Evaluation of clinical performance of a novel urine-based HPV detection assay among women attending a colposcopy clinic

Differential Urinary Proteomic Analysis of High-Risk Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated lesions and malignancies exhibit alterations in the composition and functionality of the extracellular matrix (ECM) that represent the complex molecular pathways present between infection and disease. A total of 20 urine samples were used, including from 10 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) and 10 healthy controls to perform the label-free quantitative analysis using the nano-HPLC and ESI-MS ion trap mass analyzer and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF/MS) fast screening. Among 476 identified/quantified proteins, 48 were significantly changed (log₂-fold change ≥1.0 or ≤-1.0, -log10 (bbinominal, p-value ≥ 1.3), of which were 40 proteins (down-regulated) and 8 proteins (up-regulated) in CIN3, in comparison to healthy controls. The biological function and key pathway enrichment of the gene set using gen set enrichment analysis (GSEA) were analyzed. The ECM-receptor interaction pathway (NES = -1.64, p = 0.026) was down-regulated by 13 proteins (HSPG2, COL6A1, COL6A3, SPP1, THBS1, TNC, DAG1, FN1, COMP, GP6, VTN, SDC1, and CD44; log₂ FC range from -0.03 to -1.48) for the CIN3 group in the KEGG database. The MALDI-TOF/MS screening showed the difference of protein profiles between the control and CIN3 groups, i.e., using the scatter plot with a well-separated shape, as well as effectively distinguishing both groups (control and CIN3) using genetic algorithms (GA) with cross-validation (51.56%) and recognition capability (95.0%). Decreased levels of ECM-receptor interaction proteins may cause disturbances in the interactions of cells with the ECM and play an important role in the development and progression of cervical cancer.

Accuracy of human papillomavirus tests on self-collected urine versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical precancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The human papillomavirus (HPV) test is an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Urinary sampling for HPV detection improves the accessibility and participation of screening services and reduces the cost and burden on physicians. The clinical accuracy of urinary HPV test has yet to be determined via meta-analysis. This study assessed the clinical accuracy of these tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Research eligibility was based on the clinical accuracy of HPV test on clinician-collected samples as a comparator test, and urine as an index test. The reference standard was the presence of CIN2 or worse. The pooled absolute, relative sensitivity, and specificity of the urinary HPV test versus clinician-collected samples were assessed using a bivariate model.

Results

The pooled sensitivity of urinary HPV test was significantly lower than that of clinician-collected samples (ratio=0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.78–0.91). However, some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV test such as GP5+/6+ (relative sensitivity=0.98, 95% CI=0.91–1.05), SPF10 (relative sensitivity=0.98, 85% CI=0.88–1.08) and non GP5+/6+ PCR (relative sensitivity=1.00, 95% CI=0.88–1.14) showed similar sensitivity in both the urine and clinician-collected samples.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that HPV test with some PCR-based assay on urine versus clinician-collected samples demonstrate similar clinical accuracy to detect CIN2 or worse. It suggests that urinary HPV test may present itself as a decent alternative screening tool for the detection of cervical pre-cancer.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO identifier: CRD42021227901

Some polymerase chain reaction-based human papillomavirus (HPV) tests showed similar accuracy in urine and cervical samples. Signal amplification or messenger RNA HPV test on urine is less sensitive than cervical test. High-risk HPV assays is the only significant factor to affect test accuracy. Urinary HPV test may be an alternative option for cervical cancer screening.

Clinical performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared with clinician-taken cervical samples for HPV testing among women referred for colposcopy. A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To increase effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening program, self-sampling can be an option. Both self-collected vaginal samples (SCV) and urine samples may be useful alternatives to clinician-taken cervical samples (CS).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Colposcopy clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Women (n=305) referred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical screening result or conditions like postcoital bleeding.

INTERVENTION

All women self-collected a urine and a vaginal sample prior to colposcopy, where a CS and biopsies were taken. All samples were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) using the Cobas HPV assay. The gold standard was histology diagnoses (CIN2+/CIN3+) from biopsies obtained at the same examination.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing on SCV and urine to detect CIN2+/CIN3+ compared with the CS.

SECONDARY OUTCOME

The acceptability by women of self-sampling.

