cobas 4800 HPV检测与Anyplex II HPV HR检测高危人乳头瘤病毒的比较

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Luani R Godoy, Mariam El-Zein, Elizaveta Padalko, Bo Verberckmoes, Bodine Van Eenooghe, Heleen Vermandere, Sónia Dias, Ana Gama, Bernardo Vega Crespo, Vivian Alejandra Neira, Eduardo L Franco, Adhemar Longatto-Filho
{"title":"cobas 4800 HPV检测与Anyplex II HPV HR检测高危人乳头瘤病毒的比较","authors":"Luani R Godoy, Mariam El-Zein, Elizaveta Padalko, Bo Verberckmoes, Bodine Van Eenooghe, Heleen Vermandere, Sónia Dias, Ana Gama, Bernardo Vega Crespo, Vivian Alejandra Neira, Eduardo L Franco, Adhemar Longatto-Filho","doi":"10.1128/jcm.00200-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Numerous molecular tests are available to detect human papillomavirus (HPV). We compared the analytical performance of cobas and Anyplex for detection of high-risk (HR) carcinogenic HPV genotypes, assessed the composition of HPV types (other than 16 and 18) that influenced cobas performance, and considered the impact of viral load on test performance. We used data from the Early Detection of Cervical Cancer in Hard-to-Reach Populations of Women Through Portable and Point-of-Care HPV Testing project, which involved collection (2019-2022) of cervicovaginal samples from 1,042 women aged 21-74 years in Belgium (<i>n</i> = 244), Portugal (<i>n</i> = 309), Brazil (<i>n</i> = 244), and Ecuador (<i>n</i> = 245). Samples were tested by cobas (provides individual results for HPV16 and HPV18 and a pooled result for 12 other HR-HPV types) and Anyplex (provides separate results for 14 HR-HPVs). We calculated HPV positivity by each test and compared performance between tests by calculating Cohen's kappa statistics. Based on 938 samples with complete data from both tests, positivity rates by cobas were 13.4%, 3.6%, 34.3%, and 45.3% for HPV16, HPV18, 12 pooled HR-HPVs, and any HR-HPV, respectively. Corresponding HPV positivity rates by Anyplex were 14.9%, 3.7%, 37.9%, and 50.0% for the same categories, respectively, with high concordance; kappa statistics were 0.90, 0.87, 0.82, and 0.85, respectively. Based on 355 samples that tested positive for at least 1 of the 12 pooled HR-HPVs, most types showed high agreement (80.9%-100.0%) between individual-Anyplex and pooled-cobas HPV results, except for HPV68 (61.3% agreement). Our findings suggest that the two commercial tests may have different performances, depending on the specific HPV types detected, emphasizing the need for continued research on conditions that may affect these tests, especially for less common or less studied HPV types.IMPORTANCEThis study compared two commercial tests-cobas and Anyplex-for detecting high-risk HPV types in women undergoing routine cervical cancer screening or referred for colposcopy. Both tests provide separate results for HPV16 and HPV18, but Anyplex also identifies the remaining 12 high-risk HPV types individually, while cobas groups them together. Overall, we found a high level of agreement between the two tests, supporting their use in clinical practice. However, differences in detecting certain HPV types, particularly those that are less common or less studied, emphasize the importance of choosing the right test. As more countries switch to HPV-based cervical cancer screening, using tests that provide detailed results could help improve risk assessment and optimize patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0020025"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative performance of cobas 4800 HPV Test and Anyplex II HPV HR for high-risk human papillomavirus detection.\",\"authors\":\"Luani R Godoy, Mariam El-Zein, Elizaveta Padalko, Bo Verberckmoes, Bodine Van Eenooghe, Heleen Vermandere, Sónia Dias, Ana Gama, Bernardo Vega Crespo, Vivian Alejandra Neira, Eduardo L Franco, Adhemar Longatto-Filho\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.00200-25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Numerous molecular tests are available to detect human papillomavirus (HPV). We compared the analytical performance of cobas and Anyplex for detection of high-risk (HR) carcinogenic HPV genotypes, assessed the composition of HPV types (other than 16 and 18) that influenced cobas performance, and considered the impact of viral load on test performance. We used data from the Early Detection of Cervical Cancer in Hard-to-Reach Populations of Women Through Portable and Point-of-Care HPV Testing project, which involved collection (2019-2022) of cervicovaginal samples from 1,042 women aged 21-74 years in Belgium (<i>n</i> = 244), Portugal (<i>n</i> = 309), Brazil (<i>n</i> = 244), and Ecuador (<i>n</i> = 245). Samples were tested by cobas (provides individual results for HPV16 and HPV18 and a pooled result for 12 other HR-HPV types) and Anyplex (provides separate results for 14 HR-HPVs). We calculated HPV positivity by each test and compared performance between tests by calculating Cohen's kappa statistics. Based on 938 samples with complete data from both tests, positivity rates by cobas were 13.4%, 3.6%, 34.3%, and 45.3% for HPV16, HPV18, 12 pooled HR-HPVs, and any HR-HPV, respectively. Corresponding HPV positivity rates by Anyplex were 14.9%, 3.7%, 37.9%, and 50.0% for the same categories, respectively, with high concordance; kappa statistics were 0.90, 0.87, 0.82, and 0.85, respectively. Based on 355 samples that tested positive for at