Table 2.

Comparison of LBC, Aptima, HC2, Proofer, and LA genotyping results for invasive cervical cancer

Case no.Age (yr)LBC findingaAptima resultbAptima S/COHC2 resultbHC2 RLU/COProofer resultcProofer genotypeLA genotype(s)Histologya
177UNSPositive13.55Positive31.58Positive3333SCC
246ASCUSPositive14.22Negative<1Positive4516, 45SCC
375UNSPositive10.29Positive27.35NTd31SCC
439ASCUSPositive10.85Positive771.23NT16SCC
543ASCUSPositive11.21Positive13.96NT16, 61SCC
624HSILPositive12.27Positive292.38Positive1616, 39, 53SCC
728LSILPositive11.56Positive718.77Positive1616SCC
842HSILPositive11.49Positive3.32Positive1616SCC
930HSILPositive16.98Positive3.13Positive4545SCC
1045ASCUSPositive18.78Positive138.93NT16SCC
1151ASCUSPositive13.62Positive42.88NT52, 58SCC
1234LSILPositive11.94Positive1.22Positive1818, 62SCC
1332ASC-HPositive17.52Positive541.52Positive1818Adenocarcinoma
  • a UNS, unsatisfactory; ASCUS, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; ASC-H, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, favor high grade; LSIL, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; HSIL, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.

  • b On the basis of a total of 1,418 referral specimens tested.

  • c On the basis of a subset of 818 referral specimens tested.

  • d NT, not tested due to lack of sufficient specimen.