Comparison of HPV detection technologies: Hybrid capture 2, PreTect HPV-Proofer and analysis of HPV DNA viral load in HPV16, HPV18 and HPV33 E6/E7 mRNA positive specimens.
Mc Inerney, Jamie
AffiliationDepartment of Pathology, Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital, Dublin 8, , Ireland. email@example.com
MeSHCervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia/diagnosis/virology
Human papillomavirus 16/genetics/isolation & purification
Human papillomavirus 18/genetics/isolation & purification
Oncogene Proteins, Viral/genetics/*metabolism
Papillomaviridae/classification/genetics/*isolation & purification
Papillomavirus E7 Proteins/genetics/*metabolism
Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods
Sensitivity and Specificity
MetadataShow full item record
CitationJ Virol Methods. 2009 Jan;155(1):61-6. Epub 2008 Nov 13.
JournalJournal of virological methods
AbstractHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing using molecular methods in liquid based cytology (LBC) specimens may be useful as an adjunct to cervical screening by cytology. We compared the positivity rate of the commercially available HPV DNA method hybrid capture 2 (hc2) and the commercially available E6/E7 mRNA method PreTect HPV-Proofer in cytological specimens (n=299). LBC specimens collected (n=299) represented the following cervical cytological disease categories: Normal (n=60), borderline nuclear abnormalities (BNA) (n=34), CIN1 (n=121), CIN2 (n=60), CIN3 (n=24). Overall, 69% (205/299) of the cases were positive by hc2 and 38% (112/299) of the cases were positive by PreTect HPV-Proofer. Concordance rates between the two tests were highest in the high-grade cytology cases (CIN2: 67% and CIN3: 83%) and the normal cytology cases (88%) and lowest in the BNA and CIN1 categories (56% and 52%). HPV DNA viral load analyses were carried out on HPV16 (n=55), HPV18 (n=9) and HPV33 (n=13) samples that were positive by PreTect HPV-Proofer. The sensitivity and specificity of PreTect HPV-Proofer and the hc2 DNA test for the detection of high-grade cytology (i.e. CIN2+) were 71.4% and 75.8% vs 100% and 43.7%, respectively. The relatively low detection rate observed by PreTect HPV-Proofer in the whole range of cytological positive cases, combined with a relatively higher specificity and PPV, suggests that PreTect HPV-Proofer may be more useful than hc2 for triage and in predicting high-grade disease.
- Clinical performance of the PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA assay in comparison with that of the Hybrid Capture 2 test for identification of women at risk of cervical cancer.
- Authors: Ratnam S, Coutlee F, Fontaine D, Bentley J, Escott N, Ghatage P, Gadag V, Holloway G, Bartellas E, Kum N, Giede C, Lear A
- Issue date: 2010 Aug
- Predicting CIN2+ when detecting HPV mRNA and DNA by PreTect HPV-proofer and consensus PCR: A 2-year follow-up of women with ASCUS or LSIL Pap smear.
- Authors: Molden T, Nygård JF, Kraus I, Karlsen F, Nygård M, Skare GB, Skomedal H, Thoresen SO, Hagmar B
- Issue date: 2005 May 10
- Performance of ProEx C and PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA tests in comparison with the hybrid capture 2 HPV DNA test for triaging ASCUS and LSIL cytology.
- Authors: Alaghehbandan R, Fontaine D, Bentley J, Escott N, Ghatage P, Lear A, Coutlee F, Ratnam S
- Issue date: 2013 Sep
- Clinical performance of Anyplex II HPV28 by human papillomavirus type and viral load in a referral population.
- Authors: Baasland I, Romundstad PR, Eide ML, Jonassen CM
- Issue date: 2019
- Clinical performance of human papillomavirus E6 and E7 mRNA testing for high-grade lesions of the cervix.
- Authors: Cattani P, Zannoni GF, Ricci C, D'Onghia S, Trivellizzi IN, Di Franco A, Vellone VG, Durante M, Fadda G, Scambia G, Capelli G, De Vincenzo R
- Issue date: 2009 Dec