4.7 Article

Evaluating HPV-negative CIN2+in the ATHENA trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 138, 期 12, 页码 2932-2939

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30032

关键词

cervical cancer screening; HPV DNA testing; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; adenocarcinoma in situ; HPV genotype; histology

类别

资金

  1. Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, California

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A post hoc analysis of the ATHENA study was performed to determine whether true HPV-negative cervical lesions occur and whether they have clinical relevance. The ATHENA database was searched for all CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) cases with cobas HPV-negative results and comparison was made with Linear Array (LA) and Amplicor to detect true false-negative HPV results. Immunostaining with p16 was performed on these cases to identify false-positive histology results. H&E slides were re-reviewed by the study pathologists with knowledge of patient age, HPV test results and p16 immunostaining. Those with positive p16 immunostaining and/or a positive histopathology review underwent whole tissue section HPV PCR by the SPF10/LiPA/RHA system. Among 46,887 eligible women, 497 cases of CIN2+ were detected, 55 of which tested negative by the cobas((R)) HPV Test (32 CIN2, 23 CIN3/ACIS). By LA and/or Amplicor, 32 CIN2+ (20 CIN2, 12 CIN3/ACIS) were HPV positive and categorized as false-negatives by cobas HPV; nine of 12 false-negative CIN3/ACIS cases were p16+. There were 23 cases (12 CIN2, 11 CIN3/ACIS) negative by all HPV tests; seven of 11 CIN3/ACIS cases were p16+. H&E slides were available for six cases for re-review and all were confirmed as CIN3/ACIS. Tissue PCR was performed on the six confirmed CIN3/ACIS cases (and one without confirmation): four were positive for HPV types not considered oncogenic, two were positive for oncogenic genotypes and one was indeterminate. In summary, subanalysis of a large cervical cancer screening study did not identify any true CIN3/ACIS not attributable to HPV.

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

4.7
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