Duan L F, Du H, Wang C, Huang X, Qu X F, Duan X Z, Liu Y, Shi B, Zhang W, Wei L H, Belinson L, Wu R F
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, China.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Capital Medical University Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing 100730, China.
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Oct 25;55(10):708-715. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20200325-00266.
Evaluation of the clinical value of the BioPerfectus multiplex real time (BMRT)-HPV for cervical cancer screening. Physician-collected specimens of 1 495 women who were positive of Cobas 4800 HPV (Cobas-HPV), HPV genotyping based on SEQ uencing (SEQ-HPV), and (or) cytology ≥low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) in the primary screening of Chinese Multiple-center Screening Trial (CHIMUST), and 2 990 women selected from those who were negative of primary screening in the same project through nested control randomization with age-matching were tested for BMRT-HPV, which reported type-specific viral loads/10 000 cells in each specimen. With comparing to Cobas-HPV results and taking cervical histopathological diagnosis as the endpoint, the concordance of high-risk (HR)-HPV subtypes among the three assays was explored ,and the sensitivity and specificity of BMRT-HPV for cervical cancer screening were evaluated. (1) The overall agreenment of HR-HPV subtypes between BMRT-HPV and Cobas-HPV, or SEQ-HPV test sample was 94.8%, 94.4%, with Kappa values 0.827, 0.814. (2) The sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) Ⅱ of BMRT-HPV, Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV were 92.62%, 94.26%, 93.44% and 84.67%, 83.25%, 82.76%, respectively. There were no significant difference in sensitivity among the three HPV assays (all >0.05), but the specificity of BMRT-HPV for CIN Ⅱ was higher than those of Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (<0.01). The sensitivity for CIN Ⅲ of three HPV assays were all 100.00%, and the specificity for CIN Ⅲ of BMRT-HPV was higher than those of Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (83.40% vs 81.95%, 83.40% vs 81.50%; <0.01). The number of pathological examinations of colposcopy for cervical biopsy detected in 1 case of CIN Ⅱ or CIN Ⅲ in BMRT-HPV was less than those in Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (<0.01). When using HPV 16/18 + cytology ≥atypical squamous cell of undetermined signification (ASCUS) to triage HPV positive women among three assays, there was no different in the sensitivities of detecting CIN Ⅱ and CIN Ⅲ (>0.05). The specificity BMRT-HPV was slightly higher than those in Cobas-HPV or SEQ-HPV (all <0.05), and the colposcopy referral rate was lower than those in Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (all <0.05). BMRT-HPV is as sensitive as Cobas-HPV or SEQ-HPV for primary cervical cancer screening, and has higher specificity. Therefore it could be used as a primary screening method for cervical cancer, which is worthy of clinical application.
评价博晖创新多重实时荧光定量(BMRT)-HPV检测在宫颈癌筛查中的临床价值。收集中国多中心筛查试验(CHIMUST)初筛中1495例Cobas 4800 HPV(Cobas-HPV)阳性、基于测序的HPV基因分型(SEQ-HPV)阳性和(或)细胞学检查≥低度鳞状上皮内病变(LSIL)的女性医师采集的标本,以及通过年龄匹配的巢式对照随机化从同一项目初筛阴性女性中选取的2990例女性标本,检测BMRT-HPV,报告每个标本中各型别病毒载量/10000细胞。以Cobas-HPV结果为对照,以宫颈组织病理学诊断为终点,探讨三种检测方法中高危(HR)-HPV亚型的一致性,并评估BMRT-HPV用于宫颈癌筛查的灵敏度和特异度。(1)BMRT-HPV与Cobas-HPV或SEQ-HPV检测样本中HR-HPV亚型的总体一致性分别为94.8%、94.4%,Kappa值分别为0.827、0.814。(2)BMRT-HPV、Cobas-HPV和SEQ-HPV对宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)Ⅱ的灵敏度和特异度分别为92.62%、94.26%、93.44%和84.67%、83.25%、82.76%。三种HPV检测方法的灵敏度差异无统计学意义(均>0.05),但BMRT-HPV对CINⅡ的特异度高于Cobas-HPV和SEQ-HPV(<0.01)。三种HPV检测方法对CINⅢ的灵敏度均为100.00%,BMRT-HPV对CINⅢ的特异度高于Cobas-HPV和SEQ-HPV(83.40%比81.95%,83.40%比81.50%;<0.01)。BMRT-HPV检测出1例CINⅡ或CINⅢ时,宫颈活检阴道镜病理检查例数少于Cobas-HPV和SEQ-HPV(<0.01)。三种检测方法中采用HPV 16/18+细胞学检查≥意义不明确的非典型鳞状细胞(ASCUS)对HPV阳性女性进行分流时,检测CINⅡ和CINⅢ的灵敏度差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。BMRT-HPV的特异度略高于Cobas-HPV或SEQ-HPV(均<0.05),阴道镜转诊率低于Cobas-HPV和SEQ-HPV(均<0.05)。BMRT-HPV用于宫颈癌初筛时与Cobas-HPV或SEQ-HPV灵敏度相当,特异度更高。因此,可作为宫颈癌的初筛方法,值得临床应用。