4.4 Article

Development and Validation of a Preanalytic Procedure for Performing the cobas HPV Test in SurePath Preservative Fluid

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 288-294

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.003

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Roche Molecular Systems (Pleasanton, CA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The formation of chemical cross-Links between nucleic acids and proteins in formalin-containing media presents challenges for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing of cervical samples collected in SurePath Preservative Fluid. A preanalytic process involving addition of a nucleophilic buffer and heating the sample to 120 degrees C was developed to reverse the effects of cross-linking and improve nucleic acid accessibility for the cobas HPV Test in SurePath. Cycle threshold (CT) values for cobas HPV detection were evaluated over time and various temperatures, and mean C-T differences between pretreated and both untreated SurePath samples and those collected in PreservCyt were assessed. Without pretreatment, low viral levels (1 x limit of detection) of HPV were no longer detectable by 7 days. For prospectively collected specimens, mean (95% CI) CT differences between pretreated and untreated samples indicated enhanced HPV DNA recovery in all categories of treated samples: -2.58 (-3.16 to -2.01), -2.63 (-3.62 to -1.64), and -3.39 (-4.95 to -1.82), respectively, for other 12 high-risk HPV types, HPV16, and HPV18. Furthermore, mean (95% CI) C-T differences of pretreated SurePath samples were comparable to simultaneously collected PreservCyt samples: -0.48 (-0.98 to 0.02) and -0.23 (-0.93 to 0.46), respectively, for HPV16 and HPV18; a borderline significant difference [-0.35 (-0.57 to -0.13)] was observed for other 12 high-risk HPV types. This preanalytic procedure therefore ensures a validated, safe, and accurate method for cobas HPV testing in SurePath.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available