Prospective comparison of hybrid capture 2 and SPF₁₀-LiPA for carcinogenic human papillomavirus detection and risk prediction of cervical cancer: a population-based cohort study in China.

Li Dong; Rui-mei Feng; Li Zhang; Xiao-qian Xu; Xue-lian Zhao; Margaret Zhuoer Wang; You-lin Qiao; Fang-hui Zhao

Objective: To investigate the extent of the cross-reactivity of hybrid capture 2 (HC2) assay and evaluate the potential effect of cross-reactivity on the long-term risk for cervical cancer and precancers. Methods: Based on the Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study-I (SPOCCS-I) cohort from 2005 to 2014 in Shanxi, China, SPF10-line probe assay (LiPA) was performed in all 598 HC2 positive and 300 random-selected HC2 negative cervical specimens. Tenyear cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) of these two tests was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Possible human papillomavirus (HPV) types to be cross-reacted by HC2 were also analyzed. Results: The overall agreement between HC2 and SPF10-LiPA for detecting carcinogenic HPV was 73.27%. The highest 10-year cumulative risk of CIN2+ was observed in both HC2 positive and LiPA-carcinogenic HPV positive women (25.70%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=23.55%- 27.91%), followed by HC2 positive but LiPA-non-carcinogenic HPV positive women (9.97%; 95% CI=8.57%-11.50%), HC2 negative but LiPA-carcinogenic HPV positive (2.56%; 95% CI=2.44%-2.70%) and HC2 positive but LiPA-HPV negative (1.85%; 95% CI=1.78%-1.92%) women. The proportion of cross-reactivity of HC2 with untargeted carcinogenic types was 8.9%, most of which were attributable to HPV26, 73, 82, 69, 71, 53, 11, 43, and 54. Conclusion: The noticeable high risk of CIN2+ in women infected with cross-reacted noncarcinogenic HPV and low risk in those with miss-to-detective carcinogenic HPV supported an overall good clinical performance of HC2 for a general cervical cancer screening.

PAPILLOMAVIRUSES; CERVICAL cancer; EARLY detection of cancer; CARCINOGENICITY; COHORT analysis; DIAGNOSTIC specimens; CANCER risk factors

Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 2017, Vol 28, Issue 5, p1

2005-0380

Academic Journal

10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e66