The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of clinically utilized human papillomavirus detection methods in head and neck cancer
Open accessAbstract
Detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) in head and neck cancer has therapeutic implications. In situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry for p16 are used by surgical pathologists. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of three popular commercial tests for HPV detection in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas with a ‘gold standard’ HPV PCR assay. A total of 110 prospectively collected, formalin-fixed tumor specimens were compiled onto tissue microarrays and tested for HPV DNA by in situ hybridization with two probe sets, a biotinylated probe for high-risk (HR) HPV types 16/18 (Dako, CA, USA) and a probe cocktail for 16/18, plus 10 additional HR types (Ventana, AZ, USA). The p16INK4 expression was also assessed using a Pharmingen immunohistochemistry antibody (BD Biosciences, CA, USA). Tissue microarrays were stained and scored at expert laboratories. HPV DNA was detected by MY09/11-PCR, using Gold AmpliTaq and dot-blot hybridization on matched-fresh frozen specimens in a research laboratory. HPV 16 E6 and E7-RNA expression was also measured using RT-PCR. Test performance was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic analysis. HR-HPV DNA types 16, 18 and 35 were detected by MY-PCR in 28% of tumors, with the majority (97%) testing positive for type 16. Compared with MY-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity for HR-HPV DNA detection with Dako in situ hybridization was 21% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7–42) and 100% (95% CI: 93–100), respectively. Corresponding test results by Ventana in situ hybridization were 59% (95% CI: 39–78) and 58% (95% CI: 45–71), respectively. The p16 immunohistochemistry performed better overall than Dako (P=0.042) and Ventana (P=0.055), with a sensitivity of 52% (95% CI: 32–71) and specificity of 93% (95% CI: 84–98). Compared with a gold standard HPV-PCR assay, HPV detection by in situ hybridization was less accurate for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma on tissue microarrays than p16 immunohistochemistry. Further testing is warranted before these assays should be recommended for clinical HPV detection.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
Cited by
Lydiatt, W. M., Patel, S. G., O'Sullivan, B., Brandwein, M. S., Ridge, J. A., Migliacci, J. C., Loomis, A. M., & Shah, J. P. (2017) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21389 · Cited by 1,625
Emerging biomarkers in head and neck cancer in the era of genomics
Kang, H., Kiess, A., & Chung, C. H. (2015) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.192 · Cited by 310
Gillison, M. L., Alemany, L., Snijders, P. J. F., Chaturvedi, A., Steinberg, B. M., Schwartz, S., & Castellsagué, X. (2012) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.070 · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- Schlecht, N. F., Brandwein-Gensler, M., Nuovo, G. J., Li, M., Dunne, A., Kawachi, N., Smith, R. V., Burk, R. D., & Prystowsky, M. B.
- Venue
- Modern Pathology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1295-1305
- ISSN
- 0893-3952 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985045254
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.