4.4 Article

An Evaluation of Novel, Lower-Cost Molecular Screening Tests for Human Papillomavirus in Rural China

Journal

CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH
Volume 6, Issue 9, Pages 938-948

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0091

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New, lower-cost tests that target high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) have been developed for cervical cancer screening in lower-resource settings but large, population-based screening studies are lacking. Women ages 25 to 65 years and living in rural China (n = 7,543) self-collected a cervicovaginal specimen, had 2 cervical specimens collected by a clinician, and underwent visual inspection after acetic acid (VIA). The self-and one clinician-collected specimens underwent HR-HPV DNA testing by careHPV (QIAGEN) and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; QIAGEN) and the other clinician-collected specimen was tested for HPV16, 18, and 45 E6 using OncoE6 (Arbor Vita Corporation). Women who screened positive for any test and a random sample of those negative on all tests underwent colposcopic evaluation. The percent test positive was 1.8% for HPV E6 oncoprotein, between 14% and 18% for HR-HPV DNA testing, and 7.3% for VIA. The sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe (CIN3(+); n = 99) was 53.5% for OncoE6, 97.0% for both careHPV and HC2 testing of the clinician-collected specimen, 83.8% for careHPV testing and 90.9% for HC2 testing of the self-collected specimen, and 50.5% for VIA. OncoE6 had the greatest positive predictive value (PPV), at 40.8% for CIN3(+), compared with the other tests, which had a PPV of less than 10%. OncoE6 tested 70.3% positive for HPV16, 18, or 45-positive CIN3(+) and tested negative for all HPV16-, 18-, or 45-negative CIN3(+) (P < 0.0001). HPV E6 oncoprotein detection is useful for identifying women who have cervical precancer and cancer. Cancer Prev Res; 6(9); 938-48. (C)2013 AACR.

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