Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 7;22(33):7415–7430. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i33.7415

Table 2.

Comparison of human papillomavirus detection methods

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

FFPE: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues; HPV: Human papillomaviruse; PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; ISH: In situ hybridization.