Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
Buy
FullText & PDF
Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more
CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *
Select
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more
Rent via DeepDyve
Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article
Organize, annotate and mark up articles
Printing and downloading restrictions apply
Start free trial
Subscribe
Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more
Subcription rates
Select
* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.
Article / Publication Details
Abstract
Introduction: According to current the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) guidelines, patients with normal cytology results may be referred for colposcopy according to their high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test results. A higher positive predictive value (PPV) of hrHPV has significance for preventing unnecessary colposcopic examinations. Several studies have compared the performance of the Aptima assay and the Cobas 4800 platform among patients who had minor cytologic abnormality. However, in our English literature search, we found no other study that had been conducted to compare these two methods in patients with normal cytology. We thus aimed to compare the PPV of the Aptima assay and Cobas 4800 platform among women with normal cytology.
Methods: Between September 2017 and October 2022, we retrospectively identified 2,919 patients who had normal cytology and hrHPV positivity who had been referred for a colposcopy. Among them, 882 agreed to undergo a colposcopy; on examination, 134 had target lesions revealed and underwent a colposcopic punch biopsy.
Results: Among the patients who underwent a colposcopic punch biopsy, 49 (38.9%) were tested with Aptima, and 77 (61.1%) were tested with Cobas. In the Aptima group, 29 (59.2%) patients showed benign histology, 2 (4.1%) patients had an low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), and 18 (36.7%) patients had ≥ high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) biopsy results. The false positivity rate and PPV of Aptima were 63.3% (31/49) and 36.7% (95% CI:0.232-0.502), respectively, for a histopathologic diagnosis of ≥ HSIL. In the Cobas group, 48 (62.3%) biopsies were benign, 11 (14.3%) reported an LSIL, and 18 (23.4%) biopsies were ≥HSIL. The false positivity rate and PPV of Cobas were 76.6% (59/77) and 23.4% (95% CI:0.139-0.328), respectively, concerning a ≥HSIL tissue diagnosis. The false positivity rate of Aptima HPV 16 positivity was 40% (4/10). The false positivity rate of Cobas HPV 16 positivity was 61.1% (11/18). The PPVs of HPV 16 positivity for Aptima and Cobas were 60% (95% CI:0.296-0.903), and 38.9% (95% CI:0.163-0.614), respectively, concerning ≥HSIL tissue diagnosis.
Discussion/Conclusion: We recommend analyzing the performances of hrHPV platforms in future larger studies in patients with normal cytology, rather than only cases with abnormal cytology.
S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
留言 (0)