Trial reportMicrobiology spectrum2025
Extended HPV genotyping by the BD Onclarity assay: concordance with screening HPV-DNA assays, triage biomarkers, and histopathology in women from the NTCC2 study.
Trial report in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Biomarkers for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and the role of HPV: Multi‑omics approaches and current evidence (Review).International journal of oncology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing for detection of HPV genotypes and sublineages in cervical liquid-based cytology SurePath samples from the Danish screening program.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of differentiating between persistent and new infections on colposcopy referral in HPV-positive triage-negative women: results from the NTCC2 study.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Article
- Genotype-Specific Distribution of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Microbial Co-Detections in HPV-Positive Women from Southern Croatia.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of clinically validated human papillomavirus (HPV) assays is recommended in cervical cancer screening, and extended genotyping is getting attention as a triage biomarker because of the different oncogenic risk of the high-risk HPV genotypes. We compared the results of the Becton & Dickinson (BD) Onclarity HPV assay, on the residual baseline cervico-vaginal specimens of the NTCC2 trial, to those of the screening HPV-DNA assay (Cobas 4800 or HC2) and to cytology, p16/ki67 and E6/E7 mRNA triage results. We genotyped virtually all HPV-positive women and a consecutive sample of HPV-negatives. Among the 3,129 baseline-positives, 75.5% ( IMPORTANCE: Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for high-risk types is more effective than cytology in detecting pre-cancerous lesions and preventing cervical cancer. Its use is being implemented in cervical cancer screening in several countries. The most recent guidelines recommend a risk-based management. It is therefore important to assess the individual risk of having/developing high-grade lesions of women testing high-risk HPV-positive. A crucial viral factor influencing the risk is the HPV genotype since different types are associated to different carcinogenetic risks. Understanding the degree of concordance among different assays targeting either HPV presence/type(s) or cellular morphology and proteins' expression provides knowledge useful to better define how these tests can be used in screening protocols for an effective triage and to anticipate the possible implementation issues. Our study shows that the concordance between tests is higher when the infections have a higher probability of producing a clinically relevant lesion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.