Selecting human papillomavirus genotypes to optimize the performance of screening tests among South African women.
Adult
Aged
Coinfection
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Genotype
HIV Infections
/ diagnosis
Human Papillomavirus DNA Tests
Humans
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
Papillomaviridae
/ genetics
Papillomavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Predictive Value of Tests
Reproducibility of Results
South Africa
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
/ diagnosis
HPV genotyping assays
South Africa
human papillomavirus
sensitivity
specificity
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
08
04
2020
revised:
05
06
2020
accepted:
29
06
2020
pubmed:
25
7
2020
medline:
21
7
2021
entrez:
25
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is highly sensitive compared to cytology, with the trade-off of being less specific. We investigated whether select combinations of HPV genotypes, ascertained by Linear Array (LA) and Xpert HPV (GX), can optimize sensitivity/specificity trade-offs to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). In a study in Cape Town, South Africa, 586 women living without and 535 living with HIV, aged 30-65 years, were recruited. Each woman underwent a pelvic exam to collect cervical samples (tested by LA and GX for 14 high-risk HPV genotypes) and underwent colposcopy with histological sampling to determine CIN2+. In multivariable logistic regression of LA results, only HPV genotypes 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 52, 58 were significantly associated with CIN2+ (P < .05). Xpert includes these seven types along with HPV 45 within three of the test's five channels and we defined these eight types as restricted genotyping (ie 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58). Full genotyping was defined as all 14 high-risk types. Sensitivity estimates for full genotyping using LA were similar to that of restricted genotyping: 83.9% (full) vs 79.0% (restricted) in women without HIV and 93.0% (full) vs 88.9% (restricted) in women living with HIV. Specificity estimates improved for restricted vs full genotyping: 87.4% (full) vs 90.8% (restricted) in women without HIV and 63.7% (full) vs 71.4% (restricted) in women living with HIV. To optimize the performance of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in high-burden, under-resourced settings like South Africa, only HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58 could be included to define screen-positive. We recommend the inclusion of HPV45 for its known link to adenocarcinoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32706163
doi: 10.1002/cam4.3329
pmc: PMC7520316
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6813-6824Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UH2 CA189908
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UH3 CA189908
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA094061
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
World J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;6(6):281-90
pubmed: 26677441
Vaccine. 2006 Aug 31;24 Suppl 3:S3/78-89
pubmed: 16950021
Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Jan;143(1):126-33
pubmed: 25511151
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2016 Jul;20(3):218-23
pubmed: 27030883
Infect Agent Cancer. 2009 Jun 01;4:8
pubmed: 19486508
Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 17;7(1):198
pubmed: 30447695
Vaccine. 2008 Aug 19;26 Suppl 10:K29-41
pubmed: 18847555
Prev Med. 2017 May;98:5-14
pubmed: 28279264
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Mar 2;103(5):368-83
pubmed: 21282563
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Apr;26(2):221-32
pubmed: 22075441
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Sep;51(13):1732-41
pubmed: 26121913
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012 Jan;5(1):11-7
pubmed: 22158053
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Sep;126(3):227-31
pubmed: 24947603
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Sep;4:1-5
pubmed: 30241142
BMC Cancer. 2016 Jul 20;16:510
pubmed: 27439470
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S36-S45
pubmed: 29223961
Vaccine. 2008 Aug 19;26 Suppl 10:K42-52
pubmed: 18847556
Prev Med. 2017 May;98:42-44
pubmed: 28279263
Cancer Med. 2020 Sep;9(18):6813-6824
pubmed: 32706163
Prev Med. 2017 May;98:15-20
pubmed: 28279257
J Clin Virol. 2016 Mar;76 Suppl 1:S14-S21
pubmed: 26522865
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Nov;11(11):1048-56
pubmed: 20952254
Int J Cancer. 2011 Feb 15;128(4):927-35
pubmed: 20473886
Int J Cancer. 2020 Nov 15;147(10):2677-2686
pubmed: 32363580
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Sep;4:1-2
pubmed: 30252572
J Clin Virol. 2016 Mar;76 Suppl 1:S49-S55
pubmed: 26643050
Int J Cancer. 2009 Feb 1;124(3):516-20
pubmed: 18973271
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jun;52(6):2089-95
pubmed: 24719440
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Sep;4:1-7
pubmed: 30241206
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Sep;21(9):817-26
pubmed: 25936581
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36966
pubmed: 22693561
Int J Cancer. 2007 Aug 1;121(3):621-32
pubmed: 17405118
Cancer Med. 2017 Jul;6(7):1752-1761
pubmed: 28580596
Chin J Cancer Res. 2017 Dec;29(6):496-509
pubmed: 29353972
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jan 19;97(2):147-50
pubmed: 15657345
Vaccine. 2012 Nov 20;30 Suppl 5:F88-99
pubmed: 23199969
J Glob Oncol. 2016 Oct 12;3(5):635-657
pubmed: 29094101
J Clin Virol. 2018 Jan;98:37-42
pubmed: 29241150
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Jun;44(6):1998-2006
pubmed: 16757590
Int J Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;135(1):166-77
pubmed: 24302411