scholarly journals Validation of the cobas 6800 human papillomavirus test in primary cervical screening

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0247291
Author(s):  
Karin Sundström ◽  
Helena Lamin ◽  
Joakim Dillner

Evaluation of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing systems suitable for large-scale organized cervical screening programs is required. We evaluated the cobas 6800 HPV test system for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) when nested in an organized primary HPV screening program, using the cobas 4800 test as comparator. The Karolinska University Hospital Cervical Cytology Biobank, containing frozen cervical samples from >700,000 women participating in organized cervical screening, was linked to the Swedish national cervical screening registry to identify 470 stored cervical samples taken <180 days before histopathological diagnosis of CIN3+. Two controls per case, with no abnormal results for 2 screening rounds, matched for age and sampling time were also retrieved. Aliquots from 1406 women were retrieved and re-tested on the cobas 4800 system and tested on the cobas 6800 system. There was high reproducibility between the original cobas 4800 HPV test results, and the cobas 4800 HPV re-testing performed on the samples retrieved from biobank storage. 462/464 biobanked samples from women with CIN3+ tested HPV-positive on the cobas 6800 system, corresponding to a relative sensitivity of 99.6%. 925/932 biobanked samples from control women tested HPV-negative on the cobas 6800 platform, corresponding to a relative specificity of 99.2%. By conventional criteria, the cobas 6800 was non-inferior both regarding relative sensitivity of >90% (non-inferiority p-value <0.0001) and relative specificity of >98% (non-inferiority p-value 0.006). We conclude that the cobas 6800 HPV test system had similar, high performance as the cobas 4800 such, when evaluated using cervical samples taken before CIN3+ in a real-life primary HPV screening program.

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 166-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael Helen Dodd ◽  
Olivia Mac ◽  
Julia M L Brotherton ◽  
Erin Cvejic ◽  
Kirsten J McCaffery

ObjectiveFrom December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program commenced 5 yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening; one of the first high-income countries to implement primary HPV screening. This study aimed to examine the psychosocial impact of self-reporting testing HPV positive in a sample of women screened since the renewal of the programme.MethodsWomen in Australia aged 25–74 years who reported participating in cervical screening since December 2017 were recruited through an online market research company to complete a cross-sectional survey. The primary outcomes were anxiety and general distress.Results1004 women completed the online survey; 80.9% reported testing HPV negative (HPV−), 6.5% reported testing HPV positive (HPV+) and 12.9% did not know/remember their test result. Women who reported testing HPV+ had significantly poorer psychological outcomes on a range of measures. Those who reported testing HPV+ had higher anxiety scores (53.03 vs 43.58 out of 80, p<0.001), showed more general distress (3.94 vs 2.52 out of 12, p=0.004), concern about their test result (5.02 vs 2.37, p<0.001), expressed greater distress about their test result (7.06 vs 4.74, p<0.001) and cancer worry (quite or very worried 35.4% vs 11.6%, p<0.001) than women who reported testing HPV−. Concern regarding test results was also significantly higher in women who did not know/remember their test result (3.20 vs 2.37, p<0.001) compared with women who reported testing HPV−. Women who reported testing HPV+ had greater knowledge of HPV (9.25 vs 6.62, p<0.001) and HPV testing (2.44 vs 1.30, p<0.001) than women who reported testing HPV−.ConclusionsReceipt of an HPV+ test result was associated with high levels of anxiety and distress, which reached clinical significance. Further work is needed to understand whether distress and concern could be reduced by ensuring all women receive high-quality standardised information with their results or by other interventions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 3272-3279 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Cuschieri ◽  
D. T. Geraets ◽  
C. Moore ◽  
W. Quint ◽  
E. Duvall ◽  
...  

