Dataset Information

Human papillomavirus genotype and viral load agreement between paired first-void urine and clinician-collected cervical samples.

ABSTRACT: The performance and acceptability of first-void urine as specimen for the detection of HPV DNA in a Belgian referral population was evaluated using an optimized sample collection and processing protocol. One hundred ten first-void urine and cervical samples were collected from 25- to 64-year-old women who were referred for colposcopy (January-November 2016). Paired samples were analyzed by the Riatol qPCR HPV genotyping assay. Acceptability data were gathered through questionnaires (NCT02714127). A higher high-risk HPV DNA prevalence was observed in first-void urine (n = 76/110) compared to cervical samples (n = 73/110), with HPV31 and HPV16/31 being most prevalent correspondingly. For both any and high-risk HPV DNA, good agreement was observed between paired samples (Cohen's Kappa of 0.660 (95% CI: 0.486-0.833) and 0.688 (95% CI: 0.542-0.835), respectively). In addition, significant positive correlations in HPV copies (per microliter of DNA extract) between paired samples were observed for HPV16 (rs = 0.670; FDR (false discovery rate)-adjusted p = 0.006), HPV18 (rs = 0.893; FDR-adjusted p = 0.031), HPV31 (rs = 0.527; FDR-adjusted p = 0.031), HPV53 (rs = 0.691; FDR-adjusted p = 0.017), and HPV68 (rs = 0.569; FDR-adjusted p = 0.031). First-void urine sampling using a first-void urine collection device was preferred over a clinician-collected cervical sample. And mostly, first-void urine sampling at home was favored over collection at the clinic or the general practitioner's office. First-void urine sampling is a highly preferred, non-invasive method that ensures good agreement in HPV DNA (copies) with reference cervical samples. It is particularly interesting as a screening technique to reach non-participants, and its clinical performance should be further evaluated.

SUBMITTER: Van Keer S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5916996 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFirst-void urine (FVU) provides a non-invasive method for collecting a wide range of biomarkers found in genital tract secretions. To optimize biomarker collection in FVU, this study investigated the impact of naturally present and supplemented precipitating agents: uromodulin (UMOD) and polyethylene glycol (PEG), on the concentration of human papillomavirus (HPV) pseudovirions (PsV), cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and cellular genomic DNA (gDNA) through centrifugation.MethodsFVU samples from ten healthy female volunteers, along with a control sample, were spiked with seal herpesvirus 1 (PhHV-1) DNA, HPV16 plasmid DNA, and HPV16 PsV with an enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) reporter. The samples were subjected to various concentration protocols involving PEG precipitation, low-speed centrifugation (5 min at 1000×g), and medium-speed centrifugation (1 h at 3000×g). Subsequently, quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used to assess cellular and cell-free glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) DNA, cell-free PhHV-1 and HPV16 DNA, and PsV (EGFP) DNA. In addition, UMOD levels were measured.ResultsThe findings revealed that PEG significantly increased the concentration of cfDNA and gDNA in the pellet after centrifugation, with the most pronounced effect observed for cfDNA. Moreover, low-speed centrifugation without PEG effectively depleted cellular gDNA while preserving cfDNA in the supernatants. Pseudovirions were consistently pelleted, even with low-speed centrifugation, and a positive but not significant effect of PEG on PsV (EGFP) DNA yield in the pellet was observed. Additionally, a significant correlation was observed between UMOD and GAPDH, HPV16, and PsV (EGFP) DNA quantities in the pellet. Furthermore, large variations among the FVU samples were observed.ConclusionsWith this study, we provide novel insights into how various biomarker precipitation protocols, including both the properties of FVU and the use of PEG as a precipitating agent, influence the concentration of cfDNA, cellular gDNA, and pseudovirions.

Project description:BackgroundHPV self-sampling has been widely supported by the scientific community following a strong body of literature on the subject. Self-sampling is important in cervical cancer screening as it has been shown to improve participation. It is well documented that HPV-testing has proven superior to cytology with regards to sensitivity in detection of CIN and cancer. The value of self-collected samples is reliant on the quality of the molecular testing performed, as well as the patients' preference in sampling procedure and compliance to follow up on positive test results. Due to the incompatibility of self-samples and cytology, triage of HPV-DNA positives by testing for molecular biomarkers is highly warranted.MethodsOur objective was to compare the detection rate of genital Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection in self- and clinician-collected samples by a 14-type HPV-DNA test and a 7-type mRNA E6/E7 test.ResultsFive hundred five women were recruited. Each study participant had two sample collection procedures performed upon the same visit, alternating order in execution of the self-collection or the clinician-taken procedure first or second, 1010 samples in total. HPV-DNA prevalence was 22.8% in self-collected versus 19.2% in clinician-collected samples (P = 0.19). Overexpression of mRNA E6/E7 from 7 HPV types was 7.1 and 6.3%, respectively (P = 0.71). The difference between HPV-DNA and HPV-mRNA positivity rates were statistically significant in both self-collected (22.8% versus 7.1%, P < 0.001) and clinician-collected samples (19.2% versus 6.3%, P < 0.001). Overall agreement between the two collection methods was fair, with a concordance rate of 78.2% (390/505), k = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.25-0.44), P < 0.001, for the HPV-DNA test and 92.5% (467/505), k = 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.56), P < 0.001, for the mRNA test, respectively. 96.8% of the participants reported they felt confident carrying out the self-collection themselves, and 88.8% reported no discomfort at all performing the procedure.ConclusionsThis comparative study of two sampling methods reports fair agreement of HPV positivity rates between the self-collected and clinician-collected specimens using Abbott hrHPV and PreTect HPV-Proofer'7 tests. Only one third of HPV-DNA positive women had overexpression of mRNA E6/E7.Trial registrationISRCTN77337300 .

Project description:ObjectivesTo increase effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening program, self-sampling can be an option. Both self-collected vaginal samples (SCV) and urine samples may be useful alternatives to clinician-taken cervical samples (CS).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingColposcopy clinic.ParticipantsWomen (n=305) referred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical screening result or conditions like postcoital bleeding.InterventionAll women self-collected a urine and a vaginal sample prior to colposcopy, where a CS and biopsies were taken. All samples were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) using the Cobas HPV assay. The gold standard was histology diagnoses (CIN2+/CIN3+) from biopsies obtained at the same examination.Primary outcomeAbsolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing on SCV and urine to detect CIN2+/CIN3+ compared with the CS.Secondary outcomeThe acceptability by women of self-sampling.ResultsBoth the vaginal and urine sample were comparable to the CS in identifying severe intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+). Absolute sensitivity ranged from 93% for urine samples to 96% for SCV for detecting CIN2+, which is comparable to the sensitivity of CS (overlapping 95% CI).The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) for SCV and 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) for urine samples. At CIN3+, the relative sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.07) for SCV and urine samples, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the self-collected samples and the CS (McNemar's test >0.05). The relative specificity was also similar (1.03 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) for SCV and 0.98 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.09) for urine samples) (McNemar's test >0.05).The acceptability of self-sampling was evaluated by questionnaire. The women found the instructions on sample collection easy to understand and were positive about self-sampling with a preference for the urine sample.ConclusionSelf-sampling by SCV and urine is a clinically safe alternative to CS with a high degree of acceptability.

Dataset Information

Human papillomavirus genotype and viral load agreement between paired first-void urine and clinician-collected cervical samples.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets