Investigator

Ardashel Latsuzbaia

Sciensano Belgium

ALArdashel Latsuzba…
Papers(4)
Clinical Performance …Clinical accuracy of …Performance of BD Onc…Validation of BD Oncl…
Institutions(1)
Sciensano Belgium

Papers

Clinical Performance of OncoPredict HPV Screening Assay on Self‐Collected Vaginal and Urine Specimens Within the VALHUDES Framework

ABSTRACT The introduction of self‐sampling in cervical cancer screening has raised the importance of HPV test validation on self‐collected samples. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical accuracy of the OncoPredict HPV Screening (SCR) assay on self‐collected vaginal and first‐void urine (FVU) samples, relative to cervical specimens, using the VALHUDES Framework. FVU and vaginal self‐samples followed by a clinician‐collected cervical brushing were collected from 500 women referred to colposcopy and tested using OncoPredict HPV SCR assay. The assay demonstrated clinical sensitivity to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (≥ CIN2) similar to cervical samples in FVU (ratio: 0.95, [95% CI: 0.88–1.02]) and vaginal self‐samples (ratio: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.90–1.02]). The clinical specificity for < CIN2 was lower in vaginal (ratio: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.84–0.96]) but not in FVU samples (ratio: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.96–1.12) when compared to cervical samples. However, the relative specificity improved following cut‐off optimization (ratio: 0.94, 95% CI: [0.88–1.01]). Moderate to excellent agreement in HPV detection between self‐collected and cervical samples was demonstrated (Kappa values: 0.53–1.00). To conclude, OncoPredict HPV SCR assay demonstrated similar accuracy on FVU and cervical samples. On vaginal compared to cervical samples sensitivity was similar with a lower specificity, which improved with cut‐off optimization.

Clinical accuracy of OncoPredict HPV Quantitative Typing (QT) assay on self-samples

The VALHUDES initiative was established to assess the clinical accuracy of HPV assays to detect cervical precancers using urine and vaginal self-samples compared to cervical clinician-collected samples. Here, the clinical performance of OncoPredict HPV Quantitative Typing (QT) assay (OncoPredict QT) was evaluated. 490 women referred to colposcopy self-collected a urine and a vaginal specimen using Colli-Pee and FLOQSwab, respectively. Subsequently, a colposcopy was performed, and a cervical sample was collected with Cervex-Brush, followed by biopsy if clinically indicated. Vaginal samples were transported dry and resuspended in 5 mL of eNAT medium, whilst cervical brushings were immediately transferred in 20 mL ThinPrep. The clinical sensitivity of OncoPredict HPV QT testing for CIN2+ in urine and vaginal self-samples was similar to cervical samples (ratios of 0.99 [95 % CI 0.94-1.05] and 1.00 [95 % CI 0.96-1.04]), respectively, when manufacturer's cut-offs were applied. The specificity for <CIN2 on both self-samples was lower than on cervical samples (urine/cervical ratio = 0.91 [95 % CI 0.84-0.98]; vaginal/cervical ratio = 0.90 [95 % CI 0.84-0.98]). Cut-off optimisation improved specificity without compromising sensitivity. Median viral load values adjusted for cellularity were significantly higher in cervical samples compared to urine or vaginal self-samples, in general for all 12 high-risk HPV and in particular for HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 51, 58 (p < 0.05). No difference was observed in median viral loads between urine and vaginal samples. Following cut-off optimisation OncoPredict HPV QT assay demonstrated similar accuracy on self-collected versus cervical samples.

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

ABSTRACT 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.

Validation of BD Onclarity HPV Assay on Vaginal Self-Samples versus Cervical Samples Using the VALHUDES Protocol

Abstract Background: In this study, we evaluated accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician-taken samples through the VALHUDES protocol. VALHUDES was designed as a diagnostic test accuracy study, where women referred to colposcopy collected self-samples followed by clinician-taken cervical samples. Methods: Four hundred eighty-five women recruited in five colposcopy clinics (median age = 40 years; IQR, 31–49) with valid results for all specimens were included in the main analysis: 230 vaginal self-samples were collected with Evalyn Brush and 255 with Qvintip. Cervical samples were taken by the gynecologist with the Cervex-Brush. HPV testing was performed with BD Onclarity HPV assay (Onclarity). Colposcopy and histology were used as the reference standard for accuracy estimation. Results: The sensitivity for CIN2+ on vaginal self-samples overall was not different from cervical samples (ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90–1.03), whereas specificity was significantly higher (ratio = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02–1.16). However, the relative accuracy (self- vs. clinician sampling) differed by vaginal collection device: relative sensitivity and specificity ratios of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.94–1.06) and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.05–1.25), respectively for Evalyn-Brush; 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79–1.04) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.95–1.13), respectively for Qvintip. Conclusions: Clinical accuracy of BD Onclarity HPV assay on vaginal self-samples was not different from cervical samples. Impact: VALHUDES study showed that HPV testing with Onclarity HPV on vaginal self-samples is similarly sensitive compared with cervical specimens. However, differences in accuracy by self-sampling devices, although not significant, were noted. Onclarity HPV testing on vaginal self-samples following validated collection and handling procedures may be used in primary cervical cancer screening.

4Papers