AIM:To compare triage strategies using different human papillomavirus (HPV) consensus and genotyping tests and a p16(INK4a) test. METHODS:1228 women referred with a borderline or single mildly dyskaryotic smear. Samples were taken at colposcopy using PreservCyt. Tests included Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer, APTIMA and p16(INK4a). Results were based on the worst histology within 9 months. RESULTS:97/1228 (7.9%) women had CIN3+ (203/1228 (17%) CIN2+). HPV testing alone using Hybrid Capture 2, Abbott RealTime PCR, BD HPV, Cobas 4800 or APTIMA had a sensitivity for CIN3+ ranging from 99.0% to 100.0% and specificity for <CIN2 from 23.3% to 34.7%. p16(INK4a) had a sensitivity of 86.8% and specificity of 50.7%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 85.1% and specificity of 73.2%. Testing for HPV type 16 only had sensitivities ranging from 66.0% to 75.5% and specificities from 81.3% to 87.6%. Dual testing with HPV type 16 combined with p16(INK4a) gave a high sensitivity for CIN3+ (78.7% to 98.0%) and specificity for <CIN2 of 58.6% to 81.5%. CONCLUSIONS:Triage with sensitive HPV testing assays can substantially reduce the number of unnecessary referrals in women with low grade cytology with virtually no loss of sensitivity. Even greater gains can be made if p16 and type 16 are used, but some cases of CIN2 will be missed. In both cases short term surveillance will be needed.

Published Ahead of Print 14 March 2012. 10.1128/JCM.00181-12. 2012, 50(6):1867. DOI: J. Clin. Microbiol. Lyons and Jack Cuzick Corrina Wright, Christine Bergeron, W. P Soutter, Deirdre Stuart Liddle, Martin Young, Mark Stoler, Julie McCarthy, Austin, Lesley Ashdown-Barr, Linda Ho, George Terry, Anne Szarewski, David Mesher, Louise Cadman, Janet Study with Abnormal Smears: the Predictors 2 Women Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Comparison of Seven Tests for High-Grade

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA/RNA testing provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Several new HPV tests are now available for this purpose, and a direct comparison of their properties is needed. Seven tests were evaluated with samples in liquid PreservCyt transport medium from 1,099 women referred for colposcopy: the Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen), Cobas (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), Aptima HPV (Gen-Probe), and Abbott RealTime assays, the BD HPV test, and CINtec p16(INK4a) cytology (mtm laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology found on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. Three hundred fifty-nine women (32.7%) had CIN grade 2+ (CIN2+), with 224 (20.4%) having CIN3+. For detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture 2 had 96.3% sensitivity, 19.5% specificity, and 37.4% PPV. Cobas had 95.2% sensitivity, 24.0% specificity, and 37.6% PPV. The BD HPV test had 95.0% sensitivity, 24.2% specificity, and 37.8% PPV. Abbott RealTime had 93.3% sensitivity, 27.3% specificity, and 38.2% PPV. Aptima had 95.3% sensitivity, 28.8% specificity, and 39.3% PPV. PreTect HPV-Proofer had 74.1% sensitivity, 70.8% specificity, and 55.4% PPV. CINtec p16(INK4a) cytology had 85.7% sensitivity, 54.7% specificity, and 49.1% PPV. Cytology of a specimen taken at colposcopy (mild dyskaryosis or worse) had 88.9% sensitivity, 58.1% specificity, and 50.7% PPV. Our study confirms that, in a referral setting, HPV testing by a number of different tests provides high sensitivity for high-grade disease. Further work is needed to confirm these findings in a routine screening setting.

HPV DNA testing is known to be much more sensitive than cytology, but less specific. A range of HPV and related tests in 858 women referred for colposcopy because of an abnormal smear were evaluated to compare the performances of these tests. This paper compared the Abbott test to other tests which had been previously evaluated. This test was a real true test for 14 high risk HPV types. The Abbott test was found to be highly sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) (98.9%) with a specificity of 31.5%. These numbers were comparable with the Qiagen HC2 test, the Roche Linear Array and Amplicor tests, and the Gen-Probe APTIMA test. Differences between these tests appeared to be related mostly to the choice of cutoff level. An added feature of the Abbott test was the provision of type specific results for HPV 16 and 18.

HPV DNA testing is known to be much more sensitive than cytology, but less specific. A range of HPV and related tests in 858 women referred for colposcopy because of an abnormal smear were evaluated to compare the performances of these tests. This article compared the Abbott test to other tests which had been previously evaluated. This test was a real true test for 14 high‐risk HPV types. The Abbott test was found to be highly sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) (98.9%) with a specificity of 31.5%. These numbers were comparable with the Qiagen HC2 test, the Roche Linear Array and Amplicor tests, and the Gen‐Probe APTIMA test. Differences between these tests appeared to be related mostly to the choice of cutoff level. An added feature of the Abbott test was the provision of type specific results for HPV 16 and 18. J. Med. Virol. 82: 1186–1191, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Background: The detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of several adjunctive tests for the detection of high-grade CIN in a population referred to colposcopy because of abnormal cytology. Methods: 953 women participated in the study. Up to seven tests were carried out on a liquid PreservCyt sample: Hybrid Capture II (Digene), Amplicor (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), APTIMA HPV assay (Gen-Probe), Linear Array (Roche), Clinical-Arrays (Genomica), and CINtec p16INK4a Cytology (mtm Laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology seen on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. Results: 273 (28.6%) women had high-grade disease (CIN2+) on worst histology, with 193 (20.2%) having CIN3+. For the detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture II had a sensitivity of 99.6%, specificity of 28.4%, and PPV of 36.1%. Amplicor had a sensitivity of 98.9%, specificity of 21.7%, and PPV of 33.5%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 73.6%, specificity of 73.1%, and PPV of 52.0%. APTIMA had a sensitivity of 95.2%, specificity of 42.2%, and PPV of 39.9%. CINtec p16INK4a Cytology had a sensitivity of 83.0%, specificity of 68.7%, and PPV of 52.3%. Linear Array had a sensitivity of 98.2%, specificity of 32.8%, and PPV of 37.7%. Clinical-Arrays had a sensitivity of 80.9%, specificity of 37.1%, and PPV of 33.0%. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(11):3033–42)