{"title":"Clinical performance of the SureX PCR HPV test versus hybrid capture assays (DH2/careHPV) in primary cervical cancer screening","authors":"Yumei Ouyang , Guzhanuer Abuduxikuer , Tangnuer Abulimiti , Guligeina Abudurexiti , Qian Zhuo , Wenyun Li , Kadeliya Muhetaer , Shaliya Abuduwufu , Gulixian Tuerxun , Remila Rezhake , Guzhalinuer Abulizi","doi":"10.1016/j.tvr.2025.200319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Evaluating novel human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in well-designed, population-based screening studies is essential for ensuring the benefits of cervical cancer screening.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>8638 women aged over 25 years from China underwent HPV screening using a PCR-based full genotyping HPV assay (SureX HPV), alongside hybrid-capture HPV tests (DH2/careHPV) and cytology. Any abnormal results triggered colposcopy and biopsy if indicated. Screening performance was evaluated for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3+.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The high-risk HPV (hrHPV) positive rate by SureX HPV was significantly higher than by careHPV (11.0 % vs. 8.2 %, <em>P</em> <0.01) but similar to DH2 HPV (12.0 % vs. 11.5 %, <em>P</em> =0.34). The overall agreement rates between SureX HPV and careHPV/DH2 HPV were 93.5 % (Kappa=0.63) and 94.0 % (Kappa=0.71). For CIN2+ detection, SureX HPV showed not-significantly higher sensitivity than careHPV (91.2 % vs 82.5 %, <em>P</em> =0.18) but lower specificity (91.2 % vs. 93.1 %, <em>P</em> <0.01). Compared to DH2, SureX HPV demonstrated comparable sensitivity (95.7 % for both, <em>P</em> =1.0) and specificity (89.5 % vs. 90.2 %, <em>P</em> =0.21). Similar patterns were observed for CIN3+ detection. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the SureX HPV was similar to hybrid-capture HPV tests (<em>P</em> >0.05 for both) and significantly higher than the cytology (ASC-US+) test for CIN2+/CIN3+ detection (<em>P</em> <0.05 for both).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The PCR-based SureX HPV test demonstrated good concordance with well-validated hybrid-capture HPV tests in detecting hrHPV and CIN2+/CIN3+. Despite its slightly suboptimal specificity, SureX HPV could be an alternative in primary screening due to its full genotyping capability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":52381,"journal":{"name":"Tumour Virus Research","volume":"19 ","pages":"Article 200319"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tumour Virus Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666679025000072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Evaluating novel human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in well-designed, population-based screening studies is essential for ensuring the benefits of cervical cancer screening.
Methods
8638 women aged over 25 years from China underwent HPV screening using a PCR-based full genotyping HPV assay (SureX HPV), alongside hybrid-capture HPV tests (DH2/careHPV) and cytology. Any abnormal results triggered colposcopy and biopsy if indicated. Screening performance was evaluated for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3+.
Results
The high-risk HPV (hrHPV) positive rate by SureX HPV was significantly higher than by careHPV (11.0 % vs. 8.2 %, P <0.01) but similar to DH2 HPV (12.0 % vs. 11.5 %, P =0.34). The overall agreement rates between SureX HPV and careHPV/DH2 HPV were 93.5 % (Kappa=0.63) and 94.0 % (Kappa=0.71). For CIN2+ detection, SureX HPV showed not-significantly higher sensitivity than careHPV (91.2 % vs 82.5 %, P =0.18) but lower specificity (91.2 % vs. 93.1 %, P <0.01). Compared to DH2, SureX HPV demonstrated comparable sensitivity (95.7 % for both, P =1.0) and specificity (89.5 % vs. 90.2 %, P =0.21). Similar patterns were observed for CIN3+ detection. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the SureX HPV was similar to hybrid-capture HPV tests (P >0.05 for both) and significantly higher than the cytology (ASC-US+) test for CIN2+/CIN3+ detection (P <0.05 for both).
Conclusions
The PCR-based SureX HPV test demonstrated good concordance with well-validated hybrid-capture HPV tests in detecting hrHPV and CIN2+/CIN3+. Despite its slightly suboptimal specificity, SureX HPV could be an alternative in primary screening due to its full genotyping capability.