 10.
Different Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) tests are currently used. An integrated comparison of the Amplicor, Cobas4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer and APTIMA HPV tests has not been done.
We compared the high-risk HPV detection power of these HPV tests in 528 consecutive population-based follow-up Liquid-Based Cytology samples (LBC) after ASCUS/LSIL index cytology. Their sensitivity and specificity to detect HPV in LBC, their predictive values of histopathologic CIN2-3 in follow-up punch biopsies and CIN2-3 regression in the subsequent cones was assessed. The HPV subtypes detected by the Linear Array genotyping-test (LA), PreTect HPV-Proofer and Cobas4800 were also compared. The follow-up histopathology was consensus expert-reviewed and Ki67/p16-supported. The predictive values of the HPV results in LBC by the different tests for presence of CIN2-3 in follow-up biopsies, and regression in subsequent cones, was assessed.
Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA show good agreement for HPV-positivity/negativity. PreTect HPV-Proofer has many discrepancies versus any of the other methods. The sensitivities for Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA to detect CIN2-3 were very high (96-100%), but rather low for PreTect HPV-Proofer (53%). Specificity in case of CIN1 or less in follow-up biopsies of Amplicor and Cobas4800 is lower than APTIMA and highest for PreTect HPV-Proofer. HPV subtyping by LA agreed in 90% with Cobas4800 but 70% with PreTect HPV-Proofer.
The Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA give comparable results but PreTect HPV-Proofer differs from the other tests, with low sensitivity but higher specificity. None of the methods predicted regression of CIN2-3.
目前使用不同的人乳头瘤病毒（HPV）检测方法。尚未对 Amplicor、Cobas4800、PreTect HPV-Proofer 和 APTIMA HPV 检测方法进行综合比较。
我们比较了这些 HPV 检测方法在 528 例连续的基于人群的液基细胞学（LBC）随访样本中对高危型 HPV 的检测能力，这些样本均为 ASCUS/LSIL 索引细胞学后的结果。评估了它们在 LBC 中检测 HPV 的敏感性和特异性、在后续宫颈活检中的组织病理学 CIN2-3 预测值以及随后的锥切标本中 CIN2-3 的消退。还比较了线性阵列基因分型检测（LA）、PreTect HPV-Proofer 和 Cobas4800 检测到的 HPV 亚型。后续的组织病理学由共识专家进行审查和 Ki67/p16 支持。评估了不同检测方法在 LBC 中 HPV 结果对后续活检中 CIN2-3 存在的预测值，以及对随后锥切标本中 CIN2-3 消退的预测值。
Amplicor、Cobas4800 和 APTIMA 对 HPV 阳性/阴性的检测结果一致性较好。PreTect HPV-Proofer 与其他任何方法相比存在许多差异。Amplicor、Cobas4800 和 APTIMA 检测 CIN2-3 的敏感性非常高（96-100%），但 PreTect HPV-Proofer 的敏感性相对较低（53%）。在后续活检中诊断为 CIN1 或更低级别的情况下，Amplicor 和 Cobas4800 的特异性低于 APTIMA，而 PreTect HPV-Proofer 的特异性最高。LA 进行的 HPV 亚型分析与 Cobas4800 一致率为 90%，但与 PreTect HPV-Proofer 的一致率为 70%。
Amplicor、Cobas4800 和 APTIMA 给出了相似的结果，但 PreTect HPV-Proofer 与其他检测方法不同，其敏感性较低，但特异性较高。没有一种方法可以预测 CIN2-3 的消退。
