Clinical Trial
. 2017 Aug;124(9):1356-1363. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14682. HPV testing in first-void urine provides sensitivity for CIN2+ detection comparable with a smear taken by a clinician or a brush-based self-sample: cross-sectional data from a triage populationAffiliations
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
Clinical Trial
HPV testing in first-void urine provides sensitivity for CIN2+ detection comparable with a smear taken by a clinician or a brush-based self-sample: cross-sectional data from a triage populationA Leeman et al. BJOG. 2017 Aug.
. 2017 Aug;124(9):1356-1363. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14682. AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
AbstractObjective: To compare the sensitivity of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and genotype detection in self-collected urine samples in the morning (U1), and later on (U2), brush-based self-samples (SS), and clinician-taken smears (CTS) for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) in a colposcopic referral population.
Design: Cross-sectional single-centre study.
Setting: A colposcopy clinic in Spain.
Population: A cohort of 113 women referred for colposcopy after an abnormal Pap smear.
Methods: Women undergoing colposcopy with biopsy for abnormal Pap smears were sent a device (Colli-Pee™, Novosanis, Wijnegem, Belgium) to collect U1 on the morning of colposcopy. U2, CTS, and SS (Evalyn brush™, Rovers Medical Devices B.V., Oss, the Netherlands) were also analysed. All samples were tested for HPV DNA using the analytically sensitive SPF10-DEIA-LiPA25 assay and the clinically validated GP5+/6+-EIA-LMNX.
Main outcome measures: Histologically confirmed CIN2+ and hrHPV positivity for 14 high-risk HPV types.
Results: Samples from 91 patients were analysed. All CIN3 cases (n = 6) tested positive for hrHPV in CTS, SS, U1, and U2 with both HPV assays. Sensitivity for CIN2+ with the SPF10 system was 100, 100, 95, and 100%, respectively. With the GP5+/6+ assay, sensitivity was 95% in all sample types. The sensitivities and specificities for both tests on each of the sample types did not significantly differ. There was 10-14% discordance on hrHPV genotype.
Conclusions: CIN2+ detection using HPV testing of U1 shows a sensitivity similar to that of CTS or brush-based SS, and is convenient. There was substantial to almost excellent agreement between all samples on genotype with both hrHPV assays. There was no advantage in testing U1 compared with U2 samples.
Tweetable abstract: Similar CIN2+ sensitivity for HPV testing in first-void urine, physician-taken smear and brush-based self-sample.
Keywords: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; human papillomavirus; self-sampling; urine.
© 2017 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Similar articlesCuzick J, Cadman L, Ahmad AS, Ho L, Terry G, Kleeman M, Lyons D, Austin J, Stoler MH, Vibat CRT, Dockter J, Robbins D, Billings PR, Erlander MG. Cuzick J, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Jul;26(7):1053-1059. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0960. Epub 2017 Feb 21. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017. PMID: 28223432
Davies JC, Sargent A, Pinggera E, Carter S, Gilham C, Sasieni P, Crosbie EJ. Davies JC, et al. BJOG. 2024 Oct;131(11):1456-1464. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17831. Epub 2024 Apr 25. BJOG. 2024. PMID: 38660737 Clinical Trial.
Ciotti M, Sesti F, Paba P, Benedetto A, Patrizi L, Criscuolo A, Piccione E, Branca M, Syrjänen K, Favalli C. Ciotti M, et al. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25(5):577-84. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004. PMID: 15493169
Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Suonio E, Dillner L, Minozzi S, Bellisario C, Banzi R, Zhao FH, Hillemanns P, Anttila A. Arbyn M, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):172-83. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70570-9. Epub 2014 Jan 14. Lancet Oncol. 2014. PMID: 24433684 Review.
Verdoodt F, Szarewski A, Halfon P, Cuschieri K, Arbyn M. Verdoodt F, et al. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Dec;121(12):675-87. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21325. Epub 2013 Jul 23. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013. PMID: 23881840 Review.
Pattyn J, Van Keer S, Téblick L, Van Damme P, Vorsters A. Pattyn J, et al. Front Immunol. 2020 Aug 5;11:1657. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01657. eCollection 2020. Front Immunol. 2020. PMID: 32849573 Free PMC article.
Rebolj M, Sargent A, Njor SH, Cuschieri K. Rebolj M, et al. Int J Cancer. 2023 Jul 1;153(1):8-19. doi: 10.1002/ijc.34358. Epub 2022 Nov 23. Int J Cancer. 2023. PMID: 36385698 Free PMC article. Review.
Van Ostade X, Dom M, Tjalma W, Van Raemdonck G. Van Ostade X, et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018 Feb;297(2):295-311. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4587-2. Epub 2017 Nov 15. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018. PMID: 29143101 Free PMC article. Review.
Rohner E, Rahangdale L, Sanusi B, Knittel AK, Vaughan L, Chesko K, Faherty B, Tulenko SE, Schmitt JW, Romocki LS, Sivaraman V, Nelson JAE, Smith JS. Rohner E, et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Feb 24;58(3):e01443-19. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01443-19. Print 2020 Feb 24. J Clin Microbiol. 2020. PMID: 31896666 Free PMC article.
Schaafsma M, van den Helder R, Bleeker MCG, Rosier-van Dunné F, van der Avoort IAM, Steenbergen RDM, van Trommel NE. Schaafsma M, et al. Prev Med Rep. 2022 Feb 28;26:101749. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101749. eCollection 2022 Apr. Prev Med Rep. 2022. PMID: 35256928 Free PMC article.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3