Castro Felipe A, Koshiol Jill, Quint Wim, Wheeler Cosette M, Gillison Maura L, Vaughan Laurence M, Kleter Bernhard, van Doorn Leen-Jan, Chaturvedi Anil K, Hildesheim Allan, Schiffman Mark, Wang Sophia S, Zuna Rosemary E, Walker Joan L, Dunn S Terence, Wentzensen Nicolas
Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
DDL, Diagnostic Laboratory, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 25;15:544. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-1281-5.
Identification of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in cervical tissue is important for understanding cervical carcinogenesis and for evaluating cervical cancer prevention approaches. However, HPV genotyping using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues is technically challenging. We evaluated the performance of four commonly used genotyping methods on FFPE cervical specimens conducted in different laboratories and compared to genotyping results from cytological samples.
We included 60 pairs of exfoliated-cell and FFPE specimens from women with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial lesions grade 2 or 3. Cytology specimens were genotyped using the Linear Array assay. Four expert laboratories processed tissue specimens using different preparation methods and then genotyped the resultant sample preparations using four different HPV genotyping methods: SPF10-PCR DEIA LiPA25 (version 1), Inno-LiPA, Linear Array and the Onclarity assay. Percentage agreement, kappa statistics and McNemar's chi-square were calculated for each comparison of different methods and specimen types.
Overall agreement with respect to carcinogenic HPV status for FFPE samples between different methods was: 81.7, 86.7 and 91.7% for Onclarity versus Inno-LiPA, Linear Array and SPF-LiPA25, respectively; 81.7 and 85.0% for Linear Array versus Inno-LiPA and SPF-LiPA25, respectively; and 86.7% for SPF-LiPA25 versus Inno-LiPA. Type-specific agreement was >88.3% for all pair-wise comparisons. Comparisons with cytology specimens resulted in overall agreements from 80 to 95% depending on the method and type-specific agreement was >90% for most comparisons.
Our data demonstrate that the four genotyping methods run by expert laboratories reliably detect HPV DNA in FFPE specimens with some variation in genotype-specific detection.
在宫颈组织中鉴定人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)DNA对于理解宫颈癌发生机制以及评估宫颈癌预防方法至关重要。然而,使用福尔马林固定、石蜡包埋(FFPE)组织进行HPV基因分型在技术上具有挑战性。我们评估了四种常用基因分型方法在不同实验室对FFPE宫颈标本的检测性能,并与细胞学样本的基因分型结果进行比较。
我们纳入了60对来自组织学确诊为2级或3级宫颈上皮内瘤变女性的脱落细胞和FFPE标本。细胞学标本采用线性阵列检测法进行基因分型。四个专业实验室使用不同的制备方法处理组织标本,然后使用四种不同的HPV基因分型方法对所得样本制备物进行基因分型:SPF10-PCR DEIA LiPA25(版本1)、Inno-LiPA、线性阵列和Onclarity检测法。针对不同方法和标本类型的每次比较,计算百分比一致性、kappa统计量和McNemar卡方。
不同方法之间FFPE样本致癌性HPV状态的总体一致性为:Onclarity与Inno-LiPA、线性阵列和SPF-LiPA25相比分别为81.7%、86.7%和91.7%;线性阵列与Inno-LiPA和SPF-LiPA25相比分别为81.7%和85.0%;SPF-LiPA25与Inno-LiPA相比为86.7%。所有两两比较的型特异性一致性均>88.3%。与细胞学标本的比较,总体一致性根据方法在80%至95%之间,大多数比较的型特异性一致性>90%。
我们的数据表明,专业实验室运行的这四种基因分型方法能够可靠地检测FFPE标本中的HPV DNA,不过在基因型特异性检测方面存在一些差异。