OBJECTIVES: We compared the performance of commonly used Dacron versus flocked nylon swabs for anal cytology. STUDY DESIGN: From 23 HIV-positive men screened at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco (San Francisco, Calif., USA), 2 anal specimens were collected, 1 with each swab in random order, and placed into liquid cytology medium. Specimens were tested for cellularity by quantifying a genomic DNA (erv-3). The number of cells was assessed from prepared slides by automated image analysis. Performance was compared between swabs using 2-sample t tests and standard crossover trial analysis methods accounting for period effect. RESULTS: Flocked swabs collected slightly more erv-3 cells than Dacron for the first sample although not significantly (p = 0.18) and a similar number of erv-3 cells for the second sample (p = 0.85). Flocked swabs collected slightly more cells per slide than the Dacron swabs at both time periods although this was only significant in the second time period (p = 0.42 and 0.03 for first and second periods, respectively). In crossover trial analysis, flocked swabs outperformed Dacron for cell count per slide based on slide imaging (p = 0.03), but Dacron and flocked swabs performed similarly based on erv-3 quantification (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Further studies should determine whether flocked swabs increase the representation of diagnostically important cells compared to Dacron.
OBJECTIVES: We compared the performance of commonly used Dacron versus flocked nylon swabs for anal cytology. STUDY DESIGN: From 23 HIV-positive men screened at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco (San Francisco, Calif., USA), 2 anal specimens were collected, 1 with each swab in random order, and placed into liquid cytology medium. Specimens were tested for cellularity by quantifying a genomic DNA (erv-3). The number of cells was assessed from prepared slides by automated image analysis. Performance was compared between swabs using 2-sample t tests and standard crossover trial analysis methods accounting for period effect. RESULTS: Flocked swabs collected slightly more erv-3 cells than Dacron for the first sample although not significantly (p = 0.18) and a similar number of erv-3 cells for the second sample (p = 0.85). Flocked swabs collected slightly more cells per slide than the Dacron swabs at both time periods although this was only significant in the second time period (p = 0.42 and 0.03 for first and second periods, respectively). In crossover trial analysis, flocked swabs outperformed Dacron for cell count per slide based on slide imaging (p = 0.03), but Dacron and flocked swabs performed similarly based on erv-3 quantification (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Further studies should determine whether flocked swabs increase the representation of diagnostically important cells compared to Dacron.
Authors: P E Gravitt; C L Peyton; T Q Alessi; C M Wheeler; F Coutlée; A Hildesheim; M H Schiffman; D R Scott; R J Apple Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Cornelia L Trimble; Steven Piantadosi; Patti Gravitt; Brigitte Ronnett; Ellen Pizer; Andrea Elko; Barbara Wilgus; William Yutzy; Richard Daniel; Keerti Shah; Shiwen Peng; Chienfu Hung; Richard Roden; Tzyy Choou Wu; Drew Pardoll Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ross D Cranston; Teresa M Darragh; Elizabeth A Holly; Naomi Jay; J Michael Berry; Maria Da Costa; Jimmy T Efird; Joel M Palefsky Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Teresa M Darragh; Diane Tokugawa; Philip E Castle; Stephen Follansbee; Sylvia Borgonovo; Brandon J LaMere; Lauren Schwartz; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Megan A Clarke; Li C Cheung; Thomas Lorey; Brad Hare; Rebecca Landy; Diane Tokugawa; Julia C Gage; Teresa M Darragh; Philip E Castle; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Teresa M Darragh; J Michael Berry-Lawhorn; Jennifer M Roberts; Michelle J Khan; Lori A Boardman; Elizabeth Chiao; Mark H Einstein; Stephen E Goldstone; Naomi Jay; Wendy M Likes; Elizabeth A Stier; Mark L Welton; Dorothy J Wiley; Joel M Palefsky Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Philip E Castle; Stephen Follansbee; Sylvia Borgonovo; Diane Tokugawa; Lauren M Schwartz; Thomas S Lorey; Brandon J LaMere; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Sean Boyle; Mark Sadorra; Scott Dahai Tang; Teresa M Darragh; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Stephen Follansbee; Sylvia Borgonovo; Diane Tokugawa; Lauren Schwartz; Thomas S Lorey; Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Brandon Lamere; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Teresa M Darragh; Philip E Castle Journal: AIDS Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Dorothy J Wiley; Hilary K Hsu; Martha A Ganser; Jenny Brook; David A Elashoff; Matthew G Moran; Stephen A Young; Nancy E Joste; Ronald Mitsuyasu; Teresa M Darragh; David H Morris; Otoniel M Martínez-Maza; Roger Detels; Jian Yu Rao; Robert K Bolan; Eric T Shigeno; Ernesto Rodriguez Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Philip E Castle; Stephen Follansbee; Sylvia Borgonovo; Diane Tokugawa; Lauren M Schwartz; Thomas S Lorey; Brandon LaMere; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Teresa M Darragh; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nadja Sparding; Hans-Christian Slotved; Gert M Nicolaisen; Steen B Giese; Jón Elmlund; Nina R Steenhard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 3.240