This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.
Aaysha Saifi,
Sadaf Saifi,
- PhD Scholar, Department of Microbiology, Monad University, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
- Student, Department of Microbiology, Monad University, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_abs_128841’);});Edit Abstract & Keyword
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a leading cause of cervical cancer, making early detection critical for effective prevention and treatment. Among the diagnostic methods available, Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) are widely used for detecting high-risk HPV genotypes, particularly HPV 16 and 18, which account for the majority of cervical cancer cases. This review aims to compare the efficacy of HC2 and Real-Time PCR in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and clinical utility in cervical cancer screening. HC2 is a well-established method that detects a broad range of HPV types, but it has notable limitations, such as cross-reactivity, which can lead to false positives. Its lower specificity makes it less reliable for distinguishing between high-risk and low-risk infections, resulting in unnecessary follow-ups and potential overtreatment. Conversely, Real-Time PCR offers higher specificity by directly amplifying and detecting viral DNA sequences, allowing for precise identification of high-risk HPV genotypes. This method also enables viral load quantification, providing additional clinical insights into the severity of infection and risk of disease progression. The comparative analysis suggests that while HC2 remains a useful tool for large-scale screening due to its ability to detect a wide range of HPV infections, Real-Time PCR is superior in terms of accuracy and clinical relevance. Its precise detection capabilities make it more effective for targeted screening and risk stratification in clinical settings. In conclusion, Real-Time PCR’s enhanced specificity and ability to reduce false positives present a significant advantage in improving cervical cancer screening outcomes, making it a more reliable tool for early detection and prevention strategies.
Keywords: Human papillomavirus (HPV), Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), HPV 16 and 18, DNA sequences
[This article belongs to International Journal of Genetic Modifications and Recombinations (ijgmr)]
Aaysha Saifi, Sadaf Saifi. Comparative Efficacy of Hybrid Capture 2 and Real-Time PCR in Detecting High-Risk HPV Genotypes for Cervical Cancer Screening. International Journal of Genetic Modifications and Recombinations. 2024; 02(02):-.
Aaysha Saifi, Sadaf Saifi. Comparative Efficacy of Hybrid Capture 2 and Real-Time PCR in Detecting High-Risk HPV Genotypes for Cervical Cancer Screening. International Journal of Genetic Modifications and Recombinations. 2024; 02(02):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijgmr/article=2024/view=0
References
document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_ref_128841’);});Edit
1. Nilsson J, Miyazaki N, Xing L, Wu B, Hammar L, Li TC, Takeda N, Miyamura T, Cheng RH. Structure and assembly of a T= 1 virus-like particle in BK polyomavirus. Journal of virology. 2005 May 1;79(9):5337-45.
2. Gion Y, Nishikori A, Norimatsu Y, Sato Y. Comparison of the Hybrid Capture II Method with a PCR-Based Screening Method Using a Carboxyfluorescein-Labeled Primer for Detecting Human Papillomavirus in Cervicovaginal Liquid-Based Cytology. J Mol Pathol. 2019;1(1):9-18.
3. Kaliterna V, Lepej SZ, Vince A. Analytical performance comparison between Hybrid Capture 2 and Abbott RealTime High-Risk HPV assays in cervical samples. J Med Virol. 2019;91(8):1458-1463.
4. Franceschi S, Clifford GM, Matteucci F, et al. High-risk human papillomavirus genotypes detection for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: A case for Real-Time PCR and Hybrid Capture. Virology J. 2023;20(1):10–20.
5. Chung HS, Hahm C, Lee M. Comparison of the clinical performances of the AdvanSure HPV Screening Real-Time PCR, the Abbott Real-Time High-Risk HPV test, and the Hybrid Capture High-Risk HPV DNA test for Cervical Cancer Screening. J Virol Methods. 2014; 205:57–60.
6. Li TC, Takeda N, Kato K, Nilsson J, Xing L, Haag L, Cheng RH, Miyamura T. Characterization of self-assembled virus-like particles of human polyomavirus BK generated by recombinant baculoviruses. Virology. 2003 Jun 20;311(1):115-24.
7. Chromy LR, Pipas JM, Garcea RL. Chaperone-mediated in vitro assembly of Polyomavirus capsids. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2003 Sep 2;100(18):10477-82.
8. Muroli A, Issa Z, Abaka-Zam M, et al. Clinical comparison of nested PCR and Abbott RealTime high-risk HPV testing in African populations. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23(1):34–45.
9. Jones LM, Gupta A, Raman A. Analytical comparison of Digene Hybrid Capture 2 and GeneMatrix for high-risk HPV detection in atypical squamous cells. J Infect Dis Pathog. 2023;7(1):50–60.
10. Muroli A, Issa Z, Abaka-Zam M, et al. Clinical comparison of nested PCR and Abbott RealTime high-risk HPV testing in African populations. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23(1):34–45.
| Volume | 02 |
| Issue | 02 |
| Received | 07/11/2024 |
| Accepted | 22/11/2024 |
| Published | 24/12/2024 |