British journal of cancer · 2010
A comprehensive evaluation of the accuracy of cervical pre-cancer detection methods in a high-risk area in East Congo.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Hovland S, Arbyn M, Lie A K, Ryd W, Borge B, Berle E J, Skomedal H, Kadima T M, Kyembwa L, Billay E M, Mukwege D, Chirimwami R B, Mvula T M, Snijders P J, Meijer C J L M, Karlsen F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Given the high burden of cervical cancer in low-income settings, there is a need for a convenient and affordable method for detecting and treating pre-cancerous lesions.
METHODS: Samples for comparing the accuracy of cytology, virology and histology were collected. Identification of HPV E6/E7 mRNA was performed using PreTect HPV-Proofer. HPV DNA detection was performed by GP5+/6+ PCR, followed by reverse line blot (RLB) for typing.
RESULTS: A total of 343 women, aged 25-60 years, attending gynaecological polyclinics in DR Congo were included for sample enrolment. The test positivity rate was conventional and liquid-based cytology (LBC) at cutoff ASCUS+ of 6.9 and 6.6%, respectively; PreTect HPV-Proofer of 7.3%; and consensus DNA PCR for 14 HR types of 18.5%. Sixteen cases of CIN2+ lesions were identified. Of these, conventional cytology identified 66.7% with a specificity of 96.2%, LBC identified 73.3% with a specificity of 96.9%, all at cutoff ASCUS+. HR-HPV DNA detected all CIN2+ cases with a specificity of 85.9%, whereas PreTect HPV-Proofer gave a sensitivity of 81.3% and a specificity of 96.6%.
CONCLUSION: Both HPV detection assays showed a higher sensitivity for CIN2+ than did cytological methods. Detecting E6/E7 mRNA from only a subset of HR HPVs, as is the case with PreTect HPV-Proofer, resulted in a similar specificity to cytology and a significantly higher specificity than consensus HR HPV DNA (P<0.0001).
METHODS: Samples for comparing the accuracy of cytology, virology and histology were collected. Identification of HPV E6/E7 mRNA was performed using PreTect HPV-Proofer. HPV DNA detection was performed by GP5+/6+ PCR, followed by reverse line blot (RLB) for typing.
RESULTS: A total of 343 women, aged 25-60 years, attending gynaecological polyclinics in DR Congo were included for sample enrolment. The test positivity rate was conventional and liquid-based cytology (LBC) at cutoff ASCUS+ of 6.9 and 6.6%, respectively; PreTect HPV-Proofer of 7.3%; and consensus DNA PCR for 14 HR types of 18.5%. Sixteen cases of CIN2+ lesions were identified. Of these, conventional cytology identified 66.7% with a specificity of 96.2%, LBC identified 73.3% with a specificity of 96.9%, all at cutoff ASCUS+. HR-HPV DNA detected all CIN2+ cases with a specificity of 85.9%, whereas PreTect HPV-Proofer gave a sensitivity of 81.3% and a specificity of 96.6%.
CONCLUSION: Both HPV detection assays showed a higher sensitivity for CIN2+ than did cytological methods. Detecting E6/E7 mRNA from only a subset of HR HPVs, as is the case with PreTect HPV-Proofer, resulted in a similar specificity to cytology and a significantly higher specificity than consensus HR HPV DNA (P<0.0001).