Comparison of different commercial methods for HPV detection in follow-up cytology after ASCUS/LSIL, prediction of CIN2–3 in follow up biopsies and spontaneous regression of CIN2–3

Abstract

ObjectiveDifferent Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) tests are currently used. An integrated comparison of the Amplicor, Cobas4800, PreTect HPV-Proofer and APTIMA HPV tests has not been done. MethodsWe compared the high-risk HPV detection power of these HPV tests in 528 consecutive population-based follow-up Liquid-Based Cytology samples (LBC) after ASCUS/LSIL index cytology. Their sensitivity and specificity to detect HPV in LBC, their predictive values of histopathologic CIN2–3 in follow-up punch biopsies and CIN2–3 regression in the subsequent cones was assessed. The HPV subtypes detected by the Linear Array genotyping-test (LA), PreTect HPV-Proofer and Cobas4800 were also compared. The follow-up histopathology was consensus expert-reviewed and Ki67/p16-supported. The predictive values of the HPV results in LBC by the different tests for presence of CIN2–3 in follow-up biopsies, and regression in subsequent cones, was assessed. ResultsAmplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA show good agreement for HPV-positivity/negativity. PreTect HPV-Proofer has many discrepancies versus any of the other methods. The sensitivities for Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA to detect CIN2–3 were very high (96–100%), but rather low for PreTect HPV-Proofer (53%). Specificity in case of CIN1 or less in follow-up biopsies of Amplicor and Cobas4800 is lower than APTIMA and highest for PreTect HPV-Proofer. HPV subtyping by LA agreed in 90% with Cobas4800 but 70% with PreTect HPV-Proofer. ConclusionsThe Amplicor, Cobas4800 and APTIMA give comparable results but PreTect HPV-Proofer differs from the other tests, with low sensitivity but higher specificity. None of the methods predicted regression of CIN2–3.