As the demand for human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cervical screening increases, emerging HPV tests must be evaluated robustly using well-annotated samples, such as those generated in the Validation of HPV Genotyping Tests (VALGENT) framework. Through VALGENT, we assessed the performance of the BD Onclarity HPV assay, which detects 14 high-risk (HR) types and resolves six individual types and three groups of types. Consecutive samples from a screening population (n= 1,000), enriched with cytologically abnormal samples (n= 300), that had been tested previously with the GP5+/6+ PCR enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and the GP5+/6+ PCR LMNX assay (Diassay) were tested with the Onclarity assay. Type-specific HPV prevalences were analyzed according to age and cytological result. The accuracy of the Onclarity assay for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) and CIN3+ was assessed relative to the GP5+/6+ EIA results by using noninferiority criteria. Overall agreement and type-specific agreement between the Onclarity assay and the GP5+/6+ LMNX assay were assessed. The prevalence of HPV types 16, 18, 31, and 45 increased with the severity of cytological results (Pfor trend, <0.05). For the detection of CIN2+, the Onclarity assay had a relative sensitivity of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.05;P< 0.001 for noninferiority) and a relative specificity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.00;P= 0.186 for noninferiority). The kappa for agreement between the Onclarity assay and the GP5+/6+ LMNX assay for HR-HPV was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.94), and values for the six individual types ranged from 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.87) for HPV-52 to 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99) for HPV-16. These data suggest that the Onclarity assay offers applications for clinical workstreams while providing genotyping information that may be useful for risk stratification beyond types 16 and 18.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (28) ◽  
pp. 1-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Gilham ◽  
Alexandra Sargent ◽  
Henry C Kitchener ◽  
Julian Peto

Background The National Screening Committee (NSC) based its recommendation that human papillomavirus (HPV) testing should replace cytology in primary cervical screening largely on the 2009 follow-up results of the ARTISTIC trial (A Randomised Trial In Screening To Improve Cytology). The NSC must now decide on screening intervals and triage policy. Options include extending the screening interval up to 10 years for human papillomavirus-negative (HPV–) women, delaying recall for human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) women with normal cytology (as their infections are usually transient), and basing triage on full HPV typing. Methods In ARTISTIC, 24,510 women were recruited who were attending routine cervical cytology in Greater Manchester in 2001–3. The women were randomly allocated between revealing and concealing their HPV test results and were recalled every 3 years. After 2009, the women returned to routine cytological screening with recall every 3 years for those aged < 50 years, and every 5 years for those aged 50–64 years. We have followed the cohort to 2015 through national cancer registration for CIN3 (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3) and cancer, and through linkage to the cervical screening call–recall system to obtain lifetime cytology records. Results The analysis comprised 24,496 women at round 1 and 13,591 women at round 2 (which was 30–48 months later). Follow-up via local histology laboratories and national cancer registration identified 505 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (CIN3+) (including 22 invasive cervical cancers). The cumulative CIN3+ risk 10 years after a negative HPV test [0.31%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18% to 0.49%, in the revealed arm] was similar to that 3 years after negative cytology (0.30%, 95% CI 0.23% to 0.41%, in the concealed arm) and fell sharply with age, from 1.1% (95% CI 0.7% to 1.8%) in those women aged < 25 years to 0.08% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.20%) in those women aged > 50 years. The 10-year cumulative CIN3+ risk following a new HPV infection at round 2 was 3.4% (95% CI 2.1% to 5.4%). The highest risks were associated with type-specific persistent infections that, overall, resulted in a 10-year cumulative CIN3+ risk of 20.4% (95% CI 15.6% to 26.4%). Conclusions We found a similar level of protection 10 years after a negative HPV test and 3 years after negative cytology. These data support a considerably longer screening interval after a negative HPV test than after a negative cytology test. About three-quarters of women with HPV infection and normal cytology clear their infections within about 3 years. Their risk of CIN3+ within this time frame is low (1.5%), suggesting that the current policy of annual repeat testing and referral after 2 years may be unnecessarily cautious. Approximately 40% of women who remained HPV+ had cleared their initial infection and acquired a new HPV type. The cumulative CIN3+ risks in women with type-specific persistent infections are about six times higher than in women with new infections. Triage strategies based on HPV persistence would, therefore, reduce unnecessary referral of women with new (and largely transient) infections. HPV assays that identify HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58 in addition to 16 and 18 could be useful in triage as well as in primary HPV testing. Similar results in recent routine HPV screening suggest that our results are generalisable despite changes in cytology and HPV assay methods. We are continuing to follow the ARTISTIC cohort into the new era of primary HPV screening. Future work will focus on the implications of more sensitive HPV testing for primary HPV screening policy and triage of HPV-positive women. Our results suggest that a more sensitive test is needed to detect occult CIN3 at high risk of progression to cancer, but this would substantially increase the overall HPV detection rate. Tests such as DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) methylation for distinguishing HPV infection from neoplasia will be evaluated on stored samples and on further samples now being collected from women in the cohort who are still being screened. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Oštrbenk ◽  
Lan Xu ◽  
Marc Arbyn ◽  
Mario Poljak

