4.4 Article

Human papillomavirus detection and typing in thin prep cervical cytologic specimens comparing the Digene Hybrid Capture II Assay, the Roche Linear Array HPV Genotyping Assay, and the Kurabo Gene Square Microarray Assay

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 169, Issue 1, Pages 154-161

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2010.07.016

Keywords

Human papillomavirus; Detection; Cervical cytology

Funding

  1. Kurabo Industries, Osaka, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three methods for the detection of HPV DNA were compared in cervical cytologic specimens: the Digene Hybrid Capture II Assay (HC), the Roche Linear Array HPV Genotyping Assay (LA) and the Kurabo GeneSquare Microarray (GS). The main goals of the study were to correlate cytology with HPV detection and to determine agreement between assay pairs for HPV detection. Thin-prep Pap smears were performed and supernates were tested by HC, IA, and GS. For specimens reacting with the HPV 52/33/35/58 probe in the LA assay, type-specific PCR was performed for HPV types 52, 33, 35, or 58. Binomial proportions and kappa coefficients were calculated for agreement between assays. Cytology results and supernatant were available for 202 subjects. HPV detection increased with worsening cytologic abnormality in all three assays. For all cytologic groups, LA and GS detected more HPV (all and oncogenic) than HC. However, for detection of oncogenic HPV types represented in all three assays, differences between assays were less pronounced. The highest agreement was between LA and GS. In four of 12 specimens reacting with the HPV 52/33/35/58 probe in the LA assay but deemed HPV 52-LA-negative using an algorithm provided by the manufacturer, the presence of HPV 52 was confirmed using type-specific HPV 52 PCR. All four of these specimens were also GS-positive for HPV 52. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available