Human papillomavirus genotype concordance between Anyplex II HPV28 and linear array HPV genotyping test in anogenital samples

Abstract

Anyplex II HPV‐28 (HPV‐28) can detect individually 28 HPV genotypes. We assessed the agreement between linear array HPV genotyping (LA‐HPV) and HPV‐28 for detection of 27 HPV genotypes in 410 stored anogenital samples (75 anal samples, 335 physician‐collected cervical samples) collected over 5 years from 410 individuals (13 men, 397 women), including 202 HIV‐seropositive individuals. HPV DNA was detected in 393 (95.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.4–97.4) and 382 (93.2%, 95% CI: 90.3–95.3) samples with HPV‐28 and LA‐HPV (p = 0.13), respectively, for a good agreement of 96.3% (κ = 0.65). Of the 10503 HPV typing results, 10195 (780 positive, 9577 negative) were concordant, for an agreement of 97.1% (95% CI: 96.7–97.4) and an excellent of κ = 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80–0.84). The mean type‐specific concordance for 27 genotypes was 97.0%, 95% CI: 95.8–98.5 (κ = 0.86 ± 0.07, 95% CI: 0.83–0.88). Excellent agreement was obtained individually for all high‐risk genotypes (κ = 0.81–0.97) and for most other genotypes except for types 42, 44, 54, 68, and 69. The mean number of types per sample in discordant samples detected with LA‐HPV (3.0, 95% CI: 2.7–3.4) was greater than in concordant samples (1.4, 95% CI: 1.3–1.5; p< 0.001). In conclusion, HPV‐28 compared favorably with LA‐HPV, but was more frequently positive for HPV42 and HPV68.

Head‐to‐head comparison of genotyping of human papillomavirus by GP5+/6+‐PCR‐based reverse dot blot hybridization assay and SPF10‐PCR‐based line probe assay

“…In addition, multiple infections pose greater challenges to PCR‐based HPV genotyping systems and increase the likelihood of obtaining inconsistent results detected by two systems, leading to false‐negative results possibly due to competition in amplifying certain types 32 . In this study, although approximately 20% of samples with multiple infections (21.9% swab samples and 19.5% tissue samples) were concordant, approximately 20% of samples (21.3% swab samples and 17.7% tissue samples) contained compatible genotypes, which may be different sensitivities of two methods to multiple HPV genotypes, and may also be aliquots causing different HPV concentrations, especially when HPV is present at very low concentrations.…”

Head‐to‐head comparison of genotyping of human papillomavirus by real‐time multiplex PCR assay using type‐specific primers and SPF10‐PCR‐based line probe assay

“…In addition, multiple infections pose greater challenges to PCR‐based HPV genotyping systems, which leads to underestimating the presence of HPV genotypes due to competition in amplifying certain types, especially, when some HPV genotypes are present at a low concentration while other types are present at high concentrations 28 . Moreover, competition from the multiplex type‐specific PCR assays is weaker than that from broad‐spectrum (conventional primer) PCR assays.…”

Prevalence and Risk Factors for High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Disorders: Baseline Findings From an Human Papillomavirus Cohort Study

“… 23 Recruitment and eligibility criteria were described in the study protocol, published in 2018. 24 , 25 All women attending the CAPASAM were eligible for recruitment if they: (a) are 25 years old or older according to target population of the Mexican cervical cancer control program or younger women with cervical abnormalities; (b) have resided for 5 years or more in Morelos; (c) agree to participate in the study, sign an informed consent form, complete a questionnaire, and donate cervix exudate sample; (d) have a negative diagnosis for chronic inflammatory or autoimmune diseases at the beginning of the study and during follow-up, and a negative pregnancy status; and (e) received no previous anti-HPV vaccination, nor immunosuppressive treatment within 6 months before.…”