Comparison of Three Different Commercial Kits for the Human Papilloma Virus Genotyping

Analytical evaluation of a new Microdisk™ technology-based multiplex HPV genotyping system – the QPLEX™ HPV genotyping kit

Background

Recently, the QPLEX™ human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping kit (QuantaMatrix, Seoul, Korea), a Microdisk™ technology-based multiplex system, was developed to detect 32 HPV genotypes. We evaluated the analytical performance of this kit by conducting a comparison study, precision evaluation and interference testing.

Methods

A total of 1594 cervical swab specimens were used to compare the QPLEX™ HPV genotyping kit with other commercially available kits (GeneFinder HPV Liquid Bead MicroArray Genotype polymerase chain reaction [PCR] kit, Infopia, Seoul, Korea; PANArray™ HPV Genotyping Chip, PANAGENE, Daejeon, Korea). For the determination of precision, we evaluated four types of precision profiles: repeatability, lot-to-lot variability, operator-to-operator variability and site-to-site variability. In addition, interference tests were performed with various interferents.

Results

The results of the QPLEX™ HPV genotyping kit showed almost perfect agreement with the other commercially available HPV genotyping assays. The combined precision was acceptable. In addition, there was no tested interferent that affected the results of the QPLEX™ HPV genotyping kit.

Conclusions

The QPLEX™ HPV genotyping kit showed acceptable analytical performance in our study. This assay could be a suitable option for HPV genotyping in routine and follow-up tests.

A Retrospective Study about the Impact of Switching from Nested PCR to Multiplex Real-Time PCR on the Distribution of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Genotypes

Background and objectives: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most prevalent etiological agent of viral sexually-transmitted infection. This study retrospectively evaluated the impact of a switch to a real-time PCR assay in the HPV prevalence and genotypes distribution by a quasi-experimental before-and-after approach. Materials and Methods: In total, 1742 samples collected from 1433 patients were analyzed at the UOC Microbiology and Virology of Policlinico of Bari, Italy. HPV DNA detection was performed using initially nested PCR and subsequently multiplex real-time PCR assay. Results: Statistically significant difference in HPV overall prevalence after the introduction of the real-time assay was not detected (48.97% vs. 50.62%). According to different extraction-DNA amplification methods, differences were observed in the prevalence rates of HPV-45, 68, 40, 42, and 43. The lowest prevalence for HPV-45 was observed in the Magna Pure-Real Time PCR group, while HPV-68, 40, 42, and 43 were less observed in the Qiagen-Real Time PCR group. After, a multivariate logistic regression, an increase in the prevalence of HPV-42 (aOR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.71–9.73) was associated with the multiplex real-time PCR assay. Conclusions: Although this study is a not a direct comparison between two diagnostic methods because it has a sequential structure, it serves to verify the impact of a new molecular assay on HPV distribution. Moreover, the stability of HPV prevalence over time suggests that the population composition and the behavioral variables did not likely change during the observation period. Our study proposes that the introduction of a molecular test for HPV detection may be related to changes of HPV genotypes distribution.

Clinical performance of Anyplex II HPV28 by human papillomavirus type and viral load in a referral population

Anyplex II HPV28 (`Anyplex`) is a semi-quantitative DNA PCR assay divided into set A, comprising 14 high risk (hr)HPV types; and set B, comprising 5 possibly hrHPV types and 9 low risk (lr)HPV types. We compared the ability of Anyplex to that of Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and PreTect HPV-Proofer (`Proofer`) to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse (CIN2+) by HPV types and viral load. This cross-sectional study included 296 women referred to colposcopy with abnormal cervical cytology and/or persistent HPV infection. CIN2+ was identified in 175/296 women. Liquid based cytology samples were used to perform HPV testing. The sensitivity of Anyplex to detect CIN2+ was 98.9% (95% CI 95.9–99.9) and specificity 43.0% (95% CI 34.0–52.3). Restricting to medium and high viral loads in Anyplex set A, sensitivity and specificity were 97.1% (95% CI 93.5–99.1) and 59.5% (95% CI 50.2–68.3) with positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) 77.6% and 93.5%, respectively, comparable to HC2. Restricting Anyplex to the hrHPV types in Proofer, HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45, sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ were 85.1% (95% CI 79.0–90.1) and 71.1% (95% CI 62.1–79.0), comparable to Proofer`s. When adding HPV52 and 58, the sensitivity for CIN2+ was 92.6% (95% CI 87.6–96.0) and CIN3+ 96.5% (95% CI 92.0–98.8). No value of Anyplex set B was found in detecting CIN2+. In conclusion, the clinical performance of medium and high viral loads in Anyplex set A was comparable to HC2. Restricting the test to the 7 hrHPV types included in the 9-valent HPV-vaccine, HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, satisfies the international criteria for cervical cancer screening with relative sensitivity compared to HC2 for CIN2+ and CIN3+ of 0.98 and 1.01, respectively. Detecting all 28 Anyplex HPV types adds no benefit in a referral population.

