Cited by 49Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchReproductive tract infections researchHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research

Evaluation of HPV Genotyping Assays for Archival Clinical Samples

Open access
Lillsunde Larsson, Gabriella, Carlsson, Jessica, Karlsson, Mats G., Helenius, Gisela·2015·The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and genotyping of FFPE tissue samples is important in epidemiological investigations. Here, we compare four different HPV genotyping methods for use in FFPE clinical samples. Comparative testing was performed on 99 samples with a clinical suspicion of HPV. Specimens were analyzed with Anyplex II HPV28 detecting 28 genotypes using real-time PCR and melting curve analysis, CLART HPV2 detecting 35 genotypes using PCR and microarray detection, and MGP5+/6+ consensus primer system together with pyrosequencing. Results were compared to a real-time PCR reference protocol detecting 14 genotypes. In total, 68% of the samples were positive for an HPV genotype using the reference protocol and MGP5+/6+ primer system. Anyplex II HPV28 analysis and CLART HPV2 had 82% and 72% positive samples, respectively. All four methods showed good agreement when comparing the 14 genotypes included in the reference protocol. When evaluating all genotypes, the Anyplex II HPV28 assay and the CLART assay changed the status of the sample (individually or together) from negative with respect to the reference protocol to positive for either a Group 1 (n = 4) or Group 2 (n = 6) genotype. We conclude from this study that for an extended genotyping approach with a high sensitivity for FFPE specimens, both the Anyplex II HPV28 and CLART HPV2 assays are suitable alternatives despite minor intra-assay differences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.12.004

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In several studies that compared HPV genotyping methodologies, AnyplexTM II HPV28 demonstrated good agreement with other HPV assays, including LA.

    “In several studies that compared HPV genotyping methodologies, Anyplex™ II HPV28 demonstrated good agreement with other HPV assays, including LA.”

    From Comparative evaluation of HPV genotyping: A study on the performance concordance between Anyplex II HPV28 detection and Linear Array genotyping tests in nationwide studies in Brazil (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Discussion (page not supplied) says all four methods showed good agreement for the specified HPV genotypes, and the Detection of Genotypes Specified by Reference Protocol section reports 97% agreement for Anyplex II HPV28 against the reference protocol. But this study did not compare Anyplex directly with LA (Roche Linear Array); it mentions LA only as an assay against which primers had previously been validated. The cited paper is also one study, not evidence by itself for 'several studies.' (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AnyplexTM II HPV28's good agreement with other HPV assays is likely due to its highly sensitive multiplexed detection approach.

    “This is likely due to its highly sensitive multiplexed detection approach [8, 28–30].”

    From Comparative evaluation of HPV genotyping: A study on the performance concordance between Anyplex II HPV28 detection and Linear Array genotyping tests in nationwide studies in Brazil (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The paper reports good agreement for Anyplex II HPV28 in the Discussion and describes its technology as allowing a “very sensitive multiplexed detection approach” in the assay description. It does not explicitly attribute the agreement to that approach; the proposed causal link is an inference. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lillsunde Larsson, G., Carlsson, J., Karlsson, M. G., & Helenius, G.
Affiliations
Örebro University (SE)
Venue
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
293-301
ISSN
1525-1578 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064571822
Cited by
49
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Diagnostics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Örebro University Hospital
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › HER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Keywords
human papillomavirus, HPV genotyping, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, pyrosequencing, microarray detection, real-time PCR, assay comparison, diagnostic sensitivity
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, DNA, Viral, Female, Genotype, Humans, DNA Primers, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Genotyping Techniques, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review