least 1 of the 12 pooled HR-HPVs, most types showed high agreement (80.9%-100.0%) between individual-Anyplex and pooled-cobas HPV results, except for HPV68 (61.3% agreement). Our findings suggest that the two commercial tests may have different performances, depending on the specific HPV types detected, emphasizing the need for continued research on conditions that may affect these tests, especially for less common or less studied HPV types.IMPORTANCEThis study compared two commercial tests-cobas and Anyplex-for detecting high-risk HPV types in women undergoing routine cervical cancer screening or referred for colposcopy. Both tests provide separate results for HPV16 and HPV18, but Anyplex also identifies the remaining 12 high-risk HPV types individually, while cobas groups them together. Overall, we found a high level of agreement between the two tests, supporting their use in clinical practice. However, differences in detecting certain HPV types, particularly those that are less common or less studied, emphasize the importance of choosing the right test. As more countries switch to HPV-based cervical cancer screening, using tests that provide detailed results could help improve risk assessment and optimize patient care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0020025\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00200-25\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00200-25","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多分子测试可用于检测人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)。我们比较了cobas和Anyplex检测高危(HR)致癌HPV基因型的分析性能,评估了影响cobas检测性能的HPV类型(16和18除外)的组成,并考虑了病毒载量对检测性能的影响。我们使用的数据来自“通过便携式和定点HPV检测项目在难以接触到的女性人群中早期发现宫颈癌”,该项目涉及(2019-2022)从比利时(n = 244)、葡萄牙(n = 309)、巴西(n = 244)和厄瓜多尔(n = 245)收集1042名21-74岁女性的宫颈阴道样本。样本通过cobas(提供HPV16和HPV18的单独结果以及其他12种HR-HPV类型的合并结果)和Anyplex(提供14种HR-HPV的单独结果)进行检测。我们通过每个测试计算HPV阳性,并通过计算Cohen's kappa统计来比较测试之间的表现。根据938个样本的完整数据,cobas对HPV16、HPV18、12合并HR-HPV和任何HR-HPV的阳性率分别为13.4%、3.6%、34.3%和45.3%。Anyplex对应的HPV阳性率分别为14.9%、3.7%、37.9%和50.0%,一致性高;Kappa统计量分别为0.90、0.87、0.82、0.85。基于355个样本,在12个合并的hr -HPV中至少有1个检测呈阳性,大多数类型在个体anyplex和合并cobas HPV结果之间显示高度一致性(80.9%-100.0%),除了HPV68(61.3%一致性)。我们的研究结果表明,根据检测到的特定HPV类型,这两种商业测试可能具有不同的性能,强调需要继续研究可能影响这些测试的条件,特别是对于不太常见或研究较少的HPV类型。这项研究比较了两种商业检测方法——cobas和anyplex——在接受常规宫颈癌筛查或转介阴道镜检查的妇女中检测高危HPV类型。这两种检测方法分别提供HPV16和HPV18的检测结果,但Anyplex也分别识别了剩下的12种高危型HPV,而cobas将它们归为一组。总的来说,我们发现两种测试之间的一致性很高,支持它们在临床实践中的应用。然而,检测某些HPV类型的差异,特别是那些不太常见或研究较少的类型,强调了选择正确检测的重要性。随着越来越多的国家转向基于人乳头状病毒的宫颈癌筛查,使用提供详细结果的检测可能有助于改进风险评估和优化患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative performance of cobas 4800 HPV Test and Anyplex II HPV HR for high-risk human papillomavirus detection.

Numerous molecular tests are available to detect human papillomavirus (HPV). We compared the analytical performance of cobas and Anyplex for detection of high-risk (HR) carcinogenic HPV genotypes, assessed the composition of HPV types (other than 16 and 18) that influenced cobas performance, and considered the impact of viral load on test performance. We used data from the Early Detection of Cervical Cancer in Hard-to-Reach Populations of Women Through Portable and Point-of-Care HPV Testing project, which involved collection (2019-2022) of cervicovaginal samples from 1,042 women aged 21-74 years in Belgium (n = 244), Portugal (n = 309), Brazil (n = 244), and Ecuador (n = 245). Samples were tested by cobas (provides individual results for HPV16 and HPV18 and a pooled result for 12 other HR-HPV types) and Anyplex (provides separate results for 14 HR-HPVs). We calculated HPV positivity by each test and compared performance between tests by calculating Cohen's kappa statistics. Based on 938 samples with complete data from both tests, positivity rates by cobas were 13.4%, 3.6%, 34.3%, and 45.3% for HPV16, HPV18, 12 pooled HR-HPVs, and any HR-HPV, respectively. Corresponding HPV positivity rates by Anyplex were 14.9%, 3.7%, 37.9%, and 50.0% for the same categories, respectively, with high concordance; kappa statistics were 0.90, 0.87, 0.82, and 0.85, respectively. Based on 355 samples that tested positive for at least 1 of the 12 pooled HR-HPVs, most types showed high agreement (80.9%-100.0%) between individual-Anyplex and pooled-cobas HPV results, except for HPV68 (61.3% agreement). Our findings suggest that the two commercial tests may have different performances, depending on the specific HPV types detected, emphasizing the need for continued research on conditions that may affect these tests, especially for less common or less studied HPV types.IMPORTANCEThis study compared two commercial tests-cobas and Anyplex-for detecting high-risk HPV types in women undergoing routine cervical cancer screening or referred for colposcopy. Both tests provide separate results for HPV16 and HPV18, but Anyplex also identifies the remaining 12 high-risk HPV types individually, while cobas groups them together. Overall, we found a high level of agreement between the two tests, supporting their use in clinical practice. However, differences in detecting certain HPV types, particularly those that are less common or less studied, emphasize the importance of choosing the right test. As more countries switch to HPV-based cervical cancer screening, using tests that provide detailed results could help improve risk assessment and optimize patient care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信