부산대학교 도서관

Objectives: This study evaluated the Xpert HPV Assay in women attending screening in general practice by comparing Xpert with two established HPV tests, cytology and histology. Methods: A prospective study in women aged 20–60 years attending screening in Bristol, Edinburgh and London using residual Preservcyt cytology samples. Sample order was randomised between Roche cobas4800 and Cepheid Xpert assays with Qiagen hc2 third. Results: 3408 cases were included in the primary analysis. Positivity for Xpert was 19.6%, cobas 19.2% and hc2 19.9% with high concordance (kappa=86.8% vs cobas, 81.55 vs hc2). Xpert, cobas and hc2 showed similar sensitivity (98.7%, 97.5%, 98.7%) for CIN2+. All pairwise comparisons had high concordance (Kappa ≥0.78 with any abnormal cytology. Xpert and hc2 were positive for all cases of ≥moderate dyskaryosis (N=63)), cobas was negative in two. Histology was available for 172 participants. 79 reported CIN2+, 47 CIN3+. All CIN3+ was positive on Xpert and hc2 and one case negative for cobas. One case of CIN2 was negative for all assays. Conclusions: The performance of Xpert HPV Assay in a general screening population is comparable to established HPV tests. It offers simplicity of testing, flexibility with non-batching of individual samples and rapid turnaround time. Keywords: Human papillomavirus, Xpert, Cervical screening, HPV testing