Objective To compare, in a primary human papillomavirus screening setting, two different validated human papillomavirus tests, considering their analytical and clinical screening performances. Methods In Tuscany, a human papillomavirus screening program was implemented in 2013. Hybrid capture 2 (Qiagen) was used for testing until May 2016, when it was replaced by the cobas® 4800 human papillomavirus test (Cobas; Roche). We evaluated the performance of Hybrid capture 2 and Cobas on: the same screening population in two different periods (before and after changing to Cobas); the same Hybrid capture 2-positive consecutive samples. Discordant samples (Hybrid capture 2-positive/Cobas negative) were typed on the L1 gene (reverse line blot, AB Analitica) and E6/E7 genes (BD Onclarity assay). Results In the considered time period ( n = 37,775), human papillomavirus positivity was 9.8% and 7.4%, respectively, for Hybrid capture 2 and Cobas ( p < 0.0001). At immediate colposcopy, the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 2 positive predictive value was, respectively, 23.8% and 34% ( p < 0.001). At one-year recall, human papillomavirus persistence was, respectively, 40.6% and 62.2% ( p < 0.0001). Of Hybrid capture 2-positive re-tested samples ( n = 620), 32.4% were Cobas negative. Of discordant samples typed on L1, 7% were positive for the 12 high-risk human papillomavirus. Of the samples found to be negative for the 12 high-risk human papillomavirus types on L1, 14.5% were positive on E6/E7 typing. Among the discordant samples, the only two cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 lesions were non-high-risk human papillomavirus positive on both L1 and E6/E7 typing. Conclusion At baseline, Hybrid capture 2 showed greater human papillomavirus positivity and a lower CIN2+ positive predictive value than Cobas, which was more specific than Hybrid capture 2 in detection of high-risk human papillomavirus: 80% of discordant samples were confirmed as high-risk human papillomavirus negative. This higher analytical specificity determined the non-identification of two CIN3 lesions.
p16INK4Aimmunohistochemical staining and predictive value for progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1: A prospective study in China
