Update on the College of American Pathologists Experience With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Proficiency Testing for Cytology.

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT - Since 2008, the College of American Pathologists has provided the human papillomavirus for cytology laboratories (CHPV) proficiency testing program to help laboratories meet the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. OBJECTIVES: - To provide an update on trends in proficiency testing performance in the College of American Pathologists CHPV program during the 4-year period from 2011 through 2014 and to compare those trends with the preceding first 3 years of the program. DESIGN: - Responses of laboratories participating in the CHPV program from 2011 through 2014 were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed model to compare different combinations of testing medium and platform. RESULTS: - In total, 818 laboratories participated in the CHPV program at least once during the 4 years, with participation increasing during the study period. Concordance of participant responses with the target result was more than 98% (38 280 of 38 892). Overall performance with all 3 testing media-ThinPrep (Hologic, Bedford, Massachusetts), SurePath (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey), or Digene (Qiagen, Valencia, California)-was equivalent (P = .51), and all 4 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved platforms-Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen), Cervista (Hologic), Aptima (Hologic), and cobas (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, California)-outperformed laboratory-developed tests, unspecified commercial kits, and other (noncommercial) methods in ThinPrep medium (P < .001). However, certain off-label combinations of platform and medium, most notably Cervista with SurePath, demonstrated suboptimal performance (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: - Laboratories demonstrated proficiency in using various combinations of testing media and platforms offered in the CHPV program, with statistically significant performance differences in certain combinations. These observations may be relevant in the current discussions about FDA oversight of laboratory-developed tests.