Nicholas F Yared1, Keith J Horvath2, Jason V Baker1,3, Bharat Thyagarajan4, Tim Waterboer5, Shalini Kulasingam2. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 2. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 3. Minnesota Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 5. Infections and Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the concordance of self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in a population of HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM). METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved recruitment of HIV-negative MSM in a Midwestern US metropolitan area to collect paired sequential self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs using illustrated instructions. Swabs were tested for type-specific HPV DNA with a comparison of type-specific HPV categories detected by each method. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were calculated assuming clinician collection as the criterion standard. McNemar's test and κ statistics were used to determine percent agreement and concordance of self- and clinician-collected swab results. RESULTS: Seventy-eight participants had paired anorectal swab samples of adequate quality for analyses. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collected swabs for detection of all high-risk HPV DNA types were 69.8% and 91.4%, respectively. Similar degrees of sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were seen for other groups of high-risk HPV types. Percent agreement and κ statistic for self- and clinician-collected swabs for all high-risk HPV types were 80.8% and 0.53, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collected anorectal swab samples showed lower sensitivity but moderate to high specificity for detection of high-risk and vaccine-preventable HPV types compared with clinician-collected swab samples. Self-collection instructional details and the thoroughness of clinician collection of samples may have impacted sensitivity and specificity, suggesting a need to optimize and standardize instructions.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the concordance of self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in a population of HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM). METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved recruitment of HIV-negative MSM in a Midwestern US metropolitan area to collect paired sequential self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs using illustrated instructions. Swabs were tested for type-specific HPV DNA with a comparison of type-specific HPV categories detected by each method. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were calculated assuming clinician collection as the criterion standard. McNemar's test and κ statistics were used to determine percent agreement and concordance of self- and clinician-collected swab results. RESULTS: Seventy-eight participants had paired anorectal swab samples of adequate quality for analyses. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collected swabs for detection of all high-risk HPV DNA types were 69.8% and 91.4%, respectively. Similar degrees of sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were seen for other groups of high-risk HPV types. Percent agreement and κ statistic for self- and clinician-collected swabs for all high-risk HPV types were 80.8% and 0.53, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collected anorectal swab samples showed lower sensitivity but moderate to high specificity for detection of high-risk and vaccine-preventable HPV types compared with clinician-collected swab samples. Self-collection instructional details and the thoroughness of clinician collection of samples may have impacted sensitivity and specificity, suggesting a need to optimize and standardize instructions.
Authors: Emilia M Jalil; Erin C Wilson; Laylla Monteiro; Luciane S de Velasque; Ana Cristina G Ferreira; Sandro C Nazer; Ruth K Friedman; Valdilea G Veloso; José Eduardo Levi; Beatriz Grinsztejn Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Alan G Nyitray; Vanessa Schick; Michael D Swartz; Anna R Giuliano; Maria E Fernandez; Ashish A Deshmukh; Timothy J Ridolfi; Christopher Ajala; Bridgett Brzezinski; Micaela Sandoval; Belinda Nedjai; Jennifer S Smith; Elizabeth Y Chiao Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.692