Mao Hagihara1, Yuka Yamagishi2, Koji Izumi3, Narimi Miyazaki4, Takayoshi Suzuki4, Hideo Kato1, Naoya Nishiyama5, Yusuke Koizumi5, Hiroyuki Suematsu4, Hiroshige Mikamo6. 1. Department of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Aichi Medical University, Japan; Department of Infection Control and Prevention, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Japan. 2. Department of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Aichi Medical University, Japan; Department of Infection Control and Prevention, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Japan; Izumi Ladies Clinic, Japan. 3. Izumi Ladies Clinic, Japan. 4. Department of Infection Control and Prevention, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Japan. 5. Department of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Aichi Medical University, Japan. 6. Department of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Aichi Medical University, Japan; Department of Infection Control and Prevention, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Japan; Izumi Ladies Clinic, Japan. Electronic address: mikamo@aichi-med-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uterine cervical cancer is a treatable and preventable cancer. Medical efforts to reduce rates of cervical cancer focus on the promotion of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and the promotion of routine cervical cancer screening done by cervical cytology and cervical HPV testing. Urine-based HPV testing would be simple and noninvasive approach to screen for cervical cancer. METHODS: Two biospecimens (clinician-taken sample from cervix and initial stream urine sample) were provided from a total of 240 healthy women attending for cancer screening provided for HPV testing. We have assessed the HPV detection rates among cervical samples and pellet fraction of urine samples using HPV test (Anyplex™ II HPV28 Detection kit, Seegene, Korea). RESULTS: Among 240 samples screened, HPV prevalence was 42.9% in pellet fractions of urine samples. The agreement between the two kinds of samples was 98.4%, k = 0.792. Discordant results were observed in 27 cases; 5 were positive only by urine samples and 22 were positive only by smear samples. Sensitivity and specificity for all HPV DNA in pellet fractions of urine using cervical samples as reference was 68.4% and 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing methodologies of collection of samples for HPV detection, they showed the higher agreements for almost genotypes between cervical samples and pellet fractions of urine samples. These results suggest that urine could be a good noninvasive tool to monitor HPV infection in women. Additional research in a larger and general screening population would be needed.
BACKGROUND: Uterine cervical cancer is a treatable and preventable cancer. Medical efforts to reduce rates of cervical cancer focus on the promotion of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and the promotion of routine cervical cancer screening done by cervical cytology and cervical HPV testing. Urine-based HPV testing would be simple and noninvasive approach to screen for cervical cancer. METHODS: Two biospecimens (clinician-taken sample from cervix and initial stream urine sample) were provided from a total of 240 healthy women attending for cancer screening provided for HPV testing. We have assessed the HPV detection rates among cervical samples and pellet fraction of urine samples using HPV test (Anyplex™ II HPV28 Detection kit, Seegene, Korea). RESULTS: Among 240 samples screened, HPV prevalence was 42.9% in pellet fractions of urine samples. The agreement between the two kinds of samples was 98.4%, k = 0.792. Discordant results were observed in 27 cases; 5 were positive only by urine samples and 22 were positive only by smear samples. Sensitivity and specificity for all HPV DNA in pellet fractions of urine using cervical samples as reference was 68.4% and 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing methodologies of collection of samples for HPV detection, they showed the higher agreements for almost genotypes between cervical samples and pellet fractions of urine samples. These results suggest that urine could be a good noninvasive tool to monitor HPV infection in women. Additional research in a larger and general screening population would be needed.
Authors: Brenda Y Hernandez; Aileen C Tareg; Martina Reichhardt; Angelica Agapito; Xuemei Zhu; Angela Sy; Arnice Yuji; Jeffrey Killeen; Owen Chan; Lee E Buenconsejo-Lum Journal: J Glob Health Rep Date: 2018-07-06
Authors: Cristina Mendes de Oliveira; Laura W Musselwhite; Naitielle de Paula Pantano; Fabiana Lima Vazquez; Jennifer S Smith; Johannes Schweizer; Michael Belmares; Júlio César Possati-Resende; Marcelo de Andrade Vieira; Adhemar Longatto-Filho; José Humberto Tavares Guerreiro Fregnani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hyun-Woong Cho; Jin Hwa Hong; Kyung Jin Min; Yung-Taek Ouh; Seok Ju Seong; Jun Hye Moon; Seong Hwan Cho; Jae Kwan Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 4.679