The detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in urine, a specimen easily obtained by a non-invasive self-sampling method, has been the subject of a considerable number of studies. This review provides an overview of 41 published studies; assesses how different methods and settings may contribute to the sometimes contradictory outcomes; and discusses the potential relevance of using urine samples in vaccine trials, disease surveillance, epidemiological studies, and specific settings of cervical cancer screening. Urine sampling, storage conditions, sample preparation, DNA extraction, and DNA amplification may all have an important impact on HPV DNA detection and the form of viral DNA that is detected. Possible trends in HPV DNA prevalence in urine could be inferred from the presence of risk factors or the diagnosis of cervical lesions. HPV DNA detection in urine is feasible and may become a useful tool but necessitates further improvement and standardization.

The benefits of using urine for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA have been evaluated in disease surveillance, epidemiological studies, and screening for cervical cancers in specific subgroups. HPV DNA testing in urine is being considered for important purposes, notably the monitoring of HPV vaccination in adolescent girls and young women who do not wish to have a vaginal examination. The need to optimize and standardize sampling, storage, and processing has been reported.In this