Comparison of the effectiveness of cytodiagnostics, molecular identification of HPV HR and CINtecPLUSTM test to identify LG SIL and HG SIL

Wojciech Rokita; Witold Kędzia; Dominik Pruski; Zbigniew Friebe; Ewa Nowak-Markwitz; Robert Spaczyński; Agata Karowicz-Bilińska; Marek Spaczyński

Vol 83, No 12 (2012)

ARTICLES

View PDF

Download PDF file

Get Citation

Comparison of the effectiveness of cytodiagnostics, molecular identification of HPV HR and CINtecPLUSTM test to identify LG SIL and HG SIL

Wojciech Rokita, Witold Kędzia, Dominik Pruski, Zbigniew Friebe, Ewa Nowak-Markwitz, Robert Spaczyński, Agata Karowicz-Bilińska, Marek Spaczyński

Ginekol Pol 2012;83(12).

Vol 83, No 12 (2012)

ARTICLES

Abstract

Aim of the paper: Comparison of conventional cytodiagnostics with molecular identification of DNA and mRNA HPV HR, immunocytochemical test for suppressor protein P16 and nuclear Ki 67 to detect cervical pathology screening of the division to LG SIL and HG SIL. Material: 630 Pap smears were taken from women with suspected cervical pathology were submitted for analysis, together with 558 smears for the presence of DNA HPV HR, 421 swabs for the presence of mRNA HPV HR, 86 swabs for the presence of suppressor protein P16 and nuclear Ki 67. In all of the women standard colposcopy with biopsy and endocervical abrasion were performed. Method: The study used a classic cytological smear, taken on the slide, rated in accordance with TBS classification, colposcopy implemented in accordance with the guidelines of the International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy from 2003, molecular diagnostic tests based on identifying DNA, mRNA HPV HR and immunocytochemistry diagnostic test – CINtecPLUSTM. Results: The sensitivity of Pap test identification of CIN 2 + was of 85% and specificity of 23%. Indicators PPV and NPV were respectively 39% and 72%. The accuracy of cytology reached a level of 46%. DNA HPV HR test obtained 91% sensitivity and 33% specificity of the diagnosis of CIN 2 +. Its accuracy was 54%. The value of PPV and NPV for molecular diagnostics was respectively 43% and 87%. For mRNA HPV HR test sensitivity of the method was 79%, the specificity was 67%. CINTecPLUSTM test achieved 100% sensitivity and 67% specificity in the diagnosis of CIN 2 +. Conclusions: 1. Conventional cytodiagnostics are inferior in terms of both sensitivity and specificity of molecular test for DNA,mRNA HPV HR and immunocytochemical test for detecting of LG SIL and HG SIL. 2. Immunocytochemical technique shows maximum sensitivity and high specificity of detection of actualprecancerous stages - CIN 2 +.