Investigator

Fabio Bottari

Biologist · Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Clinical Laboratory

FBFabio Bottari
Papers(3)
Clinical Performance …Performance of BD Onc…Anyplex II HPV test i…
Collaborators(8)
Marc ArbynArdashel LatsuzbaiaMarianna MartinelliClementina Elvezia Co…Anna Daniela IacoboneKate CuschieriFranco OdicinoChiara Giubbi
Institutions(6)
European Institute Of…Ghent UniversitySciensano BelgiumUniversity Of Milano …Nhs LothianUniversità degli Stud…

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.

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.

Anyplex II HPV test in detection and follow‐up after surgical treatment of CIN2+ lesions

AbstractHuman papillomavirus (HPV) tests differ for technology, targets, and information on the genotype and viral load. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the Seegene Anyplex II HPV HR (Anyplex) assay in the detection of cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN) and as a test‐of‐cure in the follow‐up after surgical treatment. One hundred and sixty‐seven women referred to the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, for surgical treatment of CIN2+ were enrolled. A cervical sample was taken before treatment and at the first follow‐up visit: on these samples, Qiagen Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), Roche Linear Array HPV Test (Linear Array), cytology and histology were performed at baseline, HC2, and cytology at follow‐up. Anyplex genotyping HPV test was performed on a post aliquot from liquid‐based cytology specimens when available. The concordance between Anyplex and HC2 was 93.6% at baseline and 76.7% at follow‐up (3–9 months after treatment), respectively. The concordance between Anyplex and Linear Array was evaluable only at baseline (92.9%). No recurrence occurred in women without the persistence of the same genotype at follow‐up. Seven women relapsed: six had persistence of the same genotypes (five HPV16, one HPV33, and one HPV39), while one tested negative not only with Anyplex but also with HC2 for the persistence of low‐risk genotype infection (HPV73 only detected by Linear Array). Anyplex test represents a valid option for HPV detection and genotyping in order to stratify women at risk of high‐grade lesions at baseline and to monitor patients treated for CIN2+ lesions during follow‐up.

45Works
3Papers
8Collaborators
Papillomavirus InfectionsEarly Detection of CancerUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Positions

2025–

Biologist

Centro Cardiologico Monzino · Clinical Laboratory