Comparison between prototype Hybrid Capture 3 and Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer

Philip E. Castle, Attila T. Lorincz, David R. Scott, Mark E. Sherman, Andrew G. Glass, Brenda B. Rush, Sholom Wacholder, Robert D. Burk, M. Michele Manos, John E. Schussler, Paul Macomber, Mark Schiffman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared the performance of a prototype version of the Hybrid Capture 3 (HC3) human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assay to the current generation Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay, both of which target 13 oncogenic HPV types, for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer (CIN3+) with cervicovaginal lavage specimens collected at enrollment into a 10-year cohort study at Kaiser Permanente (Portland, Oreg.). HC3 results for a risk-stratified sample (n = 4,364) were compared to HC2 results for the entire cohort (n = 20,810) with receiver operating characteristics curves, and the optimal cut points for both tests (relative light units [RLU]/positive control [PC]) for the detection of CIN3+ were determined. Specimens were also tested for HPV16 and HPV18 with separate HC3 type-specific probes. The optimal cut point for detecting CIN3+ was 1.0 RLU/PC for HC2, as previously shown, and was 0.6 RLU/PC for HC3. At the optimal cut points, HC3 and HC2 had similar screening performance characteristics for CIN3+ diagnosed at the enrollment visit. In analyses that included cases CIN3+ at enrollment and those diagnosed during early follow-up, HC3 had nonsignificantly higher sensitivity and equal specificity for the detection of CIN3+ compared to HC2; this increase in sensitivity was primarily the result of increased detection of CIN3+ in women who were 30 years of age or older and were cytologically negative (P = 0.006). We also compared the performance of the hybrid capture tests to MY09/11 L1 consensus primer PCR results (n = 1,247). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for specimens that tested positive by PCR for any untargeted types (P < 0.001). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for untargeted PCR-detected single infections with HPV53 (P = 0.001) and HPV66 (P = 0.01). There was good agreement between test positivity by PCR and by single type-specific HC3 probes for HPV16 (kappa = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 0.82) and for HPV18 (kappa = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.79). In conclusion, we suggest that HC3 (≥0.6 RLU/PC) may be slightly more sensitive than and equally specific test as HC2 (≥1.0 RLU/PC) for the detection of CIN3+ over the duration of typical screening intervals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4022-4030
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Microbiology
Volume41
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2003

Fingerprint

Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
DNA
Neoplasms
Light
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Microbiology

Cite this

Comparison between prototype Hybrid Capture 3 and Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. / Castle, Philip E.; Lorincz, Attila T.; Scott, David R.; Sherman, Mark E.; Glass, Andrew G.; Rush, Brenda B.; Wacholder, Sholom; Burk, Robert D.; Manos, M. Michele; Schussler, John E.; Macomber, Paul; Schiffman, Mark.

In: Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Vol. 41, No. 9, 01.09.2003, p. 4022-4030.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Castle, Philip E. ; Lorincz, Attila T. ; Scott, David R. ; Sherman, Mark E. ; Glass, Andrew G. ; Rush, Brenda B. ; Wacholder, Sholom ; Burk, Robert D. ; Manos, M. Michele ; Schussler, John E. ; Macomber, Paul ; Schiffman, Mark. / Comparison between prototype Hybrid Capture 3 and Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. In: Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2003 ; Vol. 41, No. 9. pp. 4022-4030.
@article{cf273e5c598e4fee9bb34d84b0150ce2,
title = "Comparison between prototype Hybrid Capture 3 and Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer",
abstract = "We compared the performance of a prototype version of the Hybrid Capture 3 (HC3) human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assay to the current generation Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay, both of which target 13 oncogenic HPV types, for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer (CIN3+) with cervicovaginal lavage specimens collected at enrollment into a 10-year cohort study at Kaiser Permanente (Portland, Oreg.). HC3 results for a risk-stratified sample (n = 4,364) were compared to HC2 results for the entire cohort (n = 20,810) with receiver operating characteristics curves, and the optimal cut points for both tests (relative light units [RLU]/positive control [PC]) for the detection of CIN3+ were determined. Specimens were also tested for HPV16 and HPV18 with separate HC3 type-specific probes. The optimal cut point for detecting CIN3+ was 1.0 RLU/PC for HC2, as previously shown, and was 0.6 RLU/PC for HC3. At the optimal cut points, HC3 and HC2 had similar screening performance characteristics for CIN3+ diagnosed at the enrollment visit. In analyses that included cases CIN3+ at enrollment and those diagnosed during early follow-up, HC3 had nonsignificantly higher sensitivity and equal specificity for the detection of CIN3+ compared to HC2; this increase in sensitivity was primarily the result of increased detection of CIN3+ in women who were 30 years of age or older and were cytologically negative (P = 0.006). We also compared the performance of the hybrid capture tests to MY09/11 L1 consensus primer PCR results (n = 1,247). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for specimens that tested positive by PCR for any untargeted types (P < 0.001). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for untargeted PCR-detected single infections with HPV53 (P = 0.001) and HPV66 (P = 0.01). There was good agreement between test positivity by PCR and by single type-specific HC3 probes for HPV16 (kappa = 0.76; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 0.82) and for HPV18 (kappa = 0.73; 95{\%} CI = 0.68 to 0.79). In conclusion, we suggest that HC3 (≥0.6 RLU/PC) may be slightly more sensitive than and equally specific test as HC2 (≥1.0 RLU/PC) for the detection of CIN3+ over the duration of typical screening intervals.",
author = "Castle, {Philip E.} and Lorincz, {Attila T.} and Scott, {David R.} and Sherman, {Mark E.} and Glass, {Andrew G.} and Rush, {Brenda B.} and Sholom Wacholder and Burk, {Robert D.} and Manos, {M. Michele} and Schussler, {John E.} and Paul Macomber and Mark Schiffman",
year = "2003",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1128/JCM.41.9.4022-4030.2003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "4022--4030",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Microbiology",
issn = "0095-1137",
publisher = "American Society for Microbiology",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison between prototype Hybrid Capture 3 and Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer

AU - Castle, Philip E.

