Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program

A. T. Hesselink, N. W.J. Bulkmans, J. Berkhof, A. T. Lorincz, C. J.L.M. Meijer, P. J.F. Snijders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8%) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8%) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (≥CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97% (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91% (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as ≥CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of ≥CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 in population-based cervical screening.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3680-3685
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Microbiology
Volume44
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2006

Cite this

@article{e1357e66bf584e4db18055e76e77dd2b,
title = "Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program",
abstract = "In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8{\%}) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8{\%}) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (≥CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97{\%} (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91{\%} (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as ≥CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of ≥CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 in population-based cervical screening.",
author = "Hesselink, {A. T.} and Bulkmans, {N. W.J.} and J. Berkhof and Lorincz, {A. T.} and Meijer, {C. J.L.M.} and Snijders, {P. J.F.}",
year = "2006",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1128/JCM.02078-05",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "3680--3685",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Microbiology",
issn = "0095-1137",
publisher = "American Society for Microbiology",
number = "10",

}

Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program. / Hesselink, A. T.; Bulkmans, N. W.J.; Berkhof, J.; Lorincz, A. T.; Meijer, C. J.L.M.; Snijders, P. J.F.

In: Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Vol. 44, No. 10, 01.10.2006, p. 3680-3685.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program

AU - Hesselink, A. T.

AU - Bulkmans, N. W.J.

AU - Berkhof, J.

AU - Lorincz, A. T.

AU - Meijer, C. J.L.M.

AU - Snijders, P. J.F.

PY - 2006/10/1

Y1 - 2006/10/1

N2 - In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8%) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8%) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (≥CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97% (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91% (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as ≥CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of ≥CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 in population-based cervical screening.

AB - In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8%) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8%) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (≥CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97% (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91% (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as ≥CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of ≥CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN3 in population-based cervical screening.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847646474&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1128/JCM.02078-05

DO - 10.1128/JCM.02078-05

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 3680

EP - 3685

JO - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

SN - 0095-1137

IS - 10

ER -