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
Comparative Study
. 2022 Feb 23;10(1):e0157021.
doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01570-21. Epub 2022 Feb 16.

Head-to-Head Comparison of DH3 HPV Test and HC2 Assay for Detection of High-Risk HPV Infection in Residual Cytology Samples from Cervical Cancer Screening Setting: Baseline and 3-Year Longitudinal Data

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Head-to-Head Comparison of DH3 HPV Test and HC2 Assay for Detection of High-Risk HPV Infection in Residual Cytology Samples from Cervical Cancer Screening Setting: Baseline and 3-Year Longitudinal Data

Yunfeng Fu et al. Microbiol Spectr. .

Abstract

The authors compared the clinical performance of DH3 human papillomavirus (HPV) assay, which detects 14 high-risk HPVs with 16/18 genotyping based on hybrid capture technique, and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test for women undergoing cervical cancer screening. A total of 7, 263 residual cytology specimens from an adjudicated cohort with 3-year follow-up were tested by the DH3 assay and the HC2 test. Assay results were compared with each other and to histology review. The overall agreement between the DH3 assay and the HC2 test was 99.2% (κ = 0.938). At baseline, DH3 had the equal sensitivity to that of HC2 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher (CIN2+, n = 75) and CIN grade 3 or higher (CIN3+, n = 45), 98.67% and 97.78%, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, the sensitivity for CIN2+ (n = 133) and CIN3+ (n = 74) were both similar between DH3 and HC2 (95.49% vs 94.74%, 95.95% vs 95.95%, respectively, all P > 0.05). The respective specificity for CIN2+ or CIN3+ did not differ between the two tests. A noninferiority test showed that both sensitivity and specificity of DH3 for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were noninferior to those of HC2 at baseline and after 3-year follow-up, respectively (all P < 0.001). When used in primary screening strategy, the DH3 assay would yield an immediate sensitivity of 92% for CIN2+. DH3 HPV performs equally to HC2 for the detection of high-grade lesions in cervical cancer screening and has a potential advantage in primary screening strategy due to HPV16/18 genotyping. IMPORTANCE The benefits of testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) in cervical cancer screening have already been demonstrated. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) is the best validated HPV assay and has been considered the gold standard for hrHPV testing. However, HC2 cannot discriminate HPV16 and 18 from the other hrHPV types, which greatly limited the application of HC2 in cervical cancer screening. The DH3 human papillomavirus (HPV) is a recently developed assay based on hybrid capture technique like to HC2, which can specifically identify HPV 16/18 on the basis of detecting the 13 hrHPV types targeted by HC2 as well as HPV66. This comparative study of the two assays for detection of hrHPV infection in residual cytology samples from cervical cancer screening setting reveals that DH3 HPV provides a perfect alternative to HC2 in detecting hrHPV infection and identifying cervical precancer, while allowing concurrent HPV 16/18 genotyping.

Keywords: DH3 HPV; Hybrid Capture 2; cervical cancer screening; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; human papillomavirus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
The study flow chart. LBC, liquid-based cytology; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, Bray F. 2020. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 8:e191-203–e203. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crosbie EJ, Einstein MH, Franceschi S, Kitchener HC. 2013. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 382:889–899. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60022-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Wacholder S, Kinney W, Gage JC, Castle PE. 2011. Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:368–383. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq562. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kyrgiou M, Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Bosch FX, Dillner J, Jit M, Kim J, Poljak M, Nieminen P, Sasieni P, Kesic V, Cuzick J, Gultekin M. 2020. Cervical screening: ESGO-EFC position paper of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Federation of Colposcopy (EFC). Br J Cancer 123:510–517. doi:10.1038/s41416-020-0920-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arbyn M, Tommasino M, Depuydt C, Dillner J. 2014. Are 20 human papillomavirus types causing cervical cancer? J Pathol 234:431–435. doi:10.1002/path.4424. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms