J Pathol Transl Med.  2016 Mar;50(2):138-146. 10.4132/jptm.2015.10.21.

Comparison of Analytical and Clinical Performance of HPV 9G DNA Chip, PANArray HPV Genotyping Chip, and Hybrid-Capture II Assay in Cervicovaginal Swabs

• Jung HY
• Han HS
• Kim HB
• Oh SY
• Lee SJ
• Kim WY

• KMID: 2211381
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2015.10.21

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can be detected by using several molecular methods, including Hybrid-Capture II (HC2) assay and variable HPV DNA chip tests, although each method has different sensitivities and specificities.
METHODS
We performed HPV 9G DNA Chip (9G) and PANArray HPV Genotyping Chip (PANArray) tests on 118 cervicovaginal swabs and compared the results with HC2, cytology, histology, and direct sequencing results.
RESULTS
The overall and high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) positivity rates were 62.7% and 44.9% using 9G, and 61.0% and 30.5% using PANArray, respectively. The positivity rates for HR-HPV with these two chips were significantly lower than 55.1% when HC2 was used. The sensitivity of overall HPV positivity in detecting histologically confirmed low-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions or higher was 88.7% for all three tests. The specificity was 58.5% for 9G and 61.5% for PANArray, which was significantly lower than the 72.3% for HC2. With the HR-HPV+ genotype threshold, the sensitivity decreased to 75.5% for 9G and 52.8% for PANArray, which was significantly lower than the 88.7% for HC2. Comparison of the two chips showed concordant results in 55.1% of the samples, compatible results in 16.9%, and discordant results in 28.0%, exhibiting poor agreement in detecting  certain HPV genotypes. Compared with direct sequencing, 9G yielded no discordant results, whereas PANArray yielded 31 discordant results (26.7%).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with HC2, the HPV genotyping tests showed lower sensitivity in histologic correlation. When the two chips were compared, the 9G was more sensitive and accurate for detecting HR-HPV than the PANArray.

Keyword

Human papillomavirus; Hybrid-Capture II assay; Oligonucleotide array sequence analysis; Cervix uteri

MeSH Terms

Cervix Uteri
DNA*
Female
Genotype
Humans
Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis*
Sensitivity and Specificity
DNA

Reference

1. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press;2014.

2. Bzhalava D, Guan P, Franceschi S, Dillner J, Clifford G. A systematic review of the prevalence of mucosal and cutaneous human papillomavirus types. Virology. 2013; 445:224–31.

3. Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:518–27.

4. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999; 189:12–9.

5. Kjaer SK, van den Brule AJ, Paull G, et al. Type specific persistence of high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) as indicator of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in young women: population based prospective follow up study. BMJ. 2002; 325:572.

6. Elfgren K, Jacobs M, Walboomers JM, Meijer CJ, Dillner J. Rate of human papillomavirus clearance after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100(5 Pt 1):965–71.

7. Khan MJ, Castle PE, Lorincz AT, et al. The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97:1072–9.

8. Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S. Chapter 1: Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer: burden and assessment of causality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003; (31):3–13.

9. Cuschieri KS, Cubie HA. The role of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening. J Clin Virol. 2005; 32 Suppl 1:S34–42.

10. Rozendaal L, Westerga J, van der Linden JC, et al. PCR based high risk HPV testing is superior to neural network based screening for predicting incident CIN III in women with normal cytology and borderline changes. J Clin Pathol. 2000; 53:606–11.

11. Denise Zielinski G, Snijders PJ, Rozendaal L, et al. High-risk HPV testing in women with borderline and mild dyskaryosis: long-term follow-up data and clinical relevance. J Pathol. 2001; 195:300–6.

12. Poljak M, Brencic A, Seme K, Vince A, Marin IJ. Comparative evaluation of first- and second-generation digene hybrid capture assays for detection of human papillomaviruses associated with high or intermediate risk for cervical cancer. J Clin Microbiol. 1999; 37:796–7.

13. Sandri MT, Lentati P, Benini E, et al. Comparison of the Digene HC2 assay and the Roche AMPLICOR human papillomavirus (HPV) test for detection of high-risk HPV genotypes in cervical samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2006; 44:2141–6.

14. Castle PE, Wheeler CM, Solomon D, Schiffman M, Peyton CL; ALTS Group. Interlaboratory reliability of Hybrid Capture 2. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 122:238–45.

15. Huh W, Einstein MH, Herzog TJ, Franco EL. What is the role of HPV typing in the United States now and in the next five years in a vaccinated population? Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 117:481–5.

16. Lindemann ML, Dominguez MJ, de Antonio JC, et al. Analytical comparison of the cobas HPV Test with Hybrid Capture 2 for the detection of high-risk HPV genotypes. J Mol Diagn. 2012; 14:65–70.

17. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287:2114–9.

18. Oh SY, Kim WY, Hwang TS, Han HS, Lim SD, Kim WS. Development of an ammonium sulfate DNA extraction method for obtaining amplifiable DNA in a small number of cells and its application to clinical specimens. Biomed Res Int. 2013; 2013:546727.

19. An H, Song KS, Nimse SB, et al. HPV 9G DNA chip: 100% clinical sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50:562–8.

20. Choi JJ, Kim C, Park H. Peptide nucleic acid-based array for detecting and genotyping human papillomaviruses. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47:1785–90.

21. An HJ, Cho NH, Lee SY, et al. Correlation of cervical carcinoma and precancerous lesions with human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes detected with the HPV DNA chip microarray method. Cancer. 2003; 97:1672–80.

22. Lee GY, Kim SM, Rim SY, Choi HS, Park CS, Nam JH. Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping by HPV DNA chip in cervical cancer and precancerous lesions. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005; 15:81–7.

23. Kim TJ, Jung CK, Lee A, et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy between an HPV DNA chip and a Hybrid-Capture II assay in a patient with abnormal colposcopic findings. Korean J Cytopathol. 2008; 19:119–25.

24. Song HJ, Lee JW, Kim BG, Song SY, Bae DS, Kim DS. Comparison of the performance of the PANArray™ HPV test and DNA chip test for genotyping of human papillomavirus in cervical swabs. BioChip J. 2010; 4:167–72.

25. Um TH, Lee EH, Chi HS, Kim JW, Hong YJ, Cha YJ. Comparison of HPV genotyping assays and Hybrid Capture 2 for detection of high-risk HPV in cervical specimens. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2011; 41:48–55.

26. Park KS, Kim JY, Ki CS, Lee NY. Comparison of the digene HPV genotyping LQ test and the PANArray HPV genotyping chip for detection of high-risk or probable high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes. Ann Lab Med. 2014; 34:279–85.

27. de Cremoux P, Coste J, Sastre-Garau X, et al. Efficiency of the hybrid capture 2 HPV DNA test in cervical cancer screening. A study by the French Society of Clinical Cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003; 120:492–9.

28. Trope A, Sjoborg K, Eskild A, et al. Performance of human papillomavirus DNA and mRNA testing strategies for women with and without cervical neoplasia. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47:2458–64.

29. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer. 2001; 84:1616–23.