PURPOSE: The authors compared approaches to participants and methods of collecting buccal cell samples by mail in the Black Women's Health Study, a follow-up study of geographically dispersed African-American women. Outcomes of interest were within group participation rates, yield of DNA, and PCR success. METHODS:Six hundred fifty six participants were randomized to four groups: Groups 1 and 2 used the cheek swab method and Groups 3 and 4 used the mouthwash swish method. Groups 1 and 3 were mailed collection kits together with consent forms, whereas Groups 2 and 4 were mailed a kit only after returning a signed consent. RESULTS:Participation rates were similar regardless of the method used for sample collection or mailing of the kits: samples were returned by 40% of Group 1, 37% of Group 2, 36% of Group 3, and 35% of Group 4. The median DNA yield was 3693 ng/sample for the swab method and 10,077 ng/sample for the mouthwash swish method (p<0.001). PCR analyses were successful in 98% of mouthwash samples and 94% of swab samples. CONCLUSION: Because of its higher yield of DNA, the mouthwash swish method is preferable for collection of buccal cell samples by mail.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The authors compared approaches to participants and methods of collecting buccal cell samples by mail in the Black Women's Health Study, a follow-up study of geographically dispersed African-American women. Outcomes of interest were within group participation rates, yield of DNA, and PCR success. METHODS: Six hundred fifty six participants were randomized to four groups: Groups 1 and 2 used the cheek swab method and Groups 3 and 4 used the mouthwash swish method. Groups 1 and 3 were mailed collection kits together with consent forms, whereas Groups 2 and 4 were mailed a kit only after returning a signed consent. RESULTS: Participation rates were similar regardless of the method used for sample collection or mailing of the kits: samples were returned by 40% of Group 1, 37% of Group 2, 36% of Group 3, and 35% of Group 4. The median DNA yield was 3693 ng/sample for the swab method and 10,077 ng/sample for the mouthwash swish method (p<0.001). PCR analyses were successful in 98% of mouthwash samples and 94% of swab samples. CONCLUSION: Because of its higher yield of DNA, the mouthwash swish method is preferable for collection of buccal cell samples by mail.
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Julie R Palmer; Edward Ruiz-Narvaez; David E Reich; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: M F D Baay; V Verhoeven; H A J Lambrechts; G G O Pattyn; F Lardon; P Van Royen; J B Vermorken Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Edward A Ruiz-Narváez; Lynn Rosenberg; Lauren A Wise; David Reich; Julie R Palmer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Chiranjeev Dash; Julie R Palmer; Manuela V Wiedemeier; Cordelia W Russell; Lynn Rosenberg; Yvette C Cozier Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Ting-Yuan David Cheng; Christine B Ambrosone; Chi-Chen Hong; Kathryn L Lunetta; Song Liu; Qiang Hu; Song Yao; Lara Sucheston-Campbell; Elisa V Bandera; Edward A Ruiz-Narváez; Stephen Haddad; Melissa A Troester; Christopher A Haiman; Jeannette T Bensen; Andrew F Olshan; Julie R Palmer; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: D B M A van Wieren-de Wijer; A H Maitland-van der Zee; A de Boer; S V Belitser; A A Kroon; P W de Leeuw; P Schiffers; R G J H Janssen; C M van Duijn; B H C H Stricker; O H Klungel Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 8.082