Comparison of Predictors for High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Women with Abnormal Smears

^{1 1}Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine; ²The Doctors Laboratory; Departments of ³Cytopathology and ⁴Gynaecology, Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospitals; ⁵Cytopathology Department, St. Mary's Hospital, London, United Kingdom; ⁶Department of Pathology, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom; ⁷Laboratoire Pasteur-Cerba, Cergy Pontoise, France; and ⁸Gynaecology Department, St. Mary's Hospital, London

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: anne.szarewski{at}cancer.org.uk.

	Abstract

Background: The detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of several adjunctive tests for the detection of high-grade CIN in a population referred to colposcopy because of abnormal cytology.

Methods: 953 women participated in the study. Up to seven tests were carried out on a liquid PreservCyt sample: Hybrid Capture II (Digene), Amplicor (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), APTIMA HPV assay (Gen-Probe), Linear Array (Roche), Clinical-Arrays (Genomica), and CINtec p16^INK4a Cytology (mtm Laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology seen on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review.

Results: 273 (28.6%) women had high-grade disease (CIN2+) on worst histology, with 193 (20.2%) having CIN3+. For the detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture II had a sensitivity of 99.6%, specificity of 28.4%, and PPV of 36.1%. Amplicor had a sensitivity of 98.9%, specificity of 21.7%, and PPV of 33.5%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 73.6%, specificity of 73.1%, and PPV of 52.0%. APTIMA had a sensitivity of 95.2%, specificity of 42.2%, and PPV of 39.9%. CINtec p16^INK4a Cytology had a sensitivity of 83.0%, specificity of 68.7%, and PPV of 52.3%. Linear Array had a sensitivity of 98.2%, specificity of 32.8%, and PPV of 37.7%. Clinical-Arrays had a sensitivity of 80.9%, specificity of 37.1%, and PPV of 33.0%. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(11):3033–42)

Key Words: biomarkers, CIN