Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 7, 2016; 22(33): 7415-7430
Published online Sep 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i33.7415
Published online Sep 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i33.7415
Methods | Specimens | Advantages | Disadvantages |
Southern blotting assay | Fresh/frozen samples | High specificity, ability to differentiate between episomal and integrated DNA | Not easily applied to FFPE samples |
ISH | FFPE, fresh samples | High specificity, ability to differentiate between episomal and integrated DNA | Low sensitivity, technically difficult |
HPV PCR | Fresh/frozen samples brushing washing any body fluid | High sensitivity, cost effective | Low specificity, provides no quantitative measure of viral load, no confirmation of transcriptionally active virus |
Real-time PCR | Fresh/frozen samples, FFPE brushing washing any body fluid | High sensitivity and specificity, ability to differentiate between episomal and integrated DNA | Labour-intensive |
Reverse Transcriptase PCR | Fresh/frozen samples, FFPE | High sensitivity | Time consuming, technically difficult |
p16 immunostaining | Fresh/frozen samples FFPE brushing washing | High sensitivity, easy and accessible to most laboratories, marker of transcriptionally active virus | Low specificity |
Signal amplification methods | Fresh/frozen samples FFPE brushing washing | Easy to perform | False positive products, no typing |
- Citation: Bucchi D, Stracci F, Buonora N, Masanotti G. Human papillomavirus and gastrointestinal cancer: A review. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(33): 7415-7430
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i33/7415.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i33.7415