Comparison of AdvanSure HPV GenoBlot and Hybrid Capture 2 assays for detection of HPV infection

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the performance of the AdvanSure assay to the Hybrid Capture (HC) 2 for the detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR HPV).

METHODS

A total of 855 cervical swab specimens were obtained. We submitted all specimens for HR HPV detection with HC2 and the AdvanSure assay. We subsequently analyzed discordant results and specimens that were positive on both assays using restriction fragment mass polymorphism (RFMP) genotyping analysis.

RESULTS

HC2 yielded positive results in 12.0% of specimens, while the AdvanSure assay detected one of 13 HR HPV types in 11.5% of specimens. The overall agreement rate between the assays was 98.5% with a kappa coefficient of 0.928. Discordant results between these two assays were observed in 12 cases, seven were positive only on HC2 and five were positive only on AdvanSure. RFMP analysis of the 12 discordant cases revealed three false-positive results using HC2, and one false-positive and five false-negative results using AdvanSure.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the high agreement rate with HC2 and the ability to differentiate 35 HPV genotypes including HPV 16/18, the AdvanSure assay could be used as a laboratory testing method for HPV infection screening.

Comparison of GeneFinder human papillomavirus (HPV) Liquid Beads Microarray PCR Kit and Hybrid Capture 2 Assay for Detection of HPV Infection

BACKGROUND

Along with advances in methodological technologies, various assays for detecting high-risk human papillomavirus (HR HPV) have been introduced. The GeneFinder HPV liquid beads microarray PCR kit is one of the recently developed. Our aim was to compare the performance of GeneFinder to Hybrid Capture 2 for detection of HR HPV.

METHODS

A total of 900 cervical swab specimens were obtained. All specimens were submitted for HR HPV detection with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and GeneFinder and then additionally analyzed the discordant or both positive results using restriction fragment mass polymorphism (RFMP) genotyping analysis.

RESULTS

Hybrid Capture 2 detected 12.8% cases and GeneFinder detected 15.8% cases with 13 HR HPV types. Also, GeneFinder detected 27.4% cases for 32 detectable HPV types. The overall agreement rate was 93.2% with 0.724 kappa coefficient. Discordant results between these two assays were observed in 56 cases. HC2 showed sensitivity of 83.5% and specificity of 95.9%, while GeneFinder showed sensitivity of 85.4% and specificity of 91.9%. For HPV 16 or HPV 18 detection, GeneFinder showed 95.0% or 66.7% of sensitivity and 99.2% or 100%, respectively. Overall coinfection rate was 15.4% (38/247) in GeneFinder analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the high agreement rate with HC2, high sensitivity and the ability to differentiate 32 HPV genotypes including HPV 16/18, GeneFinder could be used as a laboratory testing method for the screening of HPV infections. The use of GeneFinder may also contribute to future research associated with the significance of various HPV types and multiple coinfections.