RESULTS

Both the vaginal and urine sample were comparable to the CS in identifying severe intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+). Absolute sensitivity ranged from 93% for urine samples to 96% for SCV for detecting CIN2+, which is comparable to the sensitivity of CS (overlapping 95% CI).The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) for SCV and 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) for urine samples. At CIN3+, the relative sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.07) for SCV and urine samples, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the self-collected samples and the CS (McNemar's test >0.05). The relative specificity was also similar (1.03 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) for SCV and 0.98 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.09) for urine samples) (McNemar's test >0.05).The acceptability of self-sampling was evaluated by questionnaire. The women found the instructions on sample collection easy to understand and were positive about self-sampling with a preference for the urine sample.

CONCLUSION

Self-sampling by SCV and urine is a clinically safe alternative to CS with a high degree of acceptability.

Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus RNA in urine for cervical cancer screening with HPV 16 & 18/45 genotyping

Objective

To detect high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) messenger-RNA (mRNA) in urine samples, compare their concordance with cervical samples including HPV 16 & 18/45 genotyping, and to determine the utility in detecting ≥ CIN 2 lesions.

Methods

A cohort of 189 non-pregnant patients (age ≥ 25) was recruited in three groups: Group 1 with abnormal pap-smears and hrHPV positivity, Group 2 with normal pap-smears and hrHPV positivity, and Group 3 with normal pap-smears and hrHPV negativity. Urine samples were tested for hrHPV-mRNA and subsequent hrHPV-mRNA genotype if positive. High-risk HPV detection and genotyping were performed using Aptima assays which are validated for cervical HPV testing. Colposcopy results from groups 1 & 2 were analyzed.

Results

The sensitivity of urine hrHPV-mRNA detection was 31.5% while the specificity and PPV were above 95% (96.9% & 95.1% respectively) (p < 0.001). The kappa agreement with cervical samples was fair (0.22, p = 0.04). The sensitivity and specificity of urine hrHPV-mRNA genotyping were 20.0% & 100% respectively (p < 0.001) with 100% genotype-specific concordance. The kappa agreement with cervical samples was fair (0.25, p = 0.16). For urine hrHPV-mRNA detection of ASC-H/HSIL when grouped by age ≥ 30, the sensitivity and specificity were 45.4% & 63.9% respectively (p = 0.009). For urine hrHPV-mRNA detection of ≥ CIN 2 for all ages, the sensitivity and specificity were 45.5% & 75.0% respectively (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Using the Aptima Assay, urine hrHPV-mRNA detection is suboptimal for cervical cancer screening but given the high specificity, it has the potential to identify high-grade lesions (≥ CIN 2). Urine hrHPV-mRNA genotyping via this modality is not beneficial in triage settings of normal or abnormal cytology to determine the need for colposcopy.

Detection of HPV E6 oncoprotein from urine via a novel immunochromatographic assay

Cervical cancer is a significant public health problem, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where women have little access to cervical cancer screening; consequently 80% of cervical cancer related mortality occurs in these regions. The development of screening methods that need less infrastructure thus represents an urgent medical need. The study aims to compare the detection rates of high-risk human papillomavirus 16 and 18 E6 oncoprotein in urine, vaginal self-collected, and cervical scrapes of women using the OncoE6^™ Cervical Test and compare the HPV16 and/or HPV18 E6 detection rates with the HPV DNA testing. Paired urine, vaginal self-collected and cervical specimens were collected from 124 women who participated in cervical cancer screening or treatment in this proof-of-concept study and underwent to HPV16/18-E6 testing and high-risk HPV DNA testing prior to treatment of cervical neoplasia or cancer. Concordance between urinary, vaginal and cervical HPV16/18-E6 and HPV-DNA testing was evaluated for patients classified as negative group (<CIN2) and histological positive group (CIN2, CIN3 and invasive carcinoma). Overall, HPV16/18-E6 oncoprotein was detected in 30.6% of cervical samples, 20.3% of self-collected vaginal samples and 21% of urine samples. Regarding the clinical sensitivity, the HPV16/18-E6 oncoprotein was not detected in CIN2 cases, and was detected at low rates in CIN3 cases. The clinical sensitivity of the HPV16/18-E6 oncoprotein for detecting invasive cervical cancer was 70% for cervical scrapes, 55% for self-collected vaginal samples and 52% for urine samples. This study reports the urinary detection of E6 oncoprotein in vivo for the first time and our results suggest that this detection is only for invasive/microinvasive lesions. Then, further protocol development and standardization to achieve a clinical sensitivity for CIN2/3 detection close to what can be achieved for invasive lesions using the physician collected cervical is needed.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Acceptability of Urine and Cervico-Vaginal Sample Self-Collection for HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening

