Mahmud SM, Sangwa-Lugoma G, Nasr SH, Kayembe PK, Tozin RR, Drouin P, Lorincz A, Ferenczy A, Franco EL.

Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Feb;124(2):286-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.10.031. Epub 2011 Nov 4.


We compared the screening performance of conventional Pap cytology and two human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assays, the original Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and an expanded version that tests for 4 additional HPV types (HC2+4; Qiagen Corporation), in the detection of cervical neoplasia among unscreened women in a primary care setting in a suburb of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

METHODS: All women 30 years or older residing in the area were invited to participate, and 1528 were evaluated by Pap cytology and the two HPV assays, conducted at a European and US reference laboratory, respectively, followed by colposcopy. Cervical biopsies were obtained from all women with abnormal colposcopy and from 290 randomly chosen women with normal colposcopy (to correct for verification bias).

RESULTS: Using a relative light unit of 1 as the cutoff for positivity, 169 and 168 (11%) women tested positive using HC2 and HC2+4, respectively. HC2 and HC2+4 were in agreement in 98.6% of cases (Kappa=0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.91-0.96). Both assays were sensitive (~83%) and specific (~91%) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-2 or worse disease. Irrespective of the cutoff point used to define positivity, Pap cytology was both less sensitive and more specific than HC2 or HC2+4. For instance, cytology was 63% sensitive and 97% specific when a cutoff point of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse was used.

CONCLUSIONS: Among unscreened women, HC2 and HC2+4 had similar screening accuracy for cervical neoplasia, and both were more sensitive but less specific than Pap cytology. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. PMID: 22062546 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Plus d’info ici