Use of Cervista HPV HR assay for detection of human papillomavirus in samples with hybrid capture borderline negative results

Comparison of the Seeplex HPV4A ACE and the Cervista HPV assays for the detection of HPV in hybrid capture 2 positive media

Objective

To validate the efficacy of Seeplex HPV4A ACE for the detection of high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV 16 and/or HPV 18 genotypes as compared to the PCR method and the Cervista HPV assays in cervical swab samples.

Methods

Besides liquid-based cytology, additional 97 cervical swab samples were collected for HPV genotyping by HPV4A ACE, Cervista HPV assays, and PCR method. To check the statistical differences, we also conducted the paired proportion test, Cohen's κ statistic, and a receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results

Seeplex HPV4A ACE and the Cervista HPV HR showed substantial agreement with PCR for detection of HR HPVs (88.3%, κ=0.767 and 81.7%, κ=0.636, respectively). Seeplex HPV4A ACE also showed substantial agreement with the Cervista HPV 16/18 test (89.5%, κ=0.628). Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity of Seeplex HPV4A ACE and Cervista HPV HR were 91.4% vs. 84.5% and 73.4%, vs. 72.7%, respectively, when those higher than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions were regarded as abnormalities. HPV genotyping for HPV 16/18 detected cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) better than HR HPV tests (66.7% vs. 24.6% by HPV4A ACE, 52.6% vs. 25.9% by Cervista HPV assays in CIN II or more, relatively).

Conclusion

Seeplex HPV4A ACE is an effective method as the PCR and the Cervista HPV assays for the detection of HR HPVs and for genotyping of HPV 16 and 18.

Cervista HR and HPV 16/18 assays vs hybrid capture 2 assay: outcome comparison in women with negative cervical cytology

Sensitive and specific assays for human papillomavirus (HPV) are essential for patient management. In this study, we directly compared the efficacy of the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen, Valencia, CA) and Cervista assays (Hologic, Madison, WI). Consecutive cervical cytology specimens (n = 601) were tested using HC2, Cervista HR, and Cervista HPV 16/18 with analysis of only cytology-negative cases (n = 533). Results indicated no significant difference (P = .458) in prevalence rates between HC2 (7.5%) and Cervista HR (8.5%). The Cervista 16/18 prevalence was 1.6%. The negative percentage of agreement was 95.1% (468/492) vs a 70% (28/40) positive percentage of agreement. No false-negative results were detected by the Cervista internal DNA control. Our data show 29 discordant positive results (12 HC2 and 17 Cervista HR), suggesting some women with negative cytology may be triaged for unnecessary follow-up with either assay. For clinical screening, Cervista HR and HC2 are comparable and, by extension, should provide excellent negative predictive value for histologically relevant disease.