Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov;30(6):1110-1115.
doi: 10.1002/jcla.21989. Epub 2016 Apr 28.

Comparison of Three Different Commercial Kits for the Human Papilloma Virus Genotyping

Yong Kwan Lim  1 , Jee-Hye Choi  1 , Serah Park  1 , Oh Joo Kweon  1 , Ae Ja Park  2
Affiliations

Comparison of Three Different Commercial Kits for the Human Papilloma Virus Genotyping

Yong Kwan Lim et al. J Clin Lab Anal. 2016 Nov.

Abstract

Background: High-risk type human papilloma virus (HPV) is the most important cause of cervical cancer. Recently, real-time polymerase chain reaction and reverse blot hybridization assay-based HPV DNA genotyping kits are developed. So, we compared the performances of different three HPV genotyping kits using different analytical principles and methods.

Methods: Two hundred positive and 100 negative cervical swab specimens were used. DNA was extracted and all samples were tested by the MolecuTech REBA HPV-ID, Anyplex II HPV28 Detection, and HPVDNAChip. Direct sequencing was performed as a reference method for confirming high-risk HPV genotypes 16, 18, 45, 52, and 58.

Results: Although high-level agreement results were observed in negative samples, three kits showed decreased interassay agreement as screening setting in positive samples. Comparing the genotyping results, three assays showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity for the detection of HPV 16 and 18. Otherwise, various sensitivities showed in the detection of HPV 45, 52, and 58.

Conclusions: The three assays had dissimilar performance of HPV screening capacity and exhibited moderate level of concordance in HPV genotyping. These discrepant results were unavoidable due to difference in type-specific analytical sensitivity and lack of standardization; therefore, we suggested that the efforts to standardization of HPV genotyping kits and adjusting analytical sensitivity would be important for the best clinical performance.

Keywords: comparison; genotyping; human papilloma virus.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet‐Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65(2):87–108. - PubMed
    1. Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348(6):518–527. - PubMed
    1. Volerman A, Cifu AS. Cervical cancer screening. JAMA 2014;312(21):2279–2280. - PubMed
    1. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost‐effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(8):604–615. - PubMed
    1. Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International Biological Study on Cervical Cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(11):796–802. - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources