Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Saville M, Hawkes D, Keung M, Ip E, Silvers J, Sultana F, et al.
    J Clin Virol, 2020 06;127:104375.
    PMID: 32361328 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104375
    BACKGROUND: In the last decade, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been evaluated extensively for cervical screening, with studies finding increased sensitivity compared to cytology. Another advantage of HPV based-screening is the ability to test vaginal samples that can be collected by women themselves. Self-collection has the potential to extend cervical screening coverage by increasing participation rates, particularly among women who are under-screened or have never screened. This could have a significant impact on cervical cancer prevention, as the majority of invasive cervical cancer cases occur among under-screened women. Both the Netherlands and Australia have transitioned their national programs from cytology to HPV as the primary screening test and both countries include a pathway for self-collection.

    OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).

    STUDY DESIGN: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.

    RESULTS: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).

    CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.

  2. Chan HT, Keung MHT, Nguyen I, Ip ELO, Chew SM, Siler D, et al.
    J Clin Virol Plus, 2022 Aug;2(3):100079.
    PMID: 35528049 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcvp.2022.100079
    OBJECTIVES: To examine the comparative stochasticity profile of six commercial SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and how this may affect retesting paradigms.

    METHODS: Commercial quality control (QC) material was serially diluted in viral transport media to create a panel covering 10-10,000 copies/ml. The panel was tested across six commercial NAATs. A subset of high cycle threshold results was retested on a rapid PCR assay to simulate retesting protocols commonly used to discriminate false positives.

    RESULTS: Performance beyond the LOD differed among assays, with three types of stochasticity profiles observed. The ability of the rapid PCR assay to reproduce a true weak positive specimen was restricted to its own stochastic performance at the corresponding viral concentration.

    CONCLUSION: Stochastic performance of various NAATs overlap across low viral concentrations and affect retesting outcomes. Relying on retesting alone to discriminate false positives risk missing true positives even when a more sensitive assay is deployed for confirmatory testing.

  3. Saville M, Sultana F, Malloy MJ, Velentzis LS, Caruana M, Ip ELO, et al.
    J Clin Microbiol, 2019 02;57(2).
    PMID: 30463896 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01239-18
    This study demonstrates that the clinical sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the novel cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test on the cobas 6800 system for high-risk HPV types fulfills the criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. The criteria were formulated by an international consortium, using the cobas 4800 HPV test as a validated reference assay. The cobas HPV test detected over 98% of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) lesions in women age 30 years or older, with a specificity of 98.9% compared with the reference cobas 4800 test. Both the intra- and interlaboratory agreement for the cobas HPV test were 98%. The clinical performance of the cobas HPV test is comparable to those of longitudinally validated HPV assays and fulfills the criteria for its use in primary cervical screening.
  4. Mehta N, Keung MHT, Pineda E, Lynn E, Fetene D, Lee A, et al.
    Microbiol Spectr, 2024 Sep 11.
    PMID: 39258912 DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.01493-24
    This study assessed the relative clinical sensitivity and specificity, as well as reproducibility, for high-risk HPV types of the Roche cobas HPV test when processed using the Roche cobas 5800 system. The results from this study demonstrate that the cobas HPV test using the cobas 5800 system fulfils the Meijer criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. This clinical validation study also examines the clinical sensitivity and specificity based on partial genotyping, with separate detection of HPV16 and HPV18, compared with the Roche cobas 4800 HPV test, a second-generation standard comparator assay. The cobas HPV test has a relative clinical sensitivity of 1.000, when compared with the cobas 4800 HPV test to detect histologically confirmed CIN2+ lesions in woman aged 30 years or older, with a relative clinical specificity of 0.995. The general intra- and inter-laboratory agreement for the cobas HPV test on the cobas 5800 system for finding a HPV positive result were 99.1% and 99.6%, respectively.IMPORTANCEThis study demonstrates, for the first time, the clinical performance of the Roche cobas HPV test when processed using the new cobas 5800 system [cobas (5800)]. This study shows that the cobas (5800) demonstrates relative clinical sensitivity and specificity, when compared with a standard comparator HPV test, which meets the international HPV test validation requirements. Intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility also fulfills these criteria. The current study demonstrates that the cobas (5800) can be used for primary HPV-based cervical screening on cervical specimens.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links