ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES & METHODS: CINtec PLUS and cobas HPV tests were compared for triaging patients referred to colposcopy with a history of LSIL cytology in a 2-year prospective study. Cervical specimens were tested once at enrollment, and test positivity rates determined. Test performance was ascertained with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3 or worse (CIN3+) serving as clinical endpoints. RESULTS: In all ages, (19-76 years, n= 598), 44.3% tested CINtec PLUS positive vs. 55.4% HPV positive (p< 0.001). To detect CIN2+ (n= 99), CINtec PLUS was 81.8% sensitive vs. 93.9% for HPV testing (p= 0.009); genotype 16/18-specific sensitivity was 46.5%. Specificity was 52.9% vs. 36.6%, respectively (p< 0.001). In all ages, to detect CIN3+ (n= 44), sensitivity was 93.2% for both tests; genotype 16/18-specific sensitivity was 52.3%. Specificity was 48.4% for CINtec PLUS vs. 31.1% for HPV testing (p< 0.001). In patients < 30 years, CINtec was 91.7% sensitive vs 95.8% for HPV testing (p= 0.549). CONCLUSIONS: CINtec PLUS or cobas HPV test could serve as a predictor of CIN3+ with high sensitivity in patients referred to colposcopy with a history of LSIL regardless of age while significantly reducing the number of LSIL referral patients requiring further investigations and follow-up in colposcopy clinics.
Subject(s)
Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Dysplasia , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Adult , Aged , Canada , Colposcopy , Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16 , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Ki-67 Antigen , Middle Aged , Papillomaviridae/genetics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation , Sensitivity and Specificity , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Young Adult , Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/geneticsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: CINtec PLUS and cobas HPV tests were assessed for triaging women referred to colposcopy with a history of LSIL cytology. Both tests were performed at baseline using ThinPrep cervical specimens and biopsy confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) served as the clinical endpoint. RESULTS: In all ages, (19-76 years, n = 600), 44.3% (266/600) tested CINtec PLUS positive vs. 55.2% (331/600) HPV positive (p = 0.000). Based on 224 having biopsies, sensitivity to detect CIN2+ (n = 54) was 81.5% (44/54) for CINtec PLUS vs. 94.4% (51/54) for HPV testing (p = 0.039); specificities were, 52.4% (89/170) vs. 44.1% (75/170), respectively (p = 0.129). In women ≥30 years (n = 386), 41.2% (159/386) tested CINtec PLUS positive vs. 50.8% (196/386) HPV positive (p = 0.008). Based on 135 having biopsies, sensitivity to detect CIN2+ (n = 24) was 95.8% (23/24) for both CINtec PLUS and HPV tests; specificities were, 55.0% (61/111) vs. 50.5% (56/111), respectively (p = 0.503). CONCLUSIONS: For women referred to colposcopy with a history of LSIL cytology, CINtec PLUS or cobas HPV test could serve as a predictor of CIN2+ with high sensitivity, particularly in women ≥30 years. Either test can significantly reduce the number of women requiring further investigations and follow up in colposcopy clinics.
