Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA testing with the genotyping array

A comparison of cervical and vaginal sampling

Nae Fang Twu, Ming Shyen Yen, Hei Yu Lau, Yi Jen Chen, Bill Ken Jen Yu, Ching Yu Lin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the detection and typing of human papillomavirus (HPV) between vaginal and cervical specimens by using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based reverse-blot genotyping arrays. Study design: Two hundred and fifty-two women were referred to colposcopy clinics because of suspicious or positive results in a community-based cervical cancer-screening program. Genital tract cells were sampled from the cervix and self-collected from the vagina and tested with the HPV Blot kit. Results: The HPV Blot kit identified HPV infection in 24.7% of vaginal specimens and in 30.2% of cervical collections. Cervical sampling detected significantly more infections compared to vaginal sampling only for HPV type 52; cervical sampling also detected significantly more high-risk HPV infection overall. The sensitivities of detecting histology ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 using the HPV Blot in vaginal and cervical specimens were 75.0% (95% CI, 47.6-92.7%) and 87.5% (95% CI, 61.6-98.4%), respectively (P = 0.48). Both sampling methods were thus statistically effective at detecting high-grade lesions and cervical cancer (P <0.0001). Conclusions: The HPV Blot yielded similar results for both vaginal sampling and cervical sampling in the detection of CIN grade 3 or worse. These findings indicate that self-sampling for HPV testing is a viable cervical cancer screening option.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)96-100
Number of pages5
JournalEuropean Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume156
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

DNA
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Papillomavirus Infections
Early Detection of Cancer
Colposcopy
Vagina
Cervix Uteri
Histology
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Infection

Keywords

  • Cervical cancer
  • Cervical sampling
  • HPV Blot
  • Human papillomavirus
  • Vaginal sampling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Reproductive Medicine

Cite this

Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA testing with the genotyping array : A comparison of cervical and vaginal sampling. / Twu, Nae Fang; Yen, Ming Shyen; Lau, Hei Yu; Chen, Yi Jen; Yu, Bill Ken Jen; Lin, Ching Yu.

In: European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Vol. 156, No. 1, 05.2011, p. 96-100.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{37da107984ae40248a4b326a8f2c3d12,
title = "Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA testing with the genotyping array: A comparison of cervical and vaginal sampling",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the detection and typing of human papillomavirus (HPV) between vaginal and cervical specimens by using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based reverse-blot genotyping arrays. Study design: Two hundred and fifty-two women were referred to colposcopy clinics because of suspicious or positive results in a community-based cervical cancer-screening program. Genital tract cells were sampled from the cervix and self-collected from the vagina and tested with the HPV Blot kit. Results: The HPV Blot kit identified HPV infection in 24.7{\%} of vaginal specimens and in 30.2{\%} of cervical collections. Cervical sampling detected significantly more infections compared to vaginal sampling only for HPV type 52; cervical sampling also detected significantly more high-risk HPV infection overall. The sensitivities of detecting histology ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 using the HPV Blot in vaginal and cervical specimens were 75.0{\%} (95{\%} CI, 47.6-92.7{\%}) and 87.5{\%} (95{\%} CI, 61.6-98.4{\%}), respectively (P = 0.48). Both sampling methods were thus statistically effective at detecting high-grade lesions and cervical cancer (P <0.0001). Conclusions: The HPV Blot yielded similar results for both vaginal sampling and cervical sampling in the detection of CIN grade 3 or worse. These findings indicate that self-sampling for HPV testing is a viable cervical cancer screening option.",
keywords = "Cervical cancer, Cervical sampling, HPV Blot, Human papillomavirus, Vaginal sampling",
author = "Twu, {Nae Fang} and Yen, {Ming Shyen} and Lau, {Hei Yu} and Chen, {Yi Jen} and Yu, {Bill Ken Jen} and Lin, {Ching Yu}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.023",
language = "English",
volume = "156",
pages = "96--100",
journal = "European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology",
issn = "0028-2243",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA testing with the genotyping array

T2 - A comparison of cervical and vaginal sampling

AU - Twu, Nae Fang

AU - Yen, Ming Shyen

AU - Lau, Hei Yu

AU - Chen, Yi Jen

AU - Yu, Bill Ken Jen

AU - Lin, Ching Yu

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Objective: To compare the detection and typing of human papillomavirus (HPV) between vaginal and cervical specimens by using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based reverse-blot genotyping arrays. Study design: Two hundred and fifty-two women were referred to colposcopy clinics because of suspicious or positive results in a community-based cervical cancer-screening program. Genital tract cells were sampled from the cervix and self-collected from the vagina and tested with the HPV Blot kit. Results: The HPV Blot kit identified HPV infection in 24.7% of vaginal specimens and in 30.2% of cervical collections. Cervical sampling detected significantly more infections compared to vaginal sampling only for HPV type 52; cervical sampling also detected significantly more high-risk HPV infection overall. The sensitivities of detecting histology ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 using the HPV Blot in vaginal and cervical specimens were 75.0% (95% CI, 47.6-92.7%) and 87.5% (95% CI, 61.6-98.4%), respectively (P = 0.48). Both sampling methods were thus statistically effective at detecting high-grade lesions and cervical cancer (P <0.0001). Conclusions: The HPV Blot yielded similar results for both vaginal sampling and cervical sampling in the detection of CIN grade 3 or worse. These findings indicate that self-sampling for HPV testing is a viable cervical cancer screening option.

AB - Objective: To compare the detection and typing of human papillomavirus (HPV) between vaginal and cervical specimens by using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based reverse-blot genotyping arrays. Study design: Two hundred and fifty-two women were referred to colposcopy clinics because of suspicious or positive results in a community-based cervical cancer-screening program. Genital tract cells were sampled from the cervix and self-collected from the vagina and tested with the HPV Blot kit. Results: The HPV Blot kit identified HPV infection in 24.7% of vaginal specimens and in 30.2% of cervical collections. Cervical sampling detected significantly more infections compared to vaginal sampling only for HPV type 52; cervical sampling also detected significantly more high-risk HPV infection overall. The sensitivities of detecting histology ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 using the HPV Blot in vaginal and cervical specimens were 75.0% (95% CI, 47.6-92.7%) and 87.5% (95% CI, 61.6-98.4%), respectively (P = 0.48). Both sampling methods were thus statistically effective at detecting high-grade lesions and cervical cancer (P <0.0001). Conclusions: The HPV Blot yielded similar results for both vaginal sampling and cervical sampling in the detection of CIN grade 3 or worse. These findings indicate that self-sampling for HPV testing is a viable cervical cancer screening option.

KW - Cervical cancer

KW - Cervical sampling

KW - HPV Blot

KW - Human papillomavirus

KW - Vaginal sampling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955582348&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955582348&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.023

DO - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.023

M3 - Article

VL - 156

SP - 96

EP - 100

JO - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

JF - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

SN - 0028-2243

IS - 1

ER -