PreTect HPV-Proofer Research Articles

Presence of E6 and E7 mRNA from Human Papillomavirus Types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 in the Majority of Cervical Carcinomas

The oncogenic potential of the human papillomavirus (HPV) early genes E6 and E7 is well established and a source of interest with regard to HPV testing for cervical carcinoma. Here we present a study performed with 204 histologically confirmed invasive cervical squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in which we evaluated the HPV E6 and E7 mRNA detection assay PreTect HPV-Proofer for detection of high-risk HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45. For further evaluation, detection of E6 and E7 mRNA from HPV types 35, 52, and 58 by real-time multiplex nucleic acid sequence-based amplification was also included. For comparison and to assess the overall prevalence of various HPV types, samples were also tested for HPV DNA by both consensus and type-specific PCR, reverse line blotting, sequencing, and in situ hybridization. The overall prevalence of HPV was 97%. HPV E6 and E7 transcripts were detected in 188 of 204 (92%) biopsy specimens, of which 181 contained one of the following HPV types: 16, 18, 31, 33, or 45. Consensus PCR and type-specific PCR detected HPV in 187 of 204 and 188 of 204 (92%) specimens, respectively. In conclusion, this study verifies the presence of HPV E6 and E7 mRNA in SCCs and demonstrates that HPV infections among Norwegian women with SCCs are limited mainly to the five high-risk types, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45. This, together with the fact that PreTect HPV-Proofer detects the HPV oncogenic transcripts, suggests that the assay is a valuable approach in the field of HPV detection in cervical carcinoma.

Human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA expression in women younger than 30 years of age

Objective. The prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) is high in women younger than 30 years of age, most infections being transient. It is not clear, however, to what extent the E6/E7 transcripts are being expressed. This may be of prognostic importance. In this study, we have determined the prevalence of HPV DNA and mRNA in 283 women younger than 30 years of age. Methods. E6/E7 transcripts from HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45 were detected using PreTect HPV-Proofer, while the presence of HPV DNA was detected using Gp5+/6+ consensus PCR and type-specific PCR. Results. A total of 92 women (32.5%) were positive by consensus PCR, 59 (20.8%) were positive by type-specific PCR, while 41 (14.5%) were positive by PreTect HPV-Proofer. E6/E7 mRNA expression was detected in 38 (64.4%) of the 59 HPV type-specific DNA positive women. For HPV 16, E6/E7 mRNA expression was observed in 8 (32%) of the 25 DNA positive women. No high-grade lesions were observed in the concomitant cytology. Conclusions. Among young women having a normal Pap smear, a high HPV prevalence was found. Hence, use of consensus PCR will most probably give a low prognostic value for identifying subsequent severe dysplasia. The five HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45 accounted for the majority of infections with two out of three having a detectable E6/E7 mRNA expression. Yet, repeated type-specific testing for HPV mRNA may identify young women with a persistent transforming infection being at increased risk for severe dysplasia.

DNA- versus RNA-based methods for human papillomavirus detection in cervical neoplasia

Objective. To compare DNA-based and mRNA-based methods for detection of high-grade cervical neoplasia in Norway. Methods. HPV prevalence was analyzed in 383 women with positive index cytology, selected from gynecology clinics. All patients were investigated by a new PAP smear, histology, and two commercially available HPV tests: Hybrid Capture II (Digene, Gaithersburg, MD) and the Pre Tect HPV-Proofer (NorChip AS). Cases with positive DNA test and negative mRNA test and cases with high-grade histology and negative HPV tests were retested with PCR and sequencing. We regarded the infection as latent or transient if sequencing revealed an HPV type included in both assays. Results. High-risk HPV was detected in 99.7% of the histological confirmed high-grade lesions (CIN2+) (290/291). The DNA test was positive in 95% (275/291), and the mRNA test was positive in 77% (225/291) of the histological confirmed high-grade lesions. All invasive carcinomas were mRNA positive. The DNA test was significantly more often positive in benign and low-grade lesions, some of which were found to be false positive due to cross-contamination with unrelated types. High-grade histology was detected in 83% of women with normal cytology and positive mRNA test. Latent or transient infections were detected in 11 low-grade and 12 high-grade preinvasive lesions. Sequencing revealed high-risk HPV types included only in the DNA test in 35 high-grade preinvasive lesions, HPV 52 and 58 were the most prevalent HPV types. Conclusions. These HPV tests have the potential to improve the detection rate of high-grade cervical neoplasia, with some limitations. The mRNA test seems to be more appropriate for risk-evaluation. Larger scale, population based studies are necessary to evaluate the predictive values of HPV testing in Norway.

