Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing from clinician-collected cervical and self-collected cervico-vaginal samples is more sensitive for detecting CIN2+/CIN3+ than cytology-based screening, stimulating interest in HPV testing from urine. The objective was to determine the performance of the Trovagene HPV test for the detection of CIN2+ from urine and PreservCyt cervical samples. Methods: Women referred for colposcopy at St Mary's Hospital (London, United Kingdom), following abnormal cytology, were recruited to this diagnostic accuracy study by convenience sampling (September 2011 to April 2013). A total of 501 paired urine and cervical samples were collected. Primary outcomes were sensitivity for CIN2+/CIN3+ and specificity for <CIN2; secondary outcomes were comparisons with other HPV tests and agreement/kappa values between urine and cervical samples. Results: Trovagene HPV test sensitivity and specificity from PreservCyt were similar to well-established tests [sensitivity for CIN3+ (n = 145) 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 89.6–99.2); CIN2+ (n = 81) 94.5% (95% CI, 89.4–97.6); specificity for <CIN2 25.3% (95% CI, 20.8–30.1)]. Sensitivity from urine was slightly, but not significantly, lower [CIN3+ 91.4% (95% CI, 83.0–96.5), P = 0.3; CIN2+ 88.3% (95% CI, 81.9–93.0), P = 0.06]. Specificity for <CIN2 was similar: 24.7% (95% CI, 20.3–29.5), P = 0.9. A total of 403 Trovagene cervical and 396 urine HPV tests were positive. Overall agreement between paired samples was 82.6% (95% CI, 79.3–86.0). Conclusions: Trovagene HPV test's performance on PreservCyt cervical samples was comparable with established HPV tests. Sensitivity in urine, although slightly lower, may nevertheless be adequate for self-sampling. This referral population's higher HPV positivity rate affects specificity, warranting further studies in a screening population. Impact: This may prove useful for women not attending for cervical screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(7); 1053–9. ©2017 AACR.

Background: Two transport media, PreservCyt and SurePath, are widely used for cervical cytology screening. There are concerns that they may perform differently for HPV testing.Objectives: A comparison of the performance of six different HPV tests in SurePath and PreservCyt in a referral population using two samples from each woman. The primary goal was to compare the performance of each test in the two media. Comparisons between assays and viral load comparisons between media were secondary aims.Study design: Two cervical samples were collected in random order at the same visit in women with abnormal cytology. One sample was placed in 20ml of PreservCyt and the other in 10 ml of SurePath. Aliquots were taken for 4 DNA based tests: digene HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test, Abbott Realtime, BD Onclarity and Genera PapType, an RNA based test- : Hologic Aptima and a protein test: OncoHealth.Results: 630 sample pairs were included in the analyses. For all tests except the protein test sensitivities were in excess of 90% for CIN2+ and 95% for CIN3+ for both media and with no significant differences except for a lower sensitivity for CIN2+ of Aptima in SurePath (93% vs 98%, P= 0.005). Specificity for <CIN2 was significantly better in Surepath for HC2, RealTime and Aptima, and generally lower relative signal strengths were seen with SurePath except for Onclarity, especially when it was the second sample.Conclusions: We found similar sensitivity for CIN3+ in PreservCyt and SurePath for 5 nucleic acid tests in the two media in a referral population, but signal strength and positivity rates were lower in SurePath except for the Onclarity test. These results need to be replicated in a screening population. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Background: HR HPV genotypes when assayed collectively, achieve high sensitivity but low specificity for the prediction of CIN2+. Knowledge of the specific genotypes in an infection may facilitate the use of HR HPV detection in routine clinical practice.Objectives: To compare the rate of HR HPV detection and the accuracy of CIN2+ prediction between PapType test (Genera Biosystems) and other commercially available HR HPV assays, and to examine the value of full HPV genotyping.Study design: PreservCyt samples from 1099 women referred for abnormal cervical cytology were used. CIN2+ was chosen as the primary end-point but CIN3+ was also evaluated. A hierarchy of HR HPV genotypes was created using PPV and this was used to create 3 groups of genotypes with potentially different management.Results: The PapType assay has a specificity of 22.4% and a sensitivity of 94.6% for CIN2+ prediction. Classification into Groups A (HPV33 and HPV16, very highly predictive), B (HPV31, 18, 52, 35, 58, 51 highly predictive) and C (HPV68, 45, 39, 66, 56, 59, intermediate predictive) could double the specificity (44.5%) but only slightly reduce the sensitivity for CIN2+ (91.5%) and CIN3+ (94.0%).Conclusions: The PapType assay is a simple, reproducible and effective test for HR HPV detection and genotyping. HPV 33 was found to have a very high PPV and should therefore be managed as for HPV16. (c) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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.

