Home  About us  Contact
 

Papillomavirus Testing (papillomavirus + testing)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Kinds of Papillomavirus Testing

  • human papillomavirus testing
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    Living with uncertainty: Equivocal Pap test results and the evolution of ASC terminology

    DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, Issue 3 2010
    Lydia Pleotis Howell M.D.
    Abstract Communication of equivocal findings and their significance has been a significant challenge related to Pap testing throughout its history. Terminology to report these findings has changed considerably to accommodate the changes in understanding of cervical neoplasia, and to accommodate new management strategies, tests, and technologies. This article reviews the evolution of terminology for equivocal Pap test findings from the original Papanicolaou classification to the current the Bethesda System 2001 atypical squamous cells terminology, the implication and use of these terms, and the changing landscape of cervical neoplasia screening, which prompted these terminology changes. Emerging issues related to improving risk stratification through the introduction of additional terms and the impact of human papillomavirus testing may alter terminology of equivocal findings in the future. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2010. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    Comparison of p16INK4A and Hybrid Capture® 2 human papillomavirus testing as adjunctive tests in liquid-based gynecologic SurePathÔ preparations

    DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, Issue 3 2008
    Aziza Nassar M.D., F.I.A.C.
    Abstract p16INK4a, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, is functionally inactivated in many tumors, including cervical cancer. We compared p16INK4A immunocytochemical staining and Hybrid Capture® 2 (HCII) on SurePathÔ specimens using tissue biopsies (as the gold standard). Their utility in a spectrum of atypical and preneoplastic lesions, and their ability to accurately identify underlying lesions of CIN II or greater was assessed using biopsy follow-up data. One-hundred and seventeen residual SurePathÔ samples were collected: 43 atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), 47 low-grade (LGSIL), and 27 high-grade (HGSIL) squamous intraepithelial lesions. Two slides were prepared from each sample; one stained with the SurePathÔ autocyte stain and one immunostained using the CINtecÔ p16INK4a Cytology Kit (Dakocytomation). High-risk HPV testing was performed using the HCII DNA test (Digene, Gaithersburg, MD). Available tissue biopsy follow-up data was retrieved. p16INK4a was positive in 32.6% (14/43) ASCUS, 46.8% (22/47) LGSIL, and 48.1% (13/27) HGSIL specimens. HCII DNA test was positive in 41.9% (18/43) ASCUS, 78.7% (37/47) LGSIL, and 96.3% (26/27) HGSIL samples. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of p16INK4a and HCII were: 58.7% and 89.8%, 58.6% and 34.6%, 69.2% and 72.1%, 47.2% and 64.3%, respectively. In patients with cervical biopsies, the PPV of HCII (92.3%) results for a biopsy with CINII/III was significantly higher than the PPV of p16INK4a (52%) (P = 0.001). Using liquid-based cytology specimens, HCII is a more sensitive test than p16INK4a for detection of abnormal cytology. HCII has a higher PPV than p16INK4a for identifying CIN II/III. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2008;36:142,148. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    The clinical relevance of human papillomavirus testing: relationship between analytical and clinical sensitivity

    THE JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, Issue 1 2003
    Peter JF Snijders
    Abstract Given the fact that infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is causally involved in cervical cancer, addition of high-risk HPV testing to a cervical smear may improve the efficacy of cervical cancer screening programmes, the triage of women with equivocal or borderline Pap smears, and the monitoring of women who have been treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3). Compared to a cervical smear HPV tests revealed a superior sensitivity (ie clinical sensitivity) for lesions , CIN 3, and a negative predictive value approaching 100%. However, a potential complication is the availability of several HPV testing methods, all displaying a different sensitivity and specificity to detect HPV-positive women (ie analytical sensitivity and specificity). There is now compelling evidence that the clinical sensitivity and specificity of HPV tests are not simply synonymous to their analytical sensitivity and specificity, respectively. In fact, a distinction between so-called clinically relevant and irrelevant high-risk HPV infections should be made when considering HPV tests for primary screening, triage policies, or post-treatment monitoring. Here, we discuss the potential importance of HPV load in the context of currently widely applied HPV detection methods, to distinguish clinically relevant from irrelevant HPV infections. From this it can be concluded that it is of utmost importance to define criteria, involving viral load threshold and the type of HPV detection method that should be fulfilled by an HPV test before implementation of such a test in clinical practice and population-based cervical cancer screening programmes. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

    Prediction of recurrence after treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus testing and age at conisation

    BJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 11 2006
    J Verguts
    Objectives, The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA (HR-HPV DNA test) postconisation as prediction of recurrent or residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) after treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN2+) in a prospective study and to compare this with follow-up cytology and the marginal status of the excised tissue. Design, Prospective follow-up study. Setting, Unselected women presenting at colposcopy clinic of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven. Population, Seventy-two women treated with conisation for CIN2 or CIN3. Methods, Women were followed by HR-HPV DNA test (Hybrid Capture II test of Digene®) every 3 to 6 months. The same vial was used for cytology and the HR-HPV DNA test (SurePathÔ). All women were further followed by colposcopy and cytology for 24 months at 6-month intervals. The outcome of the study was presence of >CIN2, proven with colposcopy-directed biopsy occurring within 24 months after treatment. HR-HPV status was correlated with recurrent or residual CIN2+. Main outcome measures, Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and diagnostic odds ratios to predict treatment failure or cure were computed for HR-HPV testing, marginal status and follow-up cytology. HR-HPV status was also correlated with section margins postconisation and with the first cervical smear. Results, In 6 of the 72 treated women (8%), residual or recurrent CIN occurred. Women with recurrence were significantly older than women without a recurrence (51.5 ± 9.6 versus 39.8 ± 12.2 years, P= 0.007). All six women with recurrence were HR-HPV positive, four had a positive follow-up smear (,atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance = ASCUS+) and only two had involved section margins. Among the 66 cured women, 15 were HR-HPV positive, 6 had an abnormal smear and 12 had positive section margins. Sensitivity of cytology, positive section margins and HR-HPV DNA positivity was 66.7, 33.3 and 100% to predict treatment failure. Specificity of the three tests was, respectively, 90.9, 81.8 and 77.3%. Women with HR-HPV DNA at 3 to 6 months showed recurrent or residual CIN in 15% (2/13) if they had normal follow-up Pap smears and in 50% (4/8) if they had abnormal Pap smears. Margin status was not statistically significantly associated with human papillomavirus status. Conclusion, Persistence or clearance of HR-HPV DNA is an early valid prognostic marker of failure or cure after treatment for CIN2+ and is more accurate than cytology or section margin status at the time of conisation. The absence of HR-HPV DNA has a 100% negative predictive value. Higher age at conisation may be a previously unrecognised risk factor for recurrence. [source]