Interest of cytology combined with Xpert® HPV and Anyplex® II HPV28 Detection human papillomavirus (HPV) typing: differential profiles of anal and cervical HPV lesions in HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the interest to combine cytological examination and human papillomavirus (HPV) typing of anal and cervical Papanicolaou (Pap) smears of HIV-infected patients on combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), to evaluate whether differences in prevalence exist between anal and cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in patients with high-risk oncogenic HPV infection.

METHODS

Anal and/or cervical Pap smears were obtained by anoscopy and/or colposcopy in 238 subjects recruited consecutively in 2015: anal smears were obtained from 48 male and female patients [42 men; 35 men who have sex with men (MSM)] and cervical smears from 190 female patients. Cytological Bethesda classification was coupled with HPV typing. HPV typing was performed, on the same smears, using the Xpert^® HPV Assay, which detects only high-risk HPV (hrHPV), and the Anyplex^® II HPV28 Detection assay, which detects hrHPV and low-risk (lr) HPV.

RESULTS

Our data showed clear-cut differences between the anal and cervical samples. Compared with the cervical samples, the anal samples exhibited (1) more numerous cytological lesions, which were histologically proven; (2) a higher hrHPV infection prevalence; (3) a higher prevalence of multiple hrHPV coinfections whatever HPV typing kit was used; (4) a predominance of HPV16 and HPV18/45 types. Overall, there was an almost perfect agreement between the two HPV typing assays (absolute agreement = 90.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Co-testing consisting of cytology and HPV typing is a useful screening tool in the HIV-infected population on cART. It allows detection of prevalence differences between anal and cervical HPV-related lesions. As recently recommended, anal examination should be regularly performed especially in HIV-infected MSM but also in HIV-infected women with genital hrHPV lesions.

PCR-RFLP assay as an option for primary HPV test

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is an essential factor of cervical cancer. This study evaluated the analytical performance of restriction fragment length polymorphism polymerase chain reaction (PCR-RFLP) assay compared to PapilloCheck^® microarray to identify human papilloma virus (HPV) in cervical cells. Three hundred and twenty-five women were analyzed. One sample was used for conventional cytology and another sample was collected using BD SurePath™ kit for HPV tests. Eighty samples (24.6%) were positive for HPV gene by PCR-Multiplex and were then submitted to PCR-RFLP and PapilloCheck^® microarray. There was a genotyping agreement in 71.25% (57/80) on at least one HPV type between PCR-RFLP and PapilloCheck^® microarray. In 22 samples (27.5%), the results were discordant and those samples were additionally analyzed by DNA sequencing. HPV 16 was the most prevalent HPV type found in both methods, followed by HPVs 53, 68, 18, 39, and 66 using PCR-RFLP analysis, and HPVs 39, 53, 68, 56, 31, and 66 using PapilloCheck^® microarray. In the present study, a perfect agreement using Cohen's kappa (κ) was found in HPV 33 and 58 (κ=1), very good for HPV 51, and good for types 16, 18, 53, 59, 66, 68, 70, and 73. PCR-RFLP analysis identified only 25% (20/80) HPV coinfection, and PapilloCheck^® microarray found 62.5% (50/80). Our Cohen's kappa results indicate that our in-house HPV genotyping testing (PCR-RFLP analysis) could be applied as a primary HPV test screening, especially in low income countries. If multiple HPV types are found in this primary test, a more descriptive test, such as PapilloCheck^® microarray, could be performed.

Comparison of the analytical and clinical performance of five tests for the detection of human papillomavirus genital infection

HPV-based screening provides greater protection against cervical cancer (CC) than cytology-based strategies. Currently, several molecular diagnostic assays for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) are available. In this study, we analyzed 5 different HPV testing and genotyping techniques (Hybrid Capture 2 [HC2; Qiagen, Hilden, Germany], AnyplexTMII HPV28 [Anyplex; Seegene, Seoul, Korea], Linear Array [Roche, Branchburg, NJ, USA], GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA-RH [Labo Bio-medical Products, Rijswijk, The Netherlands] and CLART2 [Genomica, Madrid, Spain]) in 295 women referred to the hospital Colposcopy Clinic from 2007 to 2008 due to positive HPV test results or an abnormal Pap test. DNA extraction for HPV genotyping was performed in cervical sample specimens after Pap test and HPV detection by HC2. The inclusion criteria were: (1) adequate cervical sampling with sufficient material for the Pap test and HPV detection and genotyping, and (2) colposcopically-directed biopsy and/or endocervical curettage. HC2 showed the highest sensitivity for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and CC (HSIL+) detection (96.1%), but all the HPV genotyping tests showed a higher specificity. (Anyplex 86.8%; Linear Array 86.0%; GP5+/6+ 78.8%; CLART2 76.5%). The agreement between HC2 results and the other techniques was similar: 82.4%, kappa=0.650 for Anyplex; 83.4%, kappa=0.670 for Linear Array, 79.93%, kappa=0.609 for GP5+/6+ and 82.4%, kappa=0.654 for CLART2. HPV 16 and/or 18 infection was a risk factor for underlying HSIL+ in the univariate analysis. Anyplex showed the highest risk of underlying HSIL+ after positive HPV 16 and/or 18 tests (OR 31.1; 95% CI 12.1-80.0).