BACKGROUND: Maximizing the accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection from a single sample is important for clinical and research purposes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether cyclic hormonal variation, recent sexual intercourse, interval between samplings, and the technique used to sample affect the detection of HPV. METHODS: This study was a prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled trial. Three techniques for self-sampling (2 consecutive synthetic polyester fiber [Dacron] swabs, a single Dacron swab, and a tampon) were repeated at 3 different sampling times during a period of 4 to 6 weeks in addition to 1 clinician-directed sampling of the ectocervix and endocervix at the first sampling time. All self-samplings were taken in a proscribed randomized order. Women (aged 18 to 68 years) attending a colposcopy clinic for abnormal cytology or abnormal cervical appearance participated in the study. The outcome measure was the detection of HPV by polymerase chain reaction amplification. RESULTS: The 103 participants provided 1,189 cervicovaginal samplings. Logistic regression indicated that intercourse within 48 hours of sampling did not result in a greater detection of high-risk or any HPV type (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.69; OR = 1.08, 95% CI, 0.73-1.60, respectively). Among those women who have regular menstrual cycles, there was no cyclic effect on HPV detection for high-risk and any HPV types. Time from previous sampling did not affect HPV detection. Among the self-sampling techniques, using a single self-swab and the tampon resulted in the detection of HPV between 10% and 35% less often than using 2 consecutive swabs (P < .025). Self-sampling with 2 swabs was not significantly different from clinician sampling for detecting high-risk HPV types (OR for self-sampling = 0.87 (95% CI, 0.66-1.13)). CONCLUSIONS: HPV detection is not dependent on menstrual cycle timings, the recency of intercourse, or the time between samplings, but it is dependent on the sampling technique.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Maximizing the accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection from a single sample is important for clinical and research purposes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether cyclic hormonal variation, recent sexual intercourse, interval between samplings, and the technique used to sample affect the detection of HPV. METHODS: This study was a prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled trial. Three techniques for self-sampling (2 consecutive synthetic polyester fiber [Dacron] swabs, a single Dacron swab, and a tampon) were repeated at 3 different sampling times during a period of 4 to 6 weeks in addition to 1 clinician-directed sampling of the ectocervix and endocervix at the first sampling time. All self-samplings were taken in a proscribed randomized order. Women (aged 18 to 68 years) attending a colposcopy clinic for abnormal cytology or abnormal cervical appearance participated in the study. The outcome measure was the detection of HPV by polymerase chain reaction amplification. RESULTS: The 103 participants provided 1,189 cervicovaginal samplings. Logistic regression indicated that intercourse within 48 hours of sampling did not result in a greater detection of high-risk or any HPV type (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.69; OR = 1.08, 95% CI, 0.73-1.60, respectively). Among those women who have regular menstrual cycles, there was no cyclic effect on HPV detection for high-risk and any HPV types. Time from previous sampling did not affect HPV detection. Among the self-sampling techniques, using a single self-swab and the tampon resulted in the detection of HPV between 10% and 35% less often than using 2 consecutive swabs (P < .025). Self-sampling with 2 swabs was not significantly different from clinician sampling for detecting high-risk HPV types (OR for self-sampling = 0.87 (95% CI, 0.66-1.13)). CONCLUSIONS:HPV detection is not dependent on menstrual cycle timings, the recency of intercourse, or the time between samplings, but it is dependent on the sampling technique.
Authors: S D Womack; Z M Chirenje; P D Blumenthal; L Gaffikin; J A McGrath; T Chipato; E Ngwalle; K V Shah Journal: BJOG Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: M Adams; L Borysiewicz; A Fiander; S Man; B Jasani; H Navabi; C Lipetz; A S Evans; M Mason Journal: Vaccine Date: 2001-03-21 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: F J Bowden; B A Paterson; J Mein; J Savage; C K Fairley; S M Garland; S N Tabrizi Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: G Y Ho; R D Burk; S Klein; A S Kadish; C J Chang; P Palan; J Basu; R Tachezy; R Lewis; S Romney Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: T M Becker; C M Wheeler; N S McGough; C A Stidley; C A Parmenter; M H Dorin; S W Jordan Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Tsung-chieh Jane Fu; Long Fu Xi; Ayaka Hulbert; James P Hughes; Qinghua Feng; Stephen M Schwartz; Stephen E Hawes; Laura A Koutsky; Rachel L Winer Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Isabel C Scarinci; Allison G Litton; Isabel C Garcés-Palacio; Edward E Partridge; Philip E Castle Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2013-02-12
Authors: Su-Hsun Liu; Rebecca M Brotman; Jonathan M Zenilman; Patti E Gravitt; Derek A T Cummings Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Rachel L Winer; James P Hughes; Qinghua Feng; Long Fu Xi; Shu-Kuang Lee; Sandra F O'Reilly; Nancy B Kiviat; Laura A Koutsky Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Tsung-chieh Jane Fu; James P Hughes; Qinghua Feng; Ayaka Hulbert; Stephen E Hawes; Long Fu Xi; Stephen M Schwartz; Joshua E Stern; Laura A Koutsky; Rachel L Winer Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Joseph E Tota; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Andrea Trevisan; Luisa L Villa; Eduardo L Franco Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Eliane Rohner; Claire Edelman; Busola Sanusi; John W Schmitt; Anna Baker; Kirsty Chesko; Brian Faherty; Sean M Gregory; LaHoma S Romocki; Vijay Sivaraman; Julie A E Nelson; Siobhan O'Connor; Michael G Hudgens; Andrea K Knittel; Lisa Rahangdale; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alice R Rumbold; Sarah E Tan; John R Condon; Debbie Taylor-Thomson; Maria Nickels; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Margaret L J Davy; Margaret M O'Brien; Christine M Connors; Ibrahim Zardawi; Jim Stankovich; Suzanne M Garland Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 3.090