Advanced search
1 file | 143.13 KB Add to list

Comparative analysis of cervical cytology and human papillomavirus genotyping by three different methods in a routine diagnostic setting

Author
Organization
Abstract
Application of Bethesda guidelines on cervical cytology involves human papillomavirus (HPV) determinations on all ASC-US and ASC-H results. We compared HPV DNA results in view of the eventual development of a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesion determined either on cytology or histology. A total of 214 liquid-based cytology samples were analysed. Three different HPV DNA methods were applied: the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test, INNO-Lipa HPV Genotyping Extra and Full Spectrum PCR HPV Amplification and Detection/Genotyping System by Lab2Lab Diagnostic Service. A comparison of these three methods showed full concordance only for 49 samples (23%), and 27 (13%) of the samples were discordant in indicating the presence of the high-risk HPV type. Out of 214 patients, 88 were selected who presented with a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or a VAIN lesion at follow-up cytology or histology. In this group, full concordance with HPV genotyping was present only in 19 (22%) follow-up samples. Nine (10%) follow-up samples showed discordant results for the presence of a high-risk genotype between the three genotyping methods tested either by negativity for high-risk HPV by one of the methods (n=6) or by failure to genotype HPV (n=2), or by a combination of both (n=1). Moreover, discordance for the detection of HPV16 or HPV18 was observed between the three HPV DNA genotyping methods used in 9 (10%) follow-up samples. In addition, the performance of genotyping methods on 20 external quality samples was assessed, showing discordant results for HPV16 and HPV18. Major differences were found in the genotyping results according to the HPV DNA method. Our findings highlight the importance of careful interpretation of data from studies using different HPV genotyping methods and underline the need for standardization by method validation in clinical laboratories, especially in the setting of primary HPV screening.
Keywords
reverse hybridization, HYBRID CAPTURE 2, precancerous cervical lesions, human papillomavirus, genotyping, cervical cytology, RISK HUMAN-PAPILLOMAVIRUS, DNA TEST REQUIREMENTS, REAL-TIME PCR, HPV TYPES, GLOBAL PROFICIENCY, NATURAL-HISTORY, CANCER, ASSAYS, GUIDELINES

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 143.13 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Padalko, Elizaveta et al. “Comparative Analysis of Cervical Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Three Different Methods in a Routine Diagnostic Setting.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION 24.5 (2015): 447–453. Print.
APA
Padalko, E., Ali-Risasi, C., Mesmaekers, S., Ryckaert, I., Van Renterghem, L., Lambein, K., BAMELIS, M., et al. (2015). Comparative analysis of cervical cytology and human papillomavirus genotyping by three different methods in a routine diagnostic setting. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 24(5), 447–453.
Chicago author-date
Padalko, Elizaveta, Catherine Ali-Risasi, Stéphanie Mesmaekers, Inge Ryckaert, Lieve Van Renterghem, Kathleen Lambein, MIEKE BAMELIS, et al. 2015. “Comparative Analysis of Cervical Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Three Different Methods in a Routine Diagnostic Setting.” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 24 (5): 447–453.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Padalko, Elizaveta, Catherine Ali-Risasi, Stéphanie Mesmaekers, Inge Ryckaert, Lieve Van Renterghem, Kathleen Lambein, MIEKE BAMELIS, Anja De Mey, Yolande Sturtewagen, Hilde Vastenavondt, Davy Vanden Broeck, Steven Weyers, and Marleen Praet. 2015. “Comparative Analysis of Cervical Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Three Different Methods in a Routine Diagnostic Setting.” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 24 (5): 447–453.
Vancouver
1.
Padalko E, Ali-Risasi C, Mesmaekers S, Ryckaert I, Van Renterghem L, Lambein K, et al. Comparative analysis of cervical cytology and human papillomavirus genotyping by three different methods in a routine diagnostic setting. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION. 2015;24(5):447–53.
IEEE
[1]
E. Padalko et al., “Comparative analysis of cervical cytology and human papillomavirus genotyping by three different methods in a routine diagnostic setting,” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 447–453, 2015.
@article{7000530,
  abstract     = {{Application of Bethesda guidelines on cervical cytology involves human papillomavirus (HPV) determinations on all ASC-US and ASC-H results. We compared HPV DNA results in view of the eventual development of a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesion determined either on cytology or histology. A total of 214 liquid-based cytology samples were analysed. Three different HPV DNA methods were applied: the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test, INNO-Lipa HPV Genotyping Extra and Full Spectrum PCR HPV Amplification and Detection/Genotyping System by Lab2Lab Diagnostic Service. A comparison of these three methods showed full concordance only for 49 samples (23%), and 27 (13%) of the samples were discordant in indicating the presence of the high-risk HPV type. Out of 214 patients, 88 were selected who presented with a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or a VAIN lesion at follow-up cytology or histology. In this group, full concordance with HPV genotyping was present only in 19 (22%) follow-up samples. Nine (10%) follow-up samples showed discordant results for the presence of a high-risk genotype between the three genotyping methods tested either by negativity for high-risk HPV by one of the methods (n=6) or by failure to genotype HPV (n=2), or by a combination of both (n=1). Moreover, discordance for the detection of HPV16 or HPV18 was observed between the three HPV DNA genotyping methods used in 9 (10%) follow-up samples. In addition, the performance of genotyping methods on 20 external quality samples was assessed, showing discordant results for HPV16 and HPV18. Major differences were found in the genotyping results according to the HPV DNA method. Our findings highlight the importance of careful interpretation of data from studies using different HPV genotyping methods and underline the need for standardization by method validation in clinical laboratories, especially in the setting of primary HPV screening.}},
  author       = {{Padalko, Elizaveta and Ali-Risasi, Catherine and Mesmaekers, Stéphanie and Ryckaert, Inge and Van Renterghem, Lieve and Lambein, Kathleen and BAMELIS, MIEKE and De Mey, Anja and Sturtewagen, Yolande and Vastenavondt, Hilde and Vanden Broeck, Davy and Weyers, Steven and Praet, Marleen}},
  issn         = {{0959-8278}},
  journal      = {{EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION}},
  keywords     = {{reverse hybridization,HYBRID CAPTURE 2,precancerous cervical lesions,human papillomavirus,genotyping,cervical cytology,RISK HUMAN-PAPILLOMAVIRUS,DNA TEST REQUIREMENTS,REAL-TIME PCR,HPV TYPES,GLOBAL PROFICIENCY,NATURAL-HISTORY,CANCER,ASSAYS,GUIDELINES}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{5}},
  pages        = {{447--453}},
  title        = {{Comparative analysis of cervical cytology and human papillomavirus genotyping by three different methods in a routine diagnostic setting}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000100}},
  volume       = {{24}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: