HPV self-sampling in CIN2+ detection: sensitivity and specificity of different RLU cut-off of HC2 in specimens from 786 women.

AIMS: Mortality for cervical cancer varies between the different regions of the world, with high rates in low-income countries where screening programmes are not present and organised. However, increasing screening coverage is still a priority in all countries: one way to do that is to base screening on self-sampled screening. The success of a self-sampling screening strategy depends on capacity to recruit unscreened women, on the performance and acceptability of the device and on the clinical performance of the high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) test. METHODS: This study based on 786 enrolled women investigates the best cut-off value of Hybrid Capture 2 HPV test (HC2) for self-sampled specimens in terms of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: In this population, we found that the sensitivity and the specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more detection of HC2 performed on self-sampled specimens were 82.5% and 82.8%, respectively considering the relative light units (RLU) cut-off value of 1. Increasing the cut-off value the sensitivity decreases and the specificity raises and the best area under the curve for the RLU cut-off value is 1. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that the cut-off value of 1 suggested by Qiagen for PreservCyt specimen is the best cut-off value also for self-sampled specimens.

Comparison of Onclarity Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Assay with Hybrid Capture II HPV DNA Assay for Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 and 3 Lesions.

Analytical and clinical performance validation is essential before introduction of a new human papillomavirus (HPV) assay into clinical practice. This study compares the new BD Onclarity HPV assay, which detects E6/E7 DNA from 14 high-risk HPV types, to the Hybrid Capture II (HC2) HPV DNA test, to concurrent cytology and histology results, in order to evaluate its performance in detecting high-grade cervical lesions. A population of 567 women, including 325 with ≥ASCUS (where ASCUS stands for atypical cells of undetermined significance) and any HC2 result and 242 with both negative cytology and negative HC2 results, were prospectively enrolled for the study. The overall agreement between Onclarity and HC2 was 94.6% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 92.3% to 96.2%). In this population with a high prevalence of disease, the relative sensitivities (versus adjudicated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 [CIN2+] histology endpoints) of the Onclarity and HC2 tests were 95.2% (95% CI, 90.7% to 97.5%) and 96.9% (95% CI, 92.9% to 98.7%), respectively, and the relative specificities were 50.3% (95% CI, 43.2% to 57.4%) for BD and 40.8% (95% CI, 33.9%, 48.1%) for HC2. These results indicate that the BD Onclarity HPV assay has sensitivity comparable to that of the HC2 assay, with a trend to an increased specificity. Moreover, as Onclarity gives the chance to discriminate between the different genotypes, we calculated the genotype prevalence and the absolute risk of CIN2+: HPV 16 was the most prevalent genotype (19.8%) with an absolute risk of CIN2+ of 77.1%.