Suppr超能文献

在阴道镜检查人群中,SurePath™ 防腐剂与PreservCyt® 联合Cobas® 和杂交捕获® 2 HPV检测的临床性能比较

Clinical Performance of SurePath™ Preservative Compared to PreservCyt® with Cobas® and Hybrid Capture® 2 HPV Tests in a Colposcopy Population.

作者信息

Pyne Michael T, Tardif Keith D, Allen Alexys, Sexsmith Corinne, Lesher Laurie, Adelman Marisa, Janát-Amsbury Margit M, Schlaberg Robert

出版信息

Clin Lab. 2019 Mar 1;65(3). doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2018.180734.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Until recently, no HPV test had been US FDA-approved for SurePath preservative. Clinical performance remains incompletely understood. The clinical performances of the Cobas HPV Test (Cobas) and Hybrid Capture 2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test (HC2) with PreservCyt and SurePath preservatives were compared.

METHODS

Cervical cytology samples were collected in both preservatives in random order from women age 21+ (n = 244) referred for colposcopy. Before cytology processing and pelleting, SurePath samples were tested by the Cobas test with and without buffered SDS heat pretreatment. SurePath pellets were tested by the HC2 test and by the Cobas test (with pretreatment). Performance characteristics were calculated in relation to cases of cervical in-traepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) as the clinical target outcome. All HPV-positive samples were also genotyped with the Linear Array test.

RESULTS

CIN2+ was detected in 42 patients (17.2%). For both HPV tests, there was a trend towards higher positivity and sensitivity for SurePath compared to PreservCyt preservative. The Cobas test had higher sensitivity than HC2 and the HC2 test had higher specificity than Cobas. Pretreated SurePath samples produced results similar to untreated ones, despite a two-fold dilution during pretreatment [sensitivity %: 95.1 (82.2 - 99.2) vs. 94.3 (79.5 - 99.0); specificity %: 33.0 (26.6 - 40.1) vs. 33.0 (26.4 - 40.3)].

CONCLUSIONS

There was good agreement between the preservatives and HPV tests in detecting HPV and between the Cobas and Linear Array tests for genotyping HR-HPV. These trends were not statistically significant due to the limited number of CIN2+ cases. However, these data may help in evaluations of preservative selection for colposcopy samples. Pre-treatment for Cobas testing eliminated invalid results due to clots. The Cobas test has been FDA-approved for use with heat pretreated SurePath samples.

摘要

背景

直到最近,尚无经美国食品药品监督管理局(US FDA)批准用于SurePath保存剂的HPV检测方法。其临床性能仍未完全了解。比较了Cobas HPV检测(Cobas)和杂交捕获2高危型HPV DNA检测(HC2)在PreservCyt和SurePath保存剂中的临床性能。

方法

从21岁及以上(n = 244)接受阴道镜检查的女性中随机采集两种保存剂中的宫颈细胞学样本。在进行细胞学处理和沉淀之前,对SurePath样本进行了有无缓冲SDS热预处理的Cobas检测。SurePath沉淀物通过HC2检测和Cobas检测(预处理)进行检测。以宫颈上皮内瘤变2级或更高(CIN2 +)病例作为临床目标结果计算性能特征。所有HPV阳性样本也通过线性阵列检测进行基因分型。

结果

在42例患者(17.2%)中检测到CIN2 +。对于两种HPV检测,与PreservCyt保存剂相比,SurePath保存剂的阳性率和敏感性有更高的趋势。Cobas检测的敏感性高于HC2,HC2检测的特异性高于Cobas。尽管预处理过程中稀释了两倍,但预处理后的SurePath样本产生的结果与未处理的样本相似[敏感性%:95.1(82.2 - 99.2)对94.3(79.5 - 99.0);特异性%:33.0(26.6 - 40.1)对33.0(26.4 - 40.3)]。

结论

在检测HPV方面,保存剂与HPV检测之间以及在HR-HPV基因分型方面,Cobas检测与线性阵列检测之间具有良好的一致性。由于CIN2 +病例数量有限,这些趋势无统计学意义。然而,这些数据可能有助于评估阴道镜检查样本保存剂的选择。Cobas检测的预处理消除了因血凝块导致的无效结果。Cobas检测已获得FDA批准可用于经热预处理的SurePath样本。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验