Suppr超能文献

两种自行采集装置的人乳头瘤病毒基因分型研究检测法与临床检测法的比较

Comparison of Human Papillomavirus genotyping by research vs. clinical assay for two self-collection devices.

作者信息

Harper Diane M, Young Alisa P, O'Dwyer Marie Claire, Olorunfemi Mutiya, Laurie Anna, Sen Ananda, Chen Dongru, Morrison Leigh, Kelley Scott A, McEvoy Anna, Schneiderhan Jill, Rockwell Pamela, Zazove Philip, Gabison Jonathan, Chargot Jane E, Gallagher Kristina, Prussack Julie, Butcher Emma A, Alves Martha L, Haro Elizabeth A, El Khoury Christelle, Smith Roger, Saunders Natalie, Campbell Elizabeth, Walline Heather M

机构信息

University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

出版信息

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2025 Apr 25. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-25-0116.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

HPV assays and self-collection devices for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection have evolved. We aim to compare two self-sampling devices against speculum-based testing for HPV genotype agreement and their accuracy for CIN2+ disease. Secondarily, we aim to compare two HPV assays for different HPV genotype detection agreement and their accuracy for CIN2+ disease.

METHODS

Women from colposcopy (N=97) and primary care (N=96) were block randomized to two different self-sampling devices. Self-sampling and speculum-collected pairs of HPV specimens were analyzed with the research assay. A second speculum-collected specimen provided clinical results using the clinical HPV assay. Agreement (prevalence-based kappa) and accuracy (sensitivity/specificity ratios) provided the statistical comparison.

RESULTS

The two devices did not differ in their kappa agreement scores for overall HPV detection compared to the speculum collected sample (K=0.83 (0.72, 0.94) and Κ=0.90 (0.81,0.98), respectively, Exact McNemar's non-significant). The two devices did not differ in accuracy as measured by relative sensitivity/specificity for overall HPV at the CIN2+ disease threshold (1.0 (0.15, 6.77) and (1.19 (0.56, 2.54), respectively. The two assays did not differ in HPV agreement, nor assay accuracy for CIN2+ (n=10).

CONCLUSIONS

HPV self-sampling devices robustly detected high-risk HPV types for cervical cancer screening when using the research assay to compare them. Both research and clinical HPV assays provide equivalent HPV detection for specific and aggregated HPV types Impact:This study provides a US-based population to show that self-collection for primary HPV testing is accurate for CIN2+ detection with multiple devices using a validated HPV assay.

摘要

背景

用于检测人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)的HPV检测方法和自我采样装置已经有了发展。我们旨在比较两种自我采样装置与基于窥器的检测在HPV基因型一致性方面的差异,以及它们对CIN2+疾病的检测准确性。其次,我们旨在比较两种HPV检测方法在不同HPV基因型检测一致性方面的差异,以及它们对CIN2+疾病的检测准确性。

方法

来自阴道镜检查(N = 97)和初级保健(N = 96)的女性被整群随机分配到两种不同的自我采样装置。自我采样和通过窥器采集的HPV标本对用研究检测方法进行分析。第二个通过窥器采集的标本使用临床HPV检测方法得出临床结果。一致性(基于患病率的kappa值)和准确性(灵敏度/特异性比值)提供了统计学比较。

结果

与通过窥器采集的样本相比,两种装置在总体HPV检测的kappa一致性评分上没有差异(分别为K = 0.83(0.72,0.94)和Κ = 0.90(0.81,0.98),确切McNemar检验无显著性差异)。在CIN2+疾病阈值下,以总体HPV的相对灵敏度/特异性衡量,两种装置在准确性上没有差异(分别为1.0(0.15,6.77)和1.19(0.56,2.54))。两种检测方法在HPV一致性方面没有差异,对CIN2+的检测准确性也没有差异(n = 10)。

结论

当使用研究检测方法进行比较时,HPV自我采样装置在宫颈癌筛查中能可靠地检测出高危HPV类型。研究用和临床用HPV检测方法对特定和汇总的HPV类型提供了同等的HPV检测。影响:本研究提供了一个美国人群的数据,表明使用经过验证的HPV检测方法,多种装置进行初级HPV检测的自我采样对CIN2+检测是准确的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验