ABSTRACT In 2012, VALidation of human papillomavirus (HPV) GENotyping Tests (VALGENT) was initiated to provide a formalized and uniform study framework for comparison and validation of HPV assays with genotyping capability. In VALGENT-3, the clinical and analytical performance of Anyplex II HPV HR detection (Anyplex) was compared to that of the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test (hc2) and the cobas 4800 HPV test (cobas). The panel comprises 1,300 stored samples that were obtained from women 25 to 64 years old who participated in the Slovenian cancer screening program, enriched with 300 samples from women with abnormal cervical cytology. The sensitivity and specificity of Anyplex were noninferior to those of hc2, with a relative sensitivity of 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.04) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06) for CIN3+ and relative specificity of 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.03) for a CIN grade of ≤1. The clinical sensitivity of Anyplex for CIN2+ and CIN3+ was comparable to that of hc2 (P values for McNemar test [pMcN] of 0.655 and 0.564, respectively), but its specificity was significantly higher (pMcN = 0.008). The sensitivity and specificity of Anyplex were also noninferior to those of cobas, with relative sensitivity of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04) for CIN2+ and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.04) for CIN3+ and relative specificity of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.01) (pMcN value of >0.05 in all cases). Regardless of the clinical outcome (CIN2+ or CIN3+), age restriction (women ≥30 years old), or comparator test used, Anyplex consistently showed excellent clinical performance and can be considered validated for primary cervical cancer screening.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Demarco ◽  
Olivia Carter-Pokras ◽  
Noorie Hyun ◽  
Philip E. Castle ◽  
Xin He ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT As cervical cancer screening shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, a major question is the clinical value of identifying individual HPV types. We aimed to validate Onclarity (Becton Dickinson Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), a nine-channel HPV test recently approved by the FDA, by assessing (i) the association of Onclarity types/channels with precancer/cancer; (ii) HPV type/channel agreement between the results of Onclarity and cobas (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA), another FDA-approved test; and (iii) Onclarity typing for all types/channels compared to typing results from a research assay (linear array [LA]; Roche). We compared Onclarity to histopathology, cobas, and LA. We tested a stratified random sample ( n = 9,701) of discarded routine clinical specimens that had tested positive by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen, Germantown, MD). A subset had already been tested by cobas and LA ( n = 1,965). Cervical histopathology was ascertained from electronic health records. Hierarchical Onclarity channels showed a significant linear association with histological severity. Onclarity and cobas had excellent agreement on partial typing of HPV16, HPV18, and the other 12 types as a pool (sample-weighted kappa value of 0.83); cobas was slightly more sensitive for HPV18 and slightly less sensitive for the pooled high-risk types. Typing by Onclarity showed excellent agreement with types and groups of types identified by LA (kappa values from 0.80 for HPV39/68/35 to 0.97 for HPV16). Onclarity typing results corresponded well to histopathology and to an already validated HPV DNA test and could provide additional clinical typing if such discrimination is determined to be clinically desirable.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 410
Author(s):  
Sally Sweeney ◽  
Yan Cheng ◽  
Jessica R. Botfield ◽  
Deborah Bateson

From 1 December 2017, the National Cervical Screening Program was renewed in Australia, with updated national cervical screening guidelines released. This study was performed to determine clinicians’ familiarity with the updated guidelines and explore their views and attitudes towards the renewed program. Clinicians providing cervical screening in New South Wales, Australia, were invited to complete an online survey in 2018. Of the 241 clinicians who responded, 91.5% supported the change to 5-yearly human papillomavirus screening from the age of 25 years. However, nearly 13% indicated they did not know where to access the renewed guidelines and 37% had never or rarely accessed them. Open-ended responses highlighted clinicians’ concerns about missed cancers and missed opportunities for health checks. Those raising these concerns accessed the guidelines less frequently. The findings highlight important areas for additional education and support for clinicians in translating guidelines into practice to ensure successful delivery of the renewed program.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. e1003748
Author(s):  
K. Miriam Elfström ◽  
Carina Eklund ◽  
Helena Lamin ◽  
Daniel Öhman ◽  
Maria Hortlund ◽  
...  

