Clinical laboratory · 2016
Comparison of In-House Multiplex Real Time PCR, Diagcor GenoFlow HPV Array Test and INNO-LiPA HPV Genotyping Extra Assays with LCD- Array Kit for Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Liquid Based Cytology Specimens and Genital Lesions in Tehran, Iran.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sohrabi Amir, Rahnamaye-Farzami Marjan, Mirab-Samiee Siamak, Mahdavi Saeed, Babaei Monireh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus is a major etiologic agent for some human common cancers. Cervical precancer and cancer is the most prevalent dysplasia by HPV genotypes. Various rapid and sensitive methods have been developed into readily HPV genotyping.
METHODS: In the present study, we compared the performance of Real Time PCR, GenoFlow HPV Array, and INNO-LiPA HPV Genotyping Extra Assays with LCD- Array.
RESULTS: From 108 cervical samples, HPV was detected in 33 women (30.55%). Among detected HPV genotypes, HPV 6 and 11 were dominant genotypes. Comparing these methods revealed that for Real Time PCR, Genoflow, and INNO-LiPA in comparison with LCD Array, sensitivity and specificity were 94.2%, 93%; 76.7%, 93%; 64%, 96.5%, respectively. Overall, accuracy and precision of these methods were more than 80% and 90%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems that these methods are reliable and suitable for detection and genotyping of HPVs in cervical disorders and other dysplasia associated with human papillomaviruses.
METHODS: In the present study, we compared the performance of Real Time PCR, GenoFlow HPV Array, and INNO-LiPA HPV Genotyping Extra Assays with LCD- Array.
RESULTS: From 108 cervical samples, HPV was detected in 33 women (30.55%). Among detected HPV genotypes, HPV 6 and 11 were dominant genotypes. Comparing these methods revealed that for Real Time PCR, Genoflow, and INNO-LiPA in comparison with LCD Array, sensitivity and specificity were 94.2%, 93%; 76.7%, 93%; 64%, 96.5%, respectively. Overall, accuracy and precision of these methods were more than 80% and 90%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems that these methods are reliable and suitable for detection and genotyping of HPVs in cervical disorders and other dysplasia associated with human papillomaviruses.