4.6 Article

The Potential Benefits of HPV E6/E7 mRNA Test in Cervical Cancer Screening in China

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.533253

关键词

HPV - human papillomavirus; mRNA; cervical cancer; sensitiviity; specificity

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81502475]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Henan Province [172102310067]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of the HPV E6/E7 mRNA test in cervical cancer screening in China. A hospital-based study was conducted with mRNA, DNA, and liquid-based cytology (LBC) as primary screening tests. Each woman with a positive result received colposcopy with lesion-targeted-biopsy. Histopathological diagnosis was used as the gold standard. The total agreement of HPV DNA and mRNA was 90.7% (95%CI: 87.9, 92.9) with a kappa value of 0.81. The positive rates of HPV DNA, mRNA, and LBC increased with the severity of histopathology diagnosis, from 25.5, 19.1, and 11.4% in normal to 100.0% in SCC, respectively. The sensitivities for mRNA to detect CIN2+ and CIN3+ were 93.8% (95%CI: 89.7-96.4) and 95.7% (95%CI: 91.3-97.9), respectively, which were not different from HPV DNA testing (95.7% [95%CI: 92.0-97.7], 96.3% [95%CI: 92.1-98.3]), but higher than LBC (80.4% [95%CI: 74.5-85.2] and 88.8% [95%CI: 83.0-92.8]). The specificities for mRNA to detect CIN2+ (79.0% [95%CI: 74.2-83.0]) and CIN3+ (70.5% [95%CI: 65.7-74.9]) were higher than HPV DNA testing (71.0% [95%CI: 65.9-75.7], 62.8% [95%CI: 57.8-67.5]), but lower than LBC (84.5% [95%CI: 80.1-88.0] 79.8% [95%CI: 75.4-83.6]). All tests were more effective in women older than 30 years. HPV mRNA test showed excellent agreement with the DNA test, with similar sensitivity and a higher specificity in detecting high-grade cervical lesions. It is promising that mRNA test could be used for the national cervical cancer screening to reduce false positive without losing sensitivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据