Background Clinical trials in the research setting have demonstrated that primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening results in greater protection against cervical cancer compared with cytology, but evidence from real-life implementation was missing. To evaluate the effectiveness of HPV-based cervical screening within a real-life screening program, the organized, population-based cervical screening program in the capital region of Sweden offered either HPV- or cytology-based screening in a randomized manner through a randomized healthcare policy (RHP). Methods and findings A total of 395,725 women aged 30 to 64 years that were invited for their routine cervical screening visit were randomized without blinding to either cytology-based screening with HPV triage (n = 183,309) or HPV-based screening, with cytology triage (n = 212,416 women) between September 1, 2014 and September 30, 2016 and follow-up through June 30, 2017. The main outcome was non-inferior detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). Secondary outcomes included superiority in CIN2+ detection, screening attendance, and referral to histology. In total, 120,240 had a cervical screening sample on record in the study period in the HPV arm and 99,340 in the cytology arm and were followed for the outcomes of interest. In per-protocol (PP) analyses, the detection rate of CIN2+ was 1.03% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.10) in the HPV arm and 0.93% (0.87 to 0.99) in the cytology arm (p for non-inferiority <0.0001; odds ratio (OR) 1.11 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.22)). There were 46 cervical cancers detected in the HPV arm (0.04% (0.03 to 0.06)) and 48 cancers detected in the cytology arm (0.05% (0.04 to 0.07)) (p for non-inferiority <0.0001; OR 0.79 (0.53 to 1.18)). Intention-to-screen (ITS) analyses found few differences. In the HPV arm, there was a modestly increased attendance after new invitations (68.56% (68.31 to 68.80) vs. 67.71% (67.43 to 67.98); OR 1.02 (1.00 to 1.03)) and increased rate of referral with completed biopsy (3.89% (3.79 to 4.00) vs. 3.53% (3.42 to 3.65); OR 1.10 (1.05 to 1.15)). The main limitations of this analysis are that only the baseline results are presented, and there was an imbalance in invitations between the study arms. Conclusions In this study, we observed that a real-life RHP of primary HPV-based screening was acceptable and effective when evaluated against cytology-based screening, as indicated by comparable participation, referral, and detection rates. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01511328


2011 ◽  
Vol 130 (5) ◽  
pp. 1128-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Gök ◽  
Folkert J. van Kemenade ◽  
Daniëlle A.M. Heideman ◽  
Johannes Berkhof ◽  
Lawrence Rozendaal ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 92-92
Author(s):  
Paolo Giorgi Rossi ◽  
Francesca Carozzi ◽  
Antonio Federici ◽  
Guglielmo Ronco ◽  
Marco Zappa ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION:In Italy, the cohorts of women who were offered Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in 2007/08 will reach the age for cervical cancer (CC) screening from 2017. According to the National Prevention Plan 2014–18, HPV-based screening must be implemented for women ≥30 years old, following the Italian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report recommendations (1). The simultaneous shift from cytology-based screening to HPV test-based screening gives the opportunity for unprecedented reorganisation of CC prevention.METHODS:The National Screening Monitoring Centre and the Italian Group for Cervical Screening, following a commitment by the Italian the Ministry of Health (MoH), identified the consensus conference as the most suitable method for addressing this topic. The objective was defining the best screening methods in girls vaccinated against HPV and the knowledge needs for defining evidence-based screening strategies. During the consensus celebration (24 November 2015) a jury made recommendations about questions and proposals formulated by a panel of experts representative of Italian scientific societies involved in CC prevention and based on systematic reviews (2).RESULTS:The jury considered changing the screening protocols for girls vaccinated in their 12th year as appropriate. Tailored screening protocols based on vaccination status could be replaced by “one size fits all” protocols only when a herd immunity effect has been reached. Vaccinated women should start screening at age 30, instead of 25, with the HPV test. Furthermore, there is a strong rationale for applying longer intervals for re-screening HPV negative women than the currently recommended 5 years, but research is needed to determine the optimal screening time points. For non-vaccinated women and for women vaccinated in their 15th year or later, the current protocol should be kept.CONCLUSIONS:As further action, in 2016 the Ministry of Health funded a Health Technology Assessment program of the new screening protocol proposed by the consensus conference and a cohort study for determining a safe interval in vaccinated women.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document