Impact of HPV assay on observed population prevalence.

Elizabeth R Unger, Martin Steinau, Jin-Mann S Lin, Sonya S Patel, David C Swan
{"title":"Impact of HPV assay on observed population prevalence.","authors":"Elizabeth R Unger,&nbsp;Martin Steinau,&nbsp;Jin-Mann S Lin,&nbsp;Sonya S Patel,&nbsp;David C Swan","doi":"10.1097/PDM.0b013e3181f56fa5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Type-specific surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV) has been proposed as an early indicator of vaccine impact. Longitudinal comparison of HPV typing results requires stable assays with high type-specific reproducibility. Assays are evolving and the impact of even minor changes in the assay format may be difficult to anticipate. We initiated a population-based study of HPV with the prototype line blot (PLB) assay. These reagents were replaced by the research use only Linear Array (LA) HPV Genotyping kit. The assays are similar in principle and earlier comparisons found increased sensitivity and detection of more types per sample with LA; however, in samples from women with cervical abnormalities, the overall concordance was good. Slight changes in sensitivity may be more significant in samples from a general population with lower viral loads in the samples. Residual extracts from 3001 self-collected vaginal swabs from women in the general US population originally tested with PLB were retested with LA. With LA, all the samples were hybridized. PLB hybridization was restricted to samples with probable amplicon in gel electrophoresis. For HPV detection, the agreement between the 2 assays was 78.6% (κ=0.55) with a positive concordance of 52.8%. However, this masks the observation that repeat testing with LA led to the detection of HPV in nearly twice as many samples. Agreement improves if comparison was restricted to the samples hybridized. These results emphasize that assay comparisons should consider the clinical-epidemiologic context of sample collection. Studies designed to examine temporal trends in type-specific prevalence should archive residual material to permit retesting if assays change.</p>","PeriodicalId":11235,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Molecular Pathology","volume":"20 2","pages":"101-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/PDM.0b013e3181f56fa5","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Molecular Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PDM.0b013e3181f56fa5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Type-specific surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV) has been proposed as an early indicator of vaccine impact. Longitudinal comparison of HPV typing results requires stable assays with high type-specific reproducibility. Assays are evolving and the impact of even minor changes in the assay format may be difficult to anticipate. We initiated a population-based study of HPV with the prototype line blot (PLB) assay. These reagents were replaced by the research use only Linear Array (LA) HPV Genotyping kit. The assays are similar in principle and earlier comparisons found increased sensitivity and detection of more types per sample with LA; however, in samples from women with cervical abnormalities, the overall concordance was good. Slight changes in sensitivity may be more significant in samples from a general population with lower viral loads in the samples. Residual extracts from 3001 self-collected vaginal swabs from women in the general US population originally tested with PLB were retested with LA. With LA, all the samples were hybridized. PLB hybridization was restricted to samples with probable amplicon in gel electrophoresis. For HPV detection, the agreement between the 2 assays was 78.6% (κ=0.55) with a positive concordance of 52.8%. However, this masks the observation that repeat testing with LA led to the detection of HPV in nearly twice as many samples. Agreement improves if comparison was restricted to the samples hybridized. These results emphasize that assay comparisons should consider the clinical-epidemiologic context of sample collection. Studies designed to examine temporal trends in type-specific prevalence should archive residual material to permit retesting if assays change.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
HPV检测对观察到的人群患病率的影响。
人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)的类型特异性监测已被提议作为疫苗影响的早期指标。HPV分型结果的纵向比较需要具有高类型特异性重复性的稳定分析。检测方法在不断发展,即使检测格式发生微小变化,其影响也可能难以预测。我们启动了一项基于人群的HPV研究,采用原型细胞系印迹(PLB)检测。这些试剂被研究中使用的线性阵列(LA) HPV基因分型试剂盒所取代。分析在原理上是相似的,早期的比较发现LA增加了灵敏度和每个样品检测更多类型;然而,在宫颈异常妇女的样本中,总体一致性良好。敏感性的轻微变化可能在样本中病毒载量较低的一般人群样本中更为显著。从3001名美国普通人群女性中自行收集的阴道拭子中提取的残余提取物最初进行了PLB测试,并使用LA重新进行了测试。用LA对所有样品进行杂交。PLB杂交仅限于凝胶电泳中可能扩增子的样品。对于HPV检测,两种方法的一致性为78.6% (κ=0.55),阳性一致性为52.8%。然而,这掩盖了一个观察结果,即用LA重复检测导致在几乎两倍的样本中检测到HPV。如果比较仅限于杂交样品,则一致性提高。这些结果强调,分析比较应考虑样本收集的临床流行病学背景。旨在检查特定类型患病率的时间趋势的研究应将残留材料存档,以便在分析发生变化时进行重新测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Diagnostic Molecular Pathology focuses on providing clinical and academic pathologists with coverage of the latest molecular technologies, timely reviews of established techniques, and papers on the applications of these methods to all aspects of surgical pathology and laboratory medicine. It publishes original, peer-reviewed contributions on molecular probes for diagnosis, such as tumor suppressor genes, oncogenes, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and in situ hybridization. Articles demonstrate how these highly sensitive techniques can be applied for more accurate diagnosis.
期刊最新文献
Index Molecular Testing for Respiratory Viruses Molecular Testing in Emerging Infectious Diseases Frequent PIK3CA mutations in radial scars. Pyrosequencing for EGFR mutation detection: diagnostic accuracy and clinical implications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1