[Evaluation of the effectiveness of BMRT-HPV for cervical cancer screening]

Objective: Evaluation of the clinical value of the BioPerfectus multiplex real time (BMRT)-HPV for cervical cancer screening. Methods: Physician-collected specimens of 1 495 women who were positive of Cobas 4800 HPV (Cobas-HPV), HPV genotyping based on SEQ uencing (SEQ-HPV), and (or) cytology ≥low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) in the primary screening of Chinese Multiple-center Screening Trial (CHIMUST), and 2 990 women selected from those who were negative of primary screening in the same project through nested control randomization with age-matching were tested for BMRT-HPV, which reported type-specific viral loads/10 000 cells in each specimen. With comparing to Cobas-HPV results and taking cervical histopathological diagnosis as the endpoint, the concordance of high-risk (HR)-HPV subtypes among the three assays was explored ,and the sensitivity and specificity of BMRT-HPV for cervical cancer screening were evaluated. Results: (1) The overall agreenment of HR-HPV subtypes between BMRT-HPV and Cobas-HPV, or SEQ-HPV test sample was 94.8%, 94.4%, with Kappa values 0.827, 0.814. (2) The sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) Ⅱ⁺ of BMRT-HPV, Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV were 92.62%, 94.26%, 93.44% and 84.67%, 83.25%, 82.76%, respectively. There were no significant difference in sensitivity among the three HPV assays (all P>0.05), but the specificity of BMRT-HPV for CIN Ⅱ⁺ was higher than those of Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (P<0.01). The sensitivity for CIN Ⅲ⁺ of three HPV assays were all 100.00%, and the specificity for CIN Ⅲ⁺ of BMRT-HPV was higher than those of Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (83.40% vs 81.95%, 83.40% vs 81.50%; P<0.01). The number of pathological examinations of colposcopy for cervical biopsy detected in 1 case of CIN Ⅱ⁺ or CIN Ⅲ⁺ in BMRT-HPV was less than those in Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (P<0.01). When using HPV 16/18 + cytology ≥atypical squamous cell of undetermined signification (ASCUS) to triage HPV positive women among three assays, there was no different in the sensitivities of detecting CIN Ⅱ⁺ and CIN Ⅲ⁺ (P>0.05). The specificity BMRT-HPV was slightly higher than those in Cobas-HPV or SEQ-HPV (all P<0.05), and the colposcopy referral rate was lower than those in Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (all P<0.05). Conclusions: BMRT-HPV is as sensitive as Cobas-HPV or SEQ-HPV for primary cervical cancer screening, and has higher specificity. Therefore it could be used as a primary screening method for cervical cancer, which is worthy of clinical application.