Several studies have shown that HPV testing is substantially more sensitive than cytology for primary cervical screening. However, less data exist concerning the duration of protection afforded by a negative HPV test compared to a normal cytological outcome. Here we report the long-term findings from the Hammersmith study in women aged 35 or more. HPV testing by Hybrid Capture II was performed on all available samples from the baseline screening visit. Passive surveillance of subsequent cytology screening results for the 2,982 women in the study was undertaken using a national registry. Histological outcomes were sought for all women with abnormal smears. The primary outcome was duration of protection against histologically confirmed CIN2+ afforded by a negative HPV test compared to normal cytology. 2,516 women had at least one further smear at least 1 year after entry and 20 new cases of CIN2+ were identified during a median follow-up of 6.4 years. Including disease identified at baseline, the risk of developing CIN2+ at 1, 5 and 9 years after a normal cytology was 0.33%, 0.83% and 2.20% respectively whereas it was 0.19%, 0.42% and 1.88% after a negative HPV test. HPV testing offered excellent protection from CIN2+ for at least 6 years after a negative test, whereas the protection from cytology began to wane after about 3 years. Substantially more CIN2+ lesions were found in the follow-up period in those initially HPV positive compared to those HPV negative (HR = 6.52, p = 0.001), whereas there was little difference according to initial cytology (HR = 1.64, p = 0.51).

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)

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer have been shown to be strongly associated with infection by human papillomavirus (HPV). However, other factors may be contributory in the progression from normal epithelium to CIN and cervical cancer, since not all women with HPV infection develop disease. Recently, it was demonstrated that there is a high risk for cervical cancer and CIN in women with HLA DQB1 * 03 (RR = 7.1, p < 0.0009) (1). Subsequent reports have been conflicting, due to sample size, genetic heterogeneity and differences in the techniques employed for the detection of HLA DQB1 * 03.

Maternal viral infection during pregnancy is known frequently to involve the fetus. The incidence offetal infection and the risk of congenital deformities are particularly high with rubella (Miller et al. 1982). When fetal infection is suspected, a direct intrauterine diagnosis can provide invaluable information for prenatal counselling. This is now possible because of the availability of fetal specimens which can be obtained with relatively low risk in suitably equipped and staffed obstetrics centres. Several approaches have been adopted to diagnose fetal rubella infection. One involves the detection of specific immunoglobulin (IgM) in fetal blood by standard immunoassays (Daffos et al. 1984; Enders 1987; Ho-Terry et al. 1988). However, since a fetus does not usually develop IgM antibodies at a detectable level until the 18th 20th weeks of gestation, this method of diagnosis is not satisfactory in the care of women who are infected early in pregnancy when the risk off eta I deformities is highest (Miller et al. 1982). Viral infections can affect the development ofthe immunological system in utero and transplacental maternal IgG antibodies are also liable to modulate the fetal immunological response. False-negative results are sometimes obtained when fetal rubella is diagnosed in this way (Daffos et al. 1984; Enders 1987). As an alternative, fetal rubella infection can be diagnosed by the detection of infectious virus in products of conception, e. g., chorionic villus samples