Evaluation of the Anyplex BRAF V600E Real-Time Detection Assay Using Dual-Priming Oligonucleotide Technology in Fine-Needle Aspirates of Thyroid Nodules

BACKGROUND: Several molecular assays have been developed to detect the BRAF V600E mutation in fine needle aspirates (FNAs) for the diagnosis of papillary thyroid cancer. Using a multiplex PCR technique, we evaluated the Anyplex BRAF V600E Real-time Detection (Anyplex) assay and compared its efficacy with that of the Seeplex BRAF V600E ACE Detection (Seeplex) method. METHODS: We tested 258 consecutive FNA specimens using the Seeplex and Anyplex assays. Any conflicting results between the two assays were confirmed by using mutant enrichment with 3'-modified oligonucleotide (MEMO) sequencing. The limits of detection (LODs) and reproducibility for each assay were evaluated with serially diluted DNA from a BRAF V600E-positive cell line. RESULTS: The BRAF V600E mutation was detected in 36.4% (94/258) FNA specimens by either the Seeplex or Anyplex assay. Results for the two assays showed 93.4% (241/258) agreement, with a kappa value of 0.861 (95% confidence interval, 0.798-0.923). Of the eight specimens that were BRAF V600E-positive by the Anyplex assay but not by the Seeplex assay, five were found to be BRAF V600E-positive by MEMO sequencing. The mutation detection rate of the Seeplex and Anyplex assays was 79.0% and 84.0%, respectively, in the FNA specimens diagnosed as malignant (n=81). The LOD as determined by probit analysis was 0.046% (95% confidence interval, 0.019-0.532%). CONCLUSIONS: The Anyplex assay performed better than the Seeplex assay with respect to the detection of the BRAF V600E mutation.

Comparison of the Seeplex HPV4A ACE and the Cervista HPV assays for the detection of HPV in hybrid capture 2 positive media / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: To validate the efficacy of Seeplex HPV4A ACE for the detection of high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV 16 and/or HPV 18 genotypes as compared to the PCR method and the Cervista HPV assays in cervical swab samples. METHODS: Besides liquid-based cytology, additional 97 cervical swab samples were collected for HPV genotyping by HPV4A ACE, Cervista HPV assays, and PCR method. To check the statistical differences, we also conducted the paired proportion test, Cohen's kappa statistic, and a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Seeplex HPV4A ACE and the Cervista HPV HR showed substantial agreement with PCR for detection of HR HPVs (88.3%, kappa=0.767 and 81.7%, kappa=0.636, respectively). Seeplex HPV4A ACE also showed substantial agreement with the Cervista HPV 16/18 test (89.5%, kappa=0.628). Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity of Seeplex HPV4A ACE and Cervista HPV HR were 91.4% vs. 84.5% and 73.4%, vs. 72.7%, respectively, when those higher than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions were regarded as abnormalities. HPV genotyping for HPV 16/18 detected cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) better than HR HPV tests (66.7% vs. 24.6% by HPV4A ACE, 52.6% vs. 25.9% by Cervista HPV assays in CIN II or more, relatively). CONCLUSION: Seeplex HPV4A ACE is an effective method as the PCR and the Cervista HPV assays for the detection of HR HPVs and for genotyping of HPV 16 and 18.