Background: We compared women's acceptability of urine and cervico-vaginal sample self-collection for high-risk (oncogenic) human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing and assessed whether acceptability varied across racial/ethnic groups. Methods: As part of a test accuracy study of urine-based hrHPV testing, we recruited a convenience sample of women 25-65 years of age at two colposcopy clinics in North Carolina between November 2016 and January 2019. After self-collection of urine and cervico-vaginal samples, women completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the sample collection methods. We coded open-ended questions inductively. All results are presented stratified by racial/ethnic group. Results: We included 410 women (119 Hispanic, 115 non-Hispanic Black, 154 non-Hispanic White, and 22 women with other racial identities). Most women (79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 76%-83%) had positive feelings about urine-based hrHPV testing. Women generally preferred urine (78%, 95% CI = 74%-82%) over cervico-vaginal self-collection (18%, 95% CI = 14%-22%), but the degree differed by racial/ethnic group, increasing from 75% in non-Hispanic Black to 82% in Hispanic women (p = 0.011). Most women reported at least one positive aspect of urine (89%) and cervico-vaginal self-collection (85%) for hrHPV testing with the most common positive aspect being easy sample collection, although 16% of women were concerned about performing the cervico-vaginal self-collection correctly. Conclusions: Self-collection for hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening is highly acceptable to women across different racial/ethnic groups in the United States, and most women in our study would be more likely to attend future cervical cancer screening appointments if screening were urine based. Urine-based hrHPV testing is a promising approach to improve cervical cancer screening coverage.

Test Accuracy of Human Papillomavirus in Urine for Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

The objective was to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing of self-collected urine and cervicovaginal samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+). We recruited a convenience sample of women 25 to 65 years of age who were undergoing clinically indicated colposcopy at two medical centers in North Carolina between November 2016 and January 2019. Women with normal cytology results and positive hrHPV results were also recruited. Urine samples, self-collected cervicovaginal samples, provider-collected cervical samples, and cervical biopsy samples were obtained from all enrolled women. Samples were tested for hrHPV DNA using the Onclarity assay (Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD). Biopsy samples were histologically graded as CIN2+ or Collapse

Key Words

• HPV testing
• cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
• diagnostic test accuracy
• human papillomavirus
• self-collection
• urine

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Aged
• Biopsy
• Colposcopy
• DNA, Viral/urine
• Early Detection of Cancer
• Female
• Humans
• Middle Aged
• North Carolina
• Papillomaviridae/genetics
• Papillomaviridae/isolation & purification
• Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis
• Papillomavirus Infections/pathology
• Polymerase Chain Reaction
• Sensitivity and Specificity
• Specimen Handling
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/diagnosis
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/virology

Collapse

Grants

• P30 AI050410 NIAID NIH HHS
• P30 ES025128 NIEHS NIH HHS
• U54 CA156733 NCI NIH HHS
• Swiss Cancer Research foundation
• HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Eliane Rohner Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Lisa Rahangdale Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Busola Sanusi Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Andrea K Knittel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Laurence Vaughan Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, Maryland, USA
Kirsty Chesko Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, Maryland, USA
Brian Faherty Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, Maryland, USA
Samantha E Tulenko Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
John W Schmitt Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
LaHoma S Romocki Department of Public Health Education, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Vijay Sivaraman Department of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Julie A E Nelson Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Jennifer S Smith Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

Collapse

Detection and genotyping of human papillomavirus virus (HPV): a comparative analysis of clinical performance in cervical and urine samples in Chilean women

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infectious agent and is the main cause of cervical cancer (CC). In Chile, CC is the second leading cause of death by cancer in women aged 20-44 years, four times higher than in developed countries. Currently, the detection of HPV infection using a cervical brush is recommended; however, this is an invasive procedure that many women try to avoid. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a self-collected, urine-based HPV detection method using conventional PCR followed by a reverse line blot. A PCR-based HPV genotyping was performed on 190 paired cervical and urine samples from gynecological exams at public health centers in the Araucania Region, Chile. HPV DNA detection and genotyping were performed by PCR and reverse line blot assay. Carcinogenic HPV types were present in 64.7% and 65.8% of the cervical and urine samples; the infection rates of HPV16 were 34.7% and 33.2%, respectively. The overall percent agreement between carcinogenic HPV detection in cervical and urine samples was 73.7%, with a moderate concordance rate of carcinogenic HPV detection (kappa = 0.42). Clinical sensitivities for cervical and urine-based sampling methods to diagnose cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 (CIN2/3) by histology were 93.4% and 90.2%, respectively. These results suggest that both cervical brush and urine-based sampling show a good clinical performance in the detection of HPV infection. The urine-based sampling method represents a valuable alternative with a great impact on public health, allowing increased cervical cancer screening coverage among women who do not undergo pelvic examinations.

