Clinical performance of the novel full-genotyping OncoPredict HPV Quantitative Typing assay using the VALGENT framework.

Clinical validation of human papillomavirus (HPV) assays according to international criteria is prerequisite for their implementation in cervical cancer screening. OncoPredict HPV Quantitative Typing (QT) assay (Hiantis Srl, Milan, Italy) is a novel full-genotyping multiplex real-time PCR quantitative assay targeting E6/E7 genes, allowing individual viral load determination of 12 high-risk (HR) HPV types. Quality controls for sample adequacy, efficiency of nucleic acid extraction and PCR inhibition are included in the assay. Clinical performance of OncoPredict HPV QT test was assessed as part of the "Validation of HPV Genotyping Tests" (VALGENT-2) framework, consisting of 1300 cervical liquid-based cytology (LBC) samples of women aged between 20 and 60 years who had originally attended for routine cervical screening in Scotland. The clinical accuracy of the OncoPredict HPV QT (index test) for the detection of CIN2+ was assessed relative to the GP5+/6+ Enzyme ImmunoAssay (GP5+/6+ EIA) (comparator test), using noninferiority criteria. Intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility of the assay was assessed on a subpopulation, comprising 526 samples. The relative sensitivity and specificity for OncoPredict HPV QT vs GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA were 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99-1.03) and 1.03 (95% CI: 1.0-1.06) respectively. The P-values for noninferiority were ≤0.001. The intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility demonstrated a high concordance (>98.7%) with kappas for individual types ranging from 0.66 to 1.00. OncoPredict HPV QT fulfills the international validation criteria for the use of HPV tests in cervical cancer screening.

Performance of BD Onclarity HPV assay on FLOQSwabs vaginal self-samples.

This study assessed the accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus testing of BD Onclarity HPV (Onclarity) assay on vaginal self-collected FLOQSwab versus cervical samples to ensure similar accuracy to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Testing was performed on two automated platforms, BD Viper LT and BD COR, to evaluate the effect of machine and using two vaginal self-samples to analyze the influence of collection, transport, and freezing-unfreezing on the results. A cervical sample and two self-samples were collected from 300 women. The first collected vaginal and the cervical sample were tested on BD Viper LT, and the second swab was frozen and subsequently tested on both automated systems. Test results on vaginal and cervical specimens were considered the index and comparator, respectively; colposcopy and histology were reference standards. Relative sensitivity for ≥CIN2 on vaginal samples analyzed versus the cervical sample was 1.01 (0.97-1.06), 1.01 (0.97-1.06), and 1.00 (0.95-1.05), for the first, second self-collected sample tested on BD VIPER LT, and second self-collected sample tested on BD COR, respectively. Relative specificity was 0.83 (0.73-0.94), 0.76 (0.67-0.87), and 0.82 (0.73-0.92) using the three different workflows. Cut-off optimization for human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity defined at Ct ≤38.3 for HPV16, ≤ 34.2 for HPV18, and ≤31.5 for all other types showed an increased relative specificity with similar sensitivity. No significant difference was observed between self-samples tested with the two platforms and between first- and second-collected swabs. Onclarity assay on FLOQSwab using both platforms showed similar sensitivity but lower specificity to detect ≥CIN2 compared to cervical samples. By cut-off optimization, non-inferior specificity could be reached. IMPORTANCE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected vaginal samples has been shown to improve women's participation to cervical cancer screening programs, particularly in regions with limited access to health care. Nevertheless, the introduction of self-sampling in cervical cancer screening programs requires prior clinical validation of the HPV assay in combination with a self-sample collection device, including also the laboratory workflow and automation required for high-throughput testing in screening. In this study, the performance of BD Onclarity HPV on FLOQSwab-collected vaginal self-samples has been compared to clinician-taken liquid-based cytology samples, to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using two high-throughput platforms, BD Viper LT and BD COR. The study findings have shown a similar performance of BD Onclarity on testing self-collected samples, confirming the validation of the proposed pre-analytical and analytical protocols for their use in cervical cancer screening programs based on self-collected vaginal samples.

Diagnostic Accuracy of DNA-Methylation in Detection of Cervical Dysplasia: Findings from a Population-Based Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Epigenetic biomarkers in cancer have emerged as promising tools for early detection, prognosis, and treatment response prediction. In cervical cells, hypermethylation of the host and viral HPV-genome increases with the severity of lesions, providing a useful biomarker in the triage of hr-HPV-positive women and during treatment. The present study focuses on evaluating the clinical performance of the FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation test in a population-based cervical screening program. METHODS: Previously collected cervical samples, after bisulfite-converted DNA, were analyzed by PreCursor-M+ kit (distributed by Fujirebio Europe), for DNA methylation. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative/positive predictive values of DNA methylation were compared to histology, colposcopy, the HPV-DNA test, and cytology results. RESULTS: Among the 61-sample set, the specificity of methylation vs. positive histology (≥CIN2) and colposcopy (≥G2) were 87% and 90%, whereas the sensitivity was 50% and 33.3%, respectively. The combination of methylation analysis with standard methods increases diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found a good specificity of DNA methylation in comparison to currently used techniques. Further larger studies could support the use of FAM19A4/miR124-2 as reliable biomarkers in the prevention of cervical cancer as triage in the screening protocol.

