2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2019.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of the FDA-approved molecular testing platforms for human papillomavirus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
74
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
74
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the fact that there was only 1 HPV testing assay available at our institution during any given study period makes a parallel comparison impossible. Given that the same geographic population of patients was analyzed during the 3 testing eras, coupled with the overall similar clinical sensitivity among HC2, Cervista, and Aptima for detecting CIN2+ lesions in women with ASC‐US, 10,35 we believe that comparing the first 2000 cases with the HPV‐positive results of each HPV testing assay would still provide valuable information with minimal selection bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, the fact that there was only 1 HPV testing assay available at our institution during any given study period makes a parallel comparison impossible. Given that the same geographic population of patients was analyzed during the 3 testing eras, coupled with the overall similar clinical sensitivity among HC2, Cervista, and Aptima for detecting CIN2+ lesions in women with ASC‐US, 10,35 we believe that comparing the first 2000 cases with the HPV‐positive results of each HPV testing assay would still provide valuable information with minimal selection bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, 5 hrHPV testing platforms have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2001, including HC2 (2001), Cervista (2009), Cobas 4800 (2011), Aptima (2011) and BD Onclarity (2018) 10,11 . Numerous studies have demonstrated that these testing modalities show similar clinical accuracy in detecting cervical intraepithelial lesions in women with ASC‐US, but have certain discordant results when compared with one another 10,12‐14 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This new, highly portable, PCR-based system is even faster than careHPV, taking only 1 hour to run the equivalent number of specimens, is less labour-intensive, does not require storage of specimens in liquid media, does not require refrigeration of the swabs and is able to identify specific hrHPV genotypes 29. Additionally, PCR-based systems are significantly more sensitive for detecting hrHPV+ on self-swab specimens than older hybrid capture (signal amplification) based systems 21 22 30. Regardless of the type of system used, rapid testing is a critical aspect of this model as it allows for same-day treatment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several possible explanations for this finding. First, the careHPV system uses signal amplification technology that is less sensitive than PCR-based systems that have been used to determine the aforementioned prevalence rates 21 30. Second, as mentioned previously, self-swab specimens of the vagina have been shown to be less sensitive than provider-obtained specimens.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%