High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Detection in Urine Samples From a Referral Population With Cervical Biopsy-Proven High-Grade Lesions

The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the HPV-HR test to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) in urine samples in comparison with a commercial molecular HPV test.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study, in which 350 patients diagnosed previously with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher were enrolled. Urine and cervical specimens were collected. Urine was tested with the HPV-HR test and cervical specimens were tested with the Cobas.

RESULTS

Of the 336 evaluable patients, there were 271 cases of CIN 2+, of which 202 were CIN 3+ and the remaining 65 patients were less than CIN 2. Positivity was 77.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.5-81.5) for the urine samples and 83.6% (95% CI = 79.6-87.6) for the cervical samples. Agreement between cervical and urine samples for HPV detection was 79.8% (κ = 0.363; 95% CI = 0.243-0.484). Sensitivity for CIN 2+ was 83.4% (95% CI = 78.4-87.6) for urine and 90.8% (95% CI = 86.7-92.9) for cervical samples. The sensitivity for CIN 3+ was 85.6% (95% CI = 80.0-90.2) for urine and 92.6% (95% CI = 88.0-95.8) for cervical samples. Specificity for worse than CIN 2 was 50.8% (95% CI = 33.7-59.0) and 46.2% (95% CI = 33.7-59.0) for urine and cervical samples, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although these results demonstrated slightly higher detection rates for HR-HPV and clinical sensitivity in cervical samples than in urine, when compared with histological diagnoses, urine sampling is a viable alternative to access women who do not participate in routine screening programs.

Performance and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Urine-Based Human Papillomavirus Assay in a Referral Population

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing from clinician-collected cervical and self-collected cervico-vaginal samples is more sensitive for detecting CIN2+/CIN3+ than cytology-based screening, stimulating interest in HPV testing from urine. The objective was to determine the performance of the Trovagene HPV test for the detection of CIN2+ from urine and PreservCyt cervical samples.Methods: Women referred for colposcopy at St Mary's Hospital (London, United Kingdom), following abnormal cytology, were recruited to this diagnostic accuracy study by convenience sampling (September 2011 to April 2013). A total of 501 paired urine and cervical samples were collected. Primary outcomes were sensitivity for CIN2+/CIN3+ and specificity for Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Aged
• Cervix Uteri/pathology
• Colposcopy
• DNA, Viral/isolation & purification
• Early Detection of Cancer/methods
• Feasibility Studies
• Female
• Humans
• Mass Screening/methods
• Middle Aged
• Papillomaviridae/isolation & purification
• Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis
• Papillomavirus Infections/pathology
• Papillomavirus Infections/urine
• Papillomavirus Infections/virology
• Prospective Studies
• RNA, Viral/isolation & purification
• Referral and Consultation
• Sensitivity and Specificity
• Specimen Handling
• United Kingdom
• Urinalysis/methods
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/pathology
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/urine
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
• Vaginal Smears
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/diagnosis
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/pathology
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/urine
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/virology

Collapse

Grants

• 16891 Cancer Research UK
• C569/A16891 Cancer Research UK

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Jack Cuzick Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Louise Cadman Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Amar S Ahmad Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Linda Ho Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
George Terry Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Michelle Kleeman Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Deirdre Lyons Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
Janet Austin Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Mark H Stoler Department of Pathology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
Cecile Rose T Vibat Trovagene Inc., San Diego, California
Janel Dockter Trovagene Inc., San Diego, California
David Robbins Trovagene Inc., San Diego, California Genomind Inc. King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
Paul R Billings Trovagene Inc., San Diego, California
Mark G Erlander Trovagene Inc., San Diego, California

Collapse

Evaluation of the performance of Human Papillomavirus testing in paired urine and clinician-collected cervical samples among women aged over 30 years in Bhutan

BACKGROUND

Urine sampling may offer a less invasive solution than cervical sampling to test for human papillomavirus (HPV) for HPV vaccine impact monitoring.