Comparison of Human Papillomavirus Messenger RNA and DNA Detection: A Cross-sectional Study of 4,136 Women >30 Years of Age with a 2-Year Follow-up of High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion

The purpose of this study was to compare the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA with detection of mRNA. The study included 4,136 women >30 years of age. E6/E7 mRNA expression from the carcinogenic HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 was detected by the PreTect HPV-Proofer assay, whereas the presence of HPV DNA was detected by Gp5+/6+ consensus PCR followed by type-specific PCR. A total of 4.0% had an abnormal cytologic diagnosis, 3.0% were positive by PreTect HPV-Proofer, 4.4% by type-specific PCR, and 10.4% by consensus PCR. For detection of HPV in high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), no significant difference was observed between PreTect HPV-Proofer and consensus PCR. For women with a cytologic normal, atypical squamous cell of uncertain significance, and low-grade SIL diagnosis, the detection rate of HPV was significantly higher by Gp5+/6+ consensus PCR (P < 0.005) than by PreTect HPV-Proofer. Histology confirmed 14 of 23 cytologic HSIL as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade >2. Of these women, PreTect HPV-Proofer and type-specific PCR detected 12, whereas consensus PCR detected 13. In conclusion, for HSIL, detection of E6/E7 transcripts from HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 are present to the same degree as DNA detected by consensus PCR. Equally important, only a small proportion of the HPV DNA-positive women with a normal, atypical squamous cell of uncertain significance or low-grade SIL diagnosis had a detectable mRNA expression. HPV E6/E7 mRNA detection by PreTect HPV-Proofer represents a new promising test as an adjunct to cytology.

Predicting CIN2+ when detecting HPV mRNA and DNA by PreTect HPV‐proofer and consensus PCR: A 2‐year follow‐up of women with ASCUS or LSIL pap smear

It has been suggested that human papillomavirus (HPV) testing improves follow-up of atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) in cervical cancer screening programs. To evaluate the prognostic value of including HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology, we carried out a 2-year follow-up study of 77 women with ASCUS or LSIL Papanicolaou (Pap) smear in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP) for detection of histological cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+. The study includes a comparison between viral mRNA and DNA detection. PreTect HPV-Proofer was used for HPV E6/E7 mRNA detection from the 5 high-risk types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45, and Gp5+/6+ consensus PCR was used for HPV DNA detection. Twice as many women were positive for HPV DNA (54.6%) than for HPV mRNA (23.4%). PreTect HPV-Proofer and consensus PCR had a sensitivity of 85.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.1-99.6) for detecting CIN2+ during follow-up. The specificity was significantly higher for PreTect HPV-Proofer, 84.9% (95% CI = 73.9-92.5), than for consensus PCR, 50.0% (95% CI = 37.4-62.6). PreTect HPV-Proofer positive women were 69.8 times (95% CI = 4.3-1137.3) more likely to be diagnosed with CIN2+ within 2 years than PreTect HPV-Proofer negative women. Consensus PCR-positive women were 5.7 times (95% CI = 0.6-52.0) more likely to be diagnosed with CIN2+ within 2 years than PCR-negative women. With equal sensitivity and higher specificity than consensus PCR, the PreTect HPV-Proofer might offer an improvement for the triage of women with ASCUS or LSIL Pap smear.