This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Söderlund-Strand, A. Articles by Dillner, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Söderlund-Strand, A. Articles by Dillner, L.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2005, p. 3260-3266, Vol. 43, No. 7
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.7.3260-3266.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison between the Hybrid Capture II Test and a PCR-Based Human Papillomavirus Detection Method for Diagnosis and Posttreatment Follow-Up of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Department of Medical Microbiology, Lund University, University Hospital of Malmö, 205 02 Malmö, Sweden,¹ Department of Gynaecology, Västerås Hospital, Västerås, Sweden,² Department of Clinical Virology, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden³

Received 9 November 2004/ Returned for modification 6 January 2005/ Accepted 14 February 2005

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the major cause of cervical cancer and its precursor, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and HPV testing has therefore been proposed for improved triaging and follow-up of women treated for CIN. We compared two common HPV DNA detection tests (Hybrid Capture II [HCII] and PCR-enzyme immunosorbent assay (EIA) using the primers GP5+/GP6+ followed by HPV typing with reverse dot blot hybridization) for sensitivity and specificity for detection of CIN and of CIN recurrence after treatment. Two hundred and thirty-nine women referred to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Västerås, Sweden, were enrolled because of atypical Pap smears; 177 of these were later treated for dysplasia by conization or loop diathermy. Samples for HPV DNA testing were taken before and 4 to 6 months after treatment. There was substantial agreement between the HCII and PCR-EIA (kappa, 0.70 before treatment and 0.72 after treatment). The sensitivity for histopathologically confirmed CIN III was 100.0% for PCR-EIA and 95.6% for HCII. For patients with CIN II or worse (CIN II+), the sensitivities were 92.9% (PCR-EIA) and 91.8% (HCII). The specificities for CIN II+ in the pretreatment setting were 30.4% for PCR-EIA and 24.1% for HCII. After treatment, the sensitivities for CIN III in cytology were 100.0% by both methods, and for CIN II+, sensitivities were 80.0% by both methods. The specificities for CIN II+ in the posttreatment setting were 83.5% for PCR and 85.4% for HCII. In conclusion, the sensitivities of both PCR-EIA and HCII are high and almost equal, suggesting that both methods are suitable as tools for detection and posttreatment follow-up of CIN II-III.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Soderlund-Strand, A., Dillner, J., Carlson, J. (2008). High-Throughput Genotyping of Oncogenic Human Papilloma Viruses with MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry. Clin. Chem. 54: 86-92 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Stevens, M. P., Garland, S. M., Rudland, E., Tan, J., Quinn, M. A., Tabrizi, S. N. (2007). Comparison of the Digene Hybrid Capture 2 Assay and Roche AMPLICOR and LINEAR ARRAY Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Tests in Detecting High-Risk HPV Genotypes in Specimens from Women with Previous Abnormal Pap Smear Results. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 2130-2137 [Abstract] [Full Text]