Evaluation of two alternative non-alcohol-based media for the suspension of self-collected vaginal swabs for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening.

The introduction of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing in cervical cancer screening enhanced the opportunity to introduce self-collection as an innovative approach to improve coverage rates. Validation and standardization of the pre-analytical and analytical procedures are crucial for the quality assurance of HPV tests on self-collected samples. This study evaluated the analytical performance and the stability of self-collected vaginal samples resuspended in 5 mL of two non-alcohol-based media, eNat® and MSwab® compared to a professionally collected cervical sample, resuspended in 20 mL ThinPrep®, for the detection of high-risk HPV (hrHPV). The impact of the suspension volumes on analytical performance was also evaluated (2 and 5 ml). A good analytical concordance in hrHPV detection in cervical and vaginal self-collected swabs suspended in 5 ml of both non-alcohol-based media was demonstrated (eNat®: 91.2 %, k = 0.821; MSwab®: 91.4 %; k = 0.798). A similar analytical performance was found for samples resuspended in 2 mL (eNat®: 92.9 %, k = 0.811; MSwab®: 92.9 %, k = 0.811) compared to cervical samples. Good nucleic acid stability was demonstrated for vaginal samples stored at 20-25 °C and 37 °C for up to 4 weeks. Results of this preliminary study support the introduction of these media for vaginal self-sampling-based prevention programs. Nevertheless, further research is necessary to evaluate clinical accuracy in larger settings.

Assessment of the clinical and analytical performance of three Seegene Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assays within the VALCOR framework.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrated the need for accurate diagnostic testing for the early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although the pandemic has ended, accurate assays are still needed to monitor viral spread at national levels and beyond through population and wastewater surveillance. To enhance early detection, SARS-CoV-2 assays should have high diagnostic accuracy and should be validated to assure accurate results. Three distinct SARS-CoV-2 assays were evaluated with clinical samples using the VALCOR (VALidation of SARS-CORona Virus-2 assays) framework, with the TaqPath COVID-19 assay (ThermoFisher Scientific, USA) as a comparator. We evaluated clinical sensitivity, specificity, limit of detection (LOD), and overall concordance between comparator and three index Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assays (Seegene, South Korea): Allplex-SC2, Allplex-SC2Fast (Fast PCR), and Allplex-SC2FabR (SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/respiratory syncytial virus). Analytical performance and LOD of index assays were assessed using a dilution series of three synthetic SARS-CoV-2 sequence reference materials (RMs). Ninety SARS-CoV-2 positives and 90 SARS-CoV-2 negatives were tested. All Allplex assays had 100.0% sensitivity (95%CI = 95.9%-100.0%). Allplex-SC2 and Allplex-SC2Fast assays had 97.8% specificity (95%CI = 92.3%-99.7%) and 98.9% overall concordance [κ = 0.978 (95%CI = 0.947-1.000)]. Allplex-SC2FabR assay showed 100.0% specificity (95%CI = 95.9%-100.0%) and 100.0% overall concordance [κ = 1.000 (95%CI = 1.000-1.000)]. LOD assessment of index assays revealed detection down to 2.61 × 102 copies/mL in clinical samples, while the analytical LOD was 9.00 × 102 copies/mL. In conclusion, the evaluation of the three Seegene Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assays showed high sensitivity and specificity and an overall good assay concordance with the comparator. The assays showed low analytical LOD using RM and even a slightly lower LOD in clinical samples. Non-overlapping target gene sequences between SARS-CoV-2 assays and RMs emphasize the need for aligning targeted sequences of diagnostic assays and RMs.IMPORTANCEThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has a significant impact on global public health, economies, and societies. As shown through the first phases of the pandemic, accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial for disease control, prevention, and monitoring. Though the pandemic phase of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has concluded, diagnostic assays remain in demand to monitor SARS-CoV-2 at the individual patient level, regionally, and nationally, as well as to remain an infectious disease preparedness instrument to monitor any new SARS-CoV-2 dissemination across borders using population and wastewater surveillance. The anticipation by WHO and central health care policy entities such as the Center for Disease Control, EMA, and multiple national health authorities is that SARS-CoV-2 will reside as an endemic respiratory disease for years to come. The key strategic consideration is hence shifting from combating a pandemic situation with a high number of patients to instead allowing precise diagnostics of suspected patients with the intention of correct management in a low-prevalence setting.