METHODS

Paired samples of urine and exfoliated cervical cells were obtained for 89 women with history of high-risk (HR) HPV-positive normal cytology in Bhutan. Urine sampling protocol included self-collection of first-void urine immediately into a conservation medium and procedures to optimize DNA yield. Colposcopical abnormalities were biopsied. Two HPV assays were used: a multiplex type-specific PCR (E7-MPG) and a less analytically sensitive GP5+/6+ PCR followed by reverse line blot.

RESULTS

HPV positivity for 21 types common to both assays was similar in urine and cells by E7-MPG (62.9% and 57.3%, respectively, p = 0.32) but lower in urine by GP5+/6+ (30.3% and 40.4%, p = 0.05). HPV6/11/16/18 positivity did not significantly differ between urine and cells by either assay. Sensitivity of urine (using cells as gold standard) to detect 21 HPV types was 80% and 58% for E7-MPG and GP5+/6+, respectively, with specificity 61% and 89%. HPV type distribution in urine and cells was similar, regardless of assay. The 5 detected CIN3+ were HR-HPV positive in cells by both assays, compared to 4 and 3 by E7-MPG and GP5+/6+, respectively, in urine samples.

CONCLUSION

For the monitoring of vaccine impact, we demonstrate validity of a urine sampling protocol to obtain HPV prevalence data that are broadly comparable to that from cervical cells. However, detection of HPV in urine varies according to assay sensitivity, presumably because low level infections are frequent.

Comparison between Urine and Cervical Samples for HPV DNA Detection and Typing in Young Women in Colombia

Urine sampling for HPV DNA detection has been proposed as an effective method for monitoring the impact of HPV vaccination programs; however, conflicting results have been reported. The goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of optimized urine HPV DNA testing in women aged 19 to 25 years. Optimization process included the use of first void urine, immediate mixing of urine with DNA preservative, and the concentration of all HPV DNA, including cell-free DNA fragments. Urine and cervical samples were collected from 535 young women attending cervical screening at health centers from two Colombian cities. HPV DNA detection and genotyping was performed using an HPV type-specific multiplex genotyping assay, which combines multiplex polymerase chain reaction with bead-based Luminex technology. Concordance between HPV DNA detection in urine and cervical samples was determined using kappa statistics and McNemar tests. The accuracy of HPV DNA testing in urine samples was evaluated measuring sensitivity and specificity using as reference the results obtained from cervical samples. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA11.2 software. The findings revealed an overall HPV prevalence of 60.00% in cervical samples and 64.72% in urine samples, HPV-16 being the most frequent HPV type detected in both specimens. Moreover, our results indicate that detection of HPV DNA in first void urine provides similar results to those obtained with cervical samples and can be used to monitor HPV vaccination trials and programs as evidenced by the substantial concordance found for the detection of the four vaccine types. Cancer Prev Res; 9(9); 766-71. ©2016 AACR.

Comparison of urine specimen collection times and testing fractions for the detection of high-risk human papillomavirus and high-grade cervical precancer

BACKGROUND

Urine testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) detection could provide a non-invasive, simple method for cervical cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES

We examined whether HR-HPV detection is affected by urine collection time, portion of urine stream, or urine fraction tested, and assessed the performance of HR-HPV testing in urine for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II or worse (CIN2+).

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 37 female colposcopy clinic attendees, ≥ 30 years, provided three urine samples: "first void" urine collected at home, and "initial stream" and "mid-stream" urine samples collected at the clinic later in the day. Self- and physician-collected brush specimens were obtained at the same clinic visit. Colposcopy was performed and directed biopsies obtained if clinically indicated. For each urine sample, HR-HPV DNA testing was conducted for unfractionated, pellet, and supernatant fractions using the Trovagene test. HR-HPV mRNA testing was performed on brush specimens using the Aptima HPV assay.

RESULTS

HR-HPV prevalence was similar in unfractionated and pellet fractions of all urine samples. For supernatant urine fractions, HR-HPV prevalence appeared lower in mid-stream urine (56.8%[40.8-72.7%]) than in initial stream urine (75.7%[61.9-89.5%]). Sensitivity of CIN2+ detection was identical for initial stream urine and physician-collected cervical specimen (89.9%[95%CI=62.7-99.6%]), and similar to self-collected vaginal specimen (79.1%[48.1-96.6%]).

CONCLUSION

This is among the first studies to compare methodologies for collection and processing of urine for HR-HPV detection. HR-HPV prevalence was similar in first void and initial stream urine, and was highly sensitive for CIN2+ detection. Additional research in a larger and general screening population is needed.