AU - Lorincz, Attila T.

AU - Scott, David R.

AU - Sherman, Mark E.

AU - Glass, Andrew G.

AU - Rush, Brenda B.

AU - Wacholder, Sholom

AU - Burk, Robert D.

AU - Manos, M. Michele

AU - Schussler, John E.

AU - Macomber, Paul

AU - Schiffman, Mark

PY - 2003/9/1

Y1 - 2003/9/1

N2 - We compared the performance of a prototype version of the Hybrid Capture 3 (HC3) human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assay to the current generation Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay, both of which target 13 oncogenic HPV types, for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer (CIN3+) with cervicovaginal lavage specimens collected at enrollment into a 10-year cohort study at Kaiser Permanente (Portland, Oreg.). HC3 results for a risk-stratified sample (n = 4,364) were compared to HC2 results for the entire cohort (n = 20,810) with receiver operating characteristics curves, and the optimal cut points for both tests (relative light units [RLU]/positive control [PC]) for the detection of CIN3+ were determined. Specimens were also tested for HPV16 and HPV18 with separate HC3 type-specific probes. The optimal cut point for detecting CIN3+ was 1.0 RLU/PC for HC2, as previously shown, and was 0.6 RLU/PC for HC3. At the optimal cut points, HC3 and HC2 had similar screening performance characteristics for CIN3+ diagnosed at the enrollment visit. In analyses that included cases CIN3+ at enrollment and those diagnosed during early follow-up, HC3 had nonsignificantly higher sensitivity and equal specificity for the detection of CIN3+ compared to HC2; this increase in sensitivity was primarily the result of increased detection of CIN3+ in women who were 30 years of age or older and were cytologically negative (P = 0.006). We also compared the performance of the hybrid capture tests to MY09/11 L1 consensus primer PCR results (n = 1,247). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for specimens that tested positive by PCR for any untargeted types (P < 0.001). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for untargeted PCR-detected single infections with HPV53 (P = 0.001) and HPV66 (P = 0.01). There was good agreement between test positivity by PCR and by single type-specific HC3 probes for HPV16 (kappa = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 0.82) and for HPV18 (kappa = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.79). In conclusion, we suggest that HC3 (≥0.6 RLU/PC) may be slightly more sensitive than and equally specific test as HC2 (≥1.0 RLU/PC) for the detection of CIN3+ over the duration of typical screening intervals.

AB - We compared the performance of a prototype version of the Hybrid Capture 3 (HC3) human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assay to the current generation Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay, both of which target 13 oncogenic HPV types, for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer (CIN3+) with cervicovaginal lavage specimens collected at enrollment into a 10-year cohort study at Kaiser Permanente (Portland, Oreg.). HC3 results for a risk-stratified sample (n = 4,364) were compared to HC2 results for the entire cohort (n = 20,810) with receiver operating characteristics curves, and the optimal cut points for both tests (relative light units [RLU]/positive control [PC]) for the detection of CIN3+ were determined. Specimens were also tested for HPV16 and HPV18 with separate HC3 type-specific probes. The optimal cut point for detecting CIN3+ was 1.0 RLU/PC for HC2, as previously shown, and was 0.6 RLU/PC for HC3. At the optimal cut points, HC3 and HC2 had similar screening performance characteristics for CIN3+ diagnosed at the enrollment visit. In analyses that included cases CIN3+ at enrollment and those diagnosed during early follow-up, HC3 had nonsignificantly higher sensitivity and equal specificity for the detection of CIN3+ compared to HC2; this increase in sensitivity was primarily the result of increased detection of CIN3+ in women who were 30 years of age or older and were cytologically negative (P = 0.006). We also compared the performance of the hybrid capture tests to MY09/11 L1 consensus primer PCR results (n = 1,247). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for specimens that tested positive by PCR for any untargeted types (P < 0.001). HC3 was less likely than HC2 to test positive for untargeted PCR-detected single infections with HPV53 (P = 0.001) and HPV66 (P = 0.01). There was good agreement between test positivity by PCR and by single type-specific HC3 probes for HPV16 (kappa = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 0.82) and for HPV18 (kappa = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.79). In conclusion, we suggest that HC3 (≥0.6 RLU/PC) may be slightly more sensitive than and equally specific test as HC2 (≥1.0 RLU/PC) for the detection of CIN3+ over the duration of typical screening intervals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042421606&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042421606&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1128/JCM.41.9.4022-4030.2003

DO - 10.1128/JCM.41.9.4022-4030.2003

M3 - Article

C2 - 12958220

AN - SCOPUS:0042421606

VL - 41

SP - 4022

EP - 4030

JO - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

SN - 0095-1137

IS - 9

ER -