Long-Term Comparison of 7 SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays in the North Zealand Covid-19 Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have been approved through Emergency Use Authorization and require further evaluation of sensitivity and specificity in clinical laboratory settings prior to implementation. METHODS: We included 1733 samples from 375 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals of the North Zealand Covid-19 Cohort in an 8-month period. We investigated diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against consensus and PCR and interassay agreement over time for 5 SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays [Roche-nucleocapsid (NC)-total, Roche-receptor binding domain (RBD)-total, Siemens-RBD-IgG, Siemens-RBD-total, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TFS)-RBD-IgG] commercially available on automated platforms and 2 ELISA assays (TFS-RBD-total, Wantai-RBD-total). RESULTS: Early interassay discrepancy in up to 49% of samples decreased steadily during the first 18 days. By day 18, all assays had reached a plateau between 82.3% and 90.5% seropositivity compared to PCR. Assays ranked by closest agreement with the consensus model beyond day 18 (sensitivity/specificity against consensus) were as follows: Roche-RBD-total, 99.8%/100.0%; Wantai-RBD-total, 99.8%/99.7%; Roche-NC-total, 97.8%/100.0%; Siemens-RBD-total, 98.0%/98.7%; TFS-RBD-total, 96.9%/99.7%; TFS-RBD-IgG, 91.5%/100.0%; and Siemens-RBD-IgG, 94.6%/89.9%. We found that 7.8% of PCR-positive patients remained seronegative in all assays throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: All included assays had sensitivities against consensus >90% past day 18. For the current recommended use of antibody assays to detect former, undocumented Covid-19, our data suggest the use of total antibody assays rather than IgG-specific assays due to higher long-term sensitivity. Finally, a nonresponding subpopulation of 7.8% in our cohort with persistent seronegative results raises concern of a possible substantial number of people with continued low protection following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The prognostic significance of HPV, p16, and p53 protein expression in vaginal cancer: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV), p16, and p53 have been investigated as prognostic markers in various HPV-related cancers. Within the field of vaginal cancer, however, the evidence remains sparse. In this systematic review, we have compiled the presently published studies on the prognostic significance of HPV and immunohistochemical expression of p16 and p53 among women with vaginal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published until April 2021. We included studies reporting survival after histologically verified vaginal cancers tested for HPV, p16, and/or p53. Survival outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: We included a total of 12 studies. The vast majority of vaginal cancer cases included in each study were squamous cell carcinomas (84%-100%). Seven studies reported survival after vaginal cancer according to HPV status, and the majority of these studies found a tendency towards improved survival for women with HPV-positive vaginal cancer. Three out of four studies reporting survival according to p16 status found an improved survival among women with p16-positive vaginal cancer. For p53, only one of six studies reported an association between p53 expression and survival. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that women with HPV- and p16-positive vaginal cancer have an improved prognosis compared with those with HPV- or p16-negative vaginal cancer. Results for p53 were varied, and no conclusion could be reached. Only 12 studies could be included in the review, of which most were based on small populations. Hence, further and larger studies on the prognostic impact of HPV, p16, and p53 in vaginal cancer are warranted.

Prognostic value of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA and p16INK4a immunohistochemistry in patients with anal cancer: An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types represent the aetiological agents in a major proportion of anal squamous cell carcinomas (ASCC). Several studies have suggested a prognostic relevance of HPV-related markers, particularly hrHPV DNA and p16INK4a (p16) protein expression, in patients with ASCC. However, broader evaluation of these prognostic marker candidates has been hampered by small cohort sizes and heterogeneous survival data among the individual studies. We conducted an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to determine the prognostic value of hrHPV DNA and p16 in patients with ASCC while controlling for major clinical and tumour covariates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify all published studies analysing p16 alone or in combination with hrHPV DNA and reporting survival data in patients with ASCC. Clinical and tumour-related IPD were requested from authors of potentially eligible studies. Survival analyses were performed with a proportional hazard Cox model stratified by study and adjusted for relevant covariates. The study-specific hazard ratios (HRs) for the exposures were pooled using a random-effects model. Kaplan-Meier curves from different studies were pooled per exposure group and weighted by the study's total sample size. RESULTS: Seven studies providing IPD from 693 patients with ASCC could be included in the meta-analysis. Seventy-six percent of patients were p16+/hrHPV DNA+, whereas 11% were negative for both markers. A discordant marker status was observed in 13% of cases. Patients with p16+/hrHPV DNA+ ASCC showed significantly superior overall survival (OS) compared with patients with p16-/hrHPV DNA- tumours (pooled adjusted HR = 0.26 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.14-0.50]) with pooled three-year OS rates of 86% (95% CI, 82-90%) versus 39% (95% CI, 24-54%). Patients with discordant p16 and hrHPV DNA status showed intermediate three-year OS rates (75% [95% CI, 56-86%] for p16+/hrHPV DNA- and 55% [95% CI, 35-71%] for p16-/hrHPV DNA+ ASCC). CONCLUSION: This first IPD meta-analysis controlling for confounding variables shows that patients with p16+/hrHPV DNA+ ASCC have a significantly better survival than patients with p16-/hrHPV DNA- tumours.