Comparison of analytical and clinical performance of CLART HPV2 genotyping assay to Linear Array and Hybrid Capture 2: a split-sample study

BMC Cancer

Ditte Møller Ejegod¹  Matejka Rebolj³  Jesper Bonde² 

[1] Department of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Allé 30, 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark

[2] Clinical Research Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark

[3] Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

关键词: Hybrid capture 2;    CLART;    Linear array;    Genotyping;    Human papillomavirus;    Cervical cancer;   

Others  :  1161044
DOI  :  10.1186/s12885-015-1223-z

 received in 2014-11-04, accepted in 2015-03-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping has an increasingly important role in cervical cancer screening and vaccination monitoring, however, without an internationally agreed standard reference assay. The test results from the most widely used genotyping assays are read manually and hence prone to inter-observer variability. The reading of test results on the CLART HPV2 genotyping assay is, on the other hand, automated. The aim of our study was to directly compare the detection of HPV genotypes and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) by CLART, Linear Array (LA), and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) using samples stored in SurePath.

Methods

Residual material from 401 routine samples from women with abnormal cytology was tested by CLART, LA, and HC2 (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01671462, Ethical Committee approval: H-2012-070). Histological outcomes were ascertained by linkage to the Danish nation-wide Pathology Data Bank. For comparison of CLART and LA in terms of genotype detection, we calculated κ-coefficients, and proportions of overall and positive agreement. For comparison of CIN detection between CLART, LA, and HC2, we calculated the relative sensitivity and specificity for high-grade CIN.

Results

The κ-coefficient for agreement in detection of genotypes 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, and 51 was ≥0.90 (overall agreement: 98-99%, positive agreement: 84-95%). The values were slightly lower, but still in the “substantial” range for genotypes 39, 45, 52, 56, 58, 59, and several low-risk genotypes. The relative sensitivity of CLART for ≥ CIN2 and ≥ CIN3 was not significantly lower than that of LA and HC2, although CLART showed a higher specificity than HC2.

Conclusions

In Danish women with abnormal SurePath cytology, CLART and LA were highly comparable for detection of most high-risk and low-risk genotypes; and CLART’s sensitivity for high-grade CIN was comparable to that of both LA and HC2.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Ejegod et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bouvard V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al.: A review of human carcinogens–Part B: biological agents. Lancet Oncol 2009, 10(4):321-2.
• [2]Garland SM, Steben M, Sings HL, James M, Lu S, Railkar R, et al.: Natural history of genital warts: analysis of the placebo arm of 2 randomized phase III trials of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine. J Infect Dis 2009, 199(6):805-14.
• [3]Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al.: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999, 189(1):12-9.
• [4]Eklund C, Forslund O, Wallin KL, Dillner J: Global improvement in genotyping of human papillomavirus DNA: the 2011 HPV LabNet International Proficiency Study. J Clin Microbiol 2014, 52(2):449-59.
• [5]Li N, Franceschi S, Howell-Jones R, Snijders PJ, Clifford GM: Human papillomavirus type distribution in 30,848 invasive cervical cancers worldwide: Variation by geographical region, histological type and year of publication. Int J Cancer 2011, 128(4):927-35.
• [6]Didelot MN, Boulle N, Damay A, Costes V, Segondy M: Comparison of the PapilloCheck(R) assay with the digene HC2 HPV DNA assay for the detection of 13 high-risk human papillomaviruses in cervical and anal scrapes. J Med Virol 2011, 83(8):1377-82.
• [7]Hesselink AT, Heideman DA, Berkhof J, Topal F, Pol RP, Meijer CJ, et al.: Comparison of the clinical performance of PapilloCheck human papillomavirus detection with that of the GP5+/6 + −PCR-enzyme immunoassay in population-based cervical screening. J Clin Microbiol 2010, 48(3):797-801.
• [8]Iftner T, Eberle S, Iftner A, Holz B, Banik N, Quint W, et al.: Prevalence of low-risk and high-risk types of human papillomavirus and other risk factors for HPV infection in Germany within different age groups in women up to 30 years of age: an epidemiological observational study. J Med Virol 2010, 82(11):1928-39.
• [9]Galan-Sanchez F, Rodriguez-Iglesias MA: Comparison of human papillomavirus genotyping using commercial assays based on PCR and reverse hybridization methods. APMIS 2009, 117(10):708-15.
• [10]Perez C, Klaustermeier JE, Alemany L, Tous S, de Sanjosé S, Velasco J: Comparison of 2 different PCR-based technologies for the detection of human papilloma virus from paraffin-embedded tissue: genomica clinical arrays versus SPF(10)-LiPA(25). Diagn Mol Pathol 2012, 21(1):45-52.
• [11]Eklund C, Forslund O, Wallin KL, Zhou T, Dillner J: WHO Human Papillomavirus Laboratory Network: The 2010 global proficiency study of human papillomavirus genotyping in vaccinology. J Clin Microbiol 2012, 50(7):2289-98.
• [12]Bonde J, Rebolj M, Ejegod DM, Preisler S, Lynge E, Rygaard C: HPV prevalence and genotype distribution in a population-based split-sample study of well-screened women using CLART HPV2 human papillomavirus genotype microarray system. BMC Infect Dis 2014, 14:413. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Mejlhede N, Pedersen BV, Frisch M, Fomsgaard A: Multiple human papilloma virus types in cervical infections: competition or synergy? APMIS 2010, 118(5):346-52.
• [14]Pista A, Verdasca N, Oliveira A: Clinical performance of the CLART human papillomavirus 2 assay compared with the hybrid capture 2 test. J Med Virol 2011, 83(2):272-6.
• [15]Rebolj M, Preisler S, Ejegod DM, Rygaard C, Lynge E, Bonde J, et al.: Disagreement between human papillomavirus assays: an unexpected challenge for the choice of an assay in primary cervical screening. PLoS One 2014, 9(1):e86835.
• [16]Bjerregaard B, Larsen OB: The Danish Pathology Register. Scand J Public Health 2011, 39(7 Suppl):72-4.
• [17]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33(1):159-74.
• [18]Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M, et al.: Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014, 383(9916):524-32.
• [19]Chranioti A, Spathis A, Aga E, Meristoudis C, Pappas A, Panayiotides I, et al.: Comparison of two commercially available methods for HPV genotyping: CLART HPV2 and Linear Array HPV Genotyping tests. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2012, 34(5):257-63.
• [20]Eklund C, Zhou T, Dillner J: Global proficiency study of human papillomavirus genotyping. J Clin Microbiol 2010, 48(11):4147-55.
• [21]Chernesky M, Jang D, Portillo E, Smieja M, Chong S, Buracond S, et al.: Comparative evaluation of AMPLICOR HPV PCR and Linear Array assays on SurePath liquid-based Pap samples for the detection of high-risk HPV genotypes. J Clin Virol 2011, 50(3):201-4.
• [22]Rebolj M, Bonde J, Njor SH, Lynge E: Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening and the cut-off level for hybrid capture 2 tests: systematic review. BMJ 2011, 342:d2757.