METHODS AND RESULTS: Comparisons were made for Anyplex28 genotyping from 115 cervical samples extracted on the Hamilton, STARlet and the MP96. Two DNA concentrations were used for the MP96, one matched for sample input to the STARlet and another 5× concentration (laboratory standard). Agreement of HPV detection was 89·8% (κ = 0·798; P = 0·007), with HPV detected in 10 more samples for the MP96. There was a high concordance of detection for any oncogenic HPV genotype (κ = 0·77; P = 0·007) and for any low-risk HPV genotype (κ = 0·85; P = 0·008). DNA extracted at laboratory standard had a lower overall agreement 85·2% (κ = 0·708; P
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.
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.
METHODS: We used questionnaire and attendance data (Aug 2020-Nov 2022) from Compass-PLUS, a sub-study of the Compass randomized-controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus-based vs cytology-based screening. Data was restricted to the HPV-screening arm for comparability to the national program. We investigated associations overall and for younger (25-39 years) and older (≥40 years) cohorts, between intention-to-attend/attendance, and socio-demographics, anxiety-related scores, and agreement with beliefs about screening during the pandemic (e.g. importance of screening, increased workload, working from home, risk of infection).
RESULTS: Among 2,226 participants, positive intention to attend screening was more likely among those with a family history of cancer (p = 0.030) or living outside major cities (p = 0.024). Increased attendance was associated with increasing age (p
METHODS: De-identified residual specimens from women aged 16-24 years submitted for chlamydia testing were collected from three pathology laboratories in Victoria and New South Wales. Limited demographic information, and chlamydia test results were also collected. Patient identifiers were sent directly from the laboratories to the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, to obtain HPV vaccination histories. Samples underwent HPV genotyping using Seegene Anyplex II HPV 28 assay.
RESULTS: Between April and July 2018, 362 residual samples were collected, the majority (60.2%) of which were cervical swabs. Demographic data and vaccination histories were received for 357 (98.6%) women (mean age 21.8, SD 2.0). Overall, 65.6% of women were fully vaccinated, 9.8% partially, and 24.7% unvaccinated. The majority (86.0%) resided in a major city, 35.9% were classified in the upper quintile of socioeconomic advantage and chlamydia positivity was 7.8%.The prevalence of quadrivalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV6/11/16/18) was 2.8% (1.5-5.1%) overall with no differences by vaccination status (p = 0.729). The prevalence of additional nonavalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV31/33/45/52/58) was 19.3% (15.6-23.8%). One or more oncogenic HPV types were detected in 46.8% (95% CI 41.6-52.0%) of women.
CONCLUSIONS: HPV testing of residual chlamydia specimens provides a simple, feasible method for monitoring circulating genotypes. Applied on a larger scale this method can be utilised to obtain a timely assessment of nonavalent vaccine impact among young women not yet eligible for cervical screening.