Performance and Diagnostic Accuracy of Human Papillomavirus Testing on Self-Collected Urine and Vaginal Samples in a Referral Population.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction ‒based high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) assays on self-collected vaginal and urine samples for detection of precancerous cervical lesions in referral population.Materials and methods
Women referred for colposcopy following abnormal cytology, were included this study. A total of 314 matched urine, vaginal, and cervical samples were collected. All samples were tested for HPV DNA using the RealTime HR-S HPV and Anyplex II HPV 28 assays. Primary endpoints were sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+/CIN3+ and specificity for
SUBMITTER: Cho HW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8291188 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Postmenopausal bleeding triggers urgent investigation by sequential invasive tests that are avoidable for the 90-95% of women who do not have endometrial cancer. A simple, non-invasive tool that accurately identifies cancer and safely reassures healthy women could transform patient care. Here we report, in a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of 103 women with known cancer and 113 with unexplained postmenopausal bleeding, that urine and vaginal cytology has a combined sensitivity of 91.7% (95% CI 85.0%, 96.1%) and specificity of 88.8% (81.2%, 94.1%) for gynecological cancer detection. Cytology identifies 91 endometrial, two fallopian tube and one cervical cancer from 103 known cancer cases. In women with unexplained postmenopausal bleeding, cytology identifies all four endometrial cancers and three others (cervical, ovarian and bladder), for a 12/107 (11.2%) false positive rate. We show proof-of-principle that endometrial cancer can be detected in urine and vaginal fluid. Prospective validation of these findings will support incorporation of this non-invasive test into clinical practice.
| S-EPMC7878864 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7939007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing could reduce barriers to cervical cancer screening, with performance comparable to clinician-collected specimens. The ability of self-collected specimens to cross-sectionally and prospectively detect precursor lesions was investigated in an HPV vaccine randomized trial in Costa Rica.MethodsIn the trial, 7466 women age 18 to 25 years received an HPV16/18 or control vaccine and were followed at least annually for four years. In this secondary analysis, we included all women who provided a self-collected cervicovaginal specimen six months after enrollment (5109 women = full analytical cohort). A subset (615 women = restricted cohort) also had clinician-collected specimens at the six-month postenrollment visit. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or repeat low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion prompted colposcopic referral throughout the study. HPV testing was performed with SPF10PCR/DEIA/LiPA25. Cross-sectional and prospective sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were estimated.ResultsIn the full cohort, one-time HPV testing on self-collected samples detected prevalent CIN2+ with a sensitivity of 88.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] =77.0% to 95.7%) and a specificity of 68.9% (95% CI = 67.6% to 70.1%). For predicting incident CIN2+ in the subsequent four years, sensitivity was 73.9% (95% CI = 65.8% to 81.0%) and specificity 69.4% (95% CI = 68.1% to 70.7%). In the restricted cohort, for incident CIN2+, self-collected HPV was much more sensitive than cytology (80.0% vs 10.0%); relative sensitivity was 0.1 (95% CI = 0.03% to 0.5%). Furthermore, three times more women with normal baseline cytology developed incident CIN2+ than those with negative self-collected HPV. Self-collected and clinician-collected HPV testing had comparable performance. Agreement between self- and clinician-collected samples was 89.7% (kappa = 0.78, McNemar χ2 = 0.62) for carcinogenic HPV types.ConclusionsSelf-collected specimens can be used for HPV-based screening, providing sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected specimens and detecting disease earlier than cytology.
| S-EPMC4271079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPolymerase chain reaction-based Xpert human papillomavirus (HPV) assay is a rapid test that detects high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection. This point-of-care test is usually performed by collecting a cervical specimen in a vial of PreservCyt® transport medium. We compared HPV test positivity and accuracy between self-collected sample with a dry swab (s-DRY) versus physician-collected cervical sampling using a broom like brush and immediate immersion in PreservCyt (dr-WET).MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we recruited 150 women ? 18 years old attending the colposcopy clinic in the University Hospital of Geneva. Each participant first self-collected a vaginal sample using a dry swab and then the physician collected a cervical specimen in PreservCyt. HPV analysis was performed with Xpert. Part of the PreservCyt-collected sample was used for hrHPV detection with the cobas® HPV test. HPV test positivity and performance of the two collection methods was compared.ResultsHPV positivity was 49.1% for s-DRY, 41.8% for dr-WET and 46.2% for cobas. Good agreement was found between s-DRY and dr-WET samples (kappa±Standard error (SE) = 0.64±0.09,), particularly for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+) (kappa±SE = 0.80±0.17). Excellent agreement was found between the two samples for HPV16 detection in general (kappa±SE = 0.91±0.09) and among LSIL+ lesions (kappa±SE = 1.00±0.17). Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, 84.2% and 47.1%(s-DRY), 73.1% and 58.7%. (dr-WET) and 77.8% and 45.7% (cobas) for CIN2+ detection. The median delay between sampling and HPV analysis was 7 days for the Xpert HPV assay and 19 days for cobas. There were 36 (24.0%) invalid results among s-DRY samples and 4 (2.7%) among dr-WET (p = 0.001). Invalid results happened due to the long interval between collection and analysis.ConclusionSelf-collected vaginal dry swabs are a valid alternative to collecting cervical samples in PreservCyt solution for HPV testing with the Xpert HPV assay.ImpactHPV self-collection with dry cotton swabs might assist in the implementation of an effective screening strategy in developing countries.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN83050913.
| S-EPMC5547698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe human papillomavirus (HPV) test is an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Urinary sampling for HPV detection improves the accessibility and participation of screening services and reduces the cost and burden on physicians. The clinical accuracy of urinary HPV test has yet to be determined via meta-analysis. This study assessed the clinical accuracy of these tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse.MethodsRelevant studies were identified using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Research eligibility was based on the clinical accuracy of HPV test on clinician-collected samples as a comparator test, and urine as an index test. The reference standard was the presence of CIN2 or worse. The pooled absolute, relative sensitivity, and specificity of the urinary HPV test versus clinician-collected samples were assessed using a bivariate model.ResultsThe pooled sensitivity of urinary HPV test was significantly lower than that of clinician-collected samples (ratio=0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.78-0.91). However, some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV test such as GP5+/6+ (relative sensitivity=0.98, 95% CI=0.91-1.05), SPF10 (relative sensitivity=0.98, 85% CI=0.88-1.08) and non GP5+/6+ PCR (relative sensitivity=1.00, 95% CI=0.88-1.14) showed similar sensitivity in both the urine and clinician-collected samples.ConclusionOur findings indicate that HPV test with some PCR-based assay on urine versus clinician-collected samples demonstrate similar clinical accuracy to detect CIN2 or worse. It suggests that urinary HPV test may present itself as a decent alternative screening tool for the detection of cervical pre-cancer.Trial registrationPROSPERO identifier: CRD42021227901.
| S-EPMC8728664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the performance of self-collected anterior nasal swab (ANS) and saliva samples compared with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens used to test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the same PCR diagnostic panel to test all self-collected and healthcare worker-collected samples from participants at a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Among 1,076 participants, 51.9% were men, 57.1% were >50 years of age, 81.2% were Black (non-Hispanic), and 74.9% reported >1 chronic medical condition. In total, 8.0% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with nasopharyngeal swab samples, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 59% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 68%. Among participants tested 3-7 days after symptom onset, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 80% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 85%. Sensitivity varied by specimen type and patient characteristics. These findings can help physicians interpret PCR results for SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8314823 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5916996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening is rapidly replacing cytology as the cervical screening modality of choice. In addition to being more sensitive than cytology, it can be done on self-collected vaginal or urine samples. This study will compare the high-risk HPV positivity rates and sensitivity of self-collected vaginal samples using four different collection devices and a urine sample.MethodsA total of 620 women referred for colposcopy were invited to provide an initial stream urine sample collected with the Colli-Pee device and take two vaginal self-samples, using either a dry flocked swab (DF) and a wet dacron swab (WD), or a HerSwab (HS) and Qvintip (QT) device. HPV testing was performed by the BD Onclarity HPV Assay.ResultsA total of 600 vaginal sample pairs were suitable for analysis, and 505 were accompanied by a urine sample. Similar positivity rates and sensitivities for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were seen for DF, WD, and urine, but lower values were seen for QT and HS. No clear user preferences were seen between devices, but women found urine easiest to collect, and were more confident they had taken the sample correctly. The lowest confidence in collection was reported for HS.ConclusionsUrine, a DF swab, and WD swab all performed well and were well received by the women, whereas the Qvintip and HerSwab devices were less satisfactory.ImpactThis is the first study to compare five self-sampling methods in the same women taken at the same time. It supports wider use of urine or vaginal self-sampling for cervical screening.
| S-EPMC7611176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) assay offers improved sensitivity compared to Determine TB LAM Ag (AlereLAM) for detecting tuberculosis (TB) among people with HIV. Here, we examined the diagnostic value of FujiLAM testing on early morning urine versus spot urine and the added value of a two-sample strategy. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM on cryopreserved urine samples collected and stored as part of a prospective cohort of adults with HIV presenting for antiretroviral treatment in Ghana. We compared FujiLAM sensitivity and specificity in spontaneously voided urine samples collected at inclusion (spot urine) versus in the first voided early morning urine (morning urine) and for a one (spot urine) versus two samples (spot and morning urine) strategy. Diagnostic accuracy was determined against both microbiological (using sputum culture and Xpert MTB/RIF testing of sputum and urine to confirm TB) and composite reference standards (including microbiologically confirmed and probable TB cases). Paired urine samples of spot and morning urine were available for 389 patients. Patients had a median CD4 cell count of 176 cells/μL (interquartile range [IQR], 52 to 361). Forty-three (11.0%) had confirmed TB, and 19 (4.9%) had probable TB. Overall agreement for spot versus morning urine test results was 94.6% (kappa, 0.81). Compared to a microbiological reference standard, the FujiLAM sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 67.4% (51.5 to 80.9) for spot and 69.8% (53.9 to 82.8) for morning urine, an absolute difference (95% CI) of 2.4% (-10.2 to 14.8). Specificity was 90.2% (86.5 to 93.1) versus 89.0% (85.2 to 92.1) for spot and morning urine, respectively, a difference of 1.2% (-3.7 to 1.4). A two-sample strategy increased FujiLAM sensitivity from 67.4% (51.5 to 80.9) to 74.4% (58.8 to 86.5), a difference of 7.0% (-3.0 to 16.9), while specificity decreased from 90.2% (86.5 to 93.1) to 87.3% (83.3 to 90.6), a difference of -2.9% (-4.9 to -0.8). This study indicates that FujiLAM testing performs equivalently on spot and early morning urine samples. Sensitivity could be increased with a two-sample strategy but at the risk of lower specificity. These data can inform future guidelines and clinical practice. IMPORTANCE This study indicates that FujiLAM testing performs equivalently on spot and early morning urine samples for detecting tuberculosis among people with HIV. Sensitivity could be increased with a two-sample strategy but at the risk of lower specificity. These data can inform future guidelines and clinical practice around FujiLAM.
| S-EPMC9045128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Synthetic cannabinoid intake is an ongoing health issue worldwide, with new compounds continually emerging, making drug testing complex. Parent synthetic cannabinoids are rarely detected in urine, the most common matrix employed in workplace drug testing. Optimal identification of synthetic cannabinoid markers in authentic urine specimens and correlation of metabolite concentrations and toxicities would improve synthetic cannabinoid result interpretation. We screened 20 017 randomly collected US military urine specimens between July 2011 and June 2012 with a synthetic cannabinoid immunoassay yielding 1432 presumptive positive specimens. We analyzed all presumptive positive and 1069 negative specimens with our qualitative synthetic cannabinoid liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method, which confirmed 290 positive specimens. All 290 positive and 487 randomly selected negative specimens were quantified with the most comprehensive urine quantitative LC-MS/MS method published to date; 290 specimens confirmed positive for 22 metabolites from 11 parent synthetic cannabinoids. The five most predominant metabolites were JWH-018 pentanoic acid (93%), JWH-N-hydroxypentyl (84%), AM2201 N-hydroxypentyl (69%), JWH-073 butanoic acid (69%), and JWH-122 N-hydroxypentyl (45%) with 11.1 (0.1-2,434), 5.1 (0.1-1,239), 2.0 (0.1-321), 1.1 (0.1-48.6), and 1.1 (0.1-250) µg/L median (range) concentrations, respectively. Alkyl hydroxy and carboxy metabolites provided suitable biomarkers for 11 parent synthetic cannabinoids; although hydroxyindoles were also observed. This is by far the largest data set of synthetic cannabinoid metabolites urine concentrations from randomly collected workplace drug testing specimens rather than acute intoxications or driving under the influence of drugs. These data improve the interpretation of synthetic cannabinoid urine test results and suggest suitable urine markers of synthetic cannabinoid intake.
| S-EPMC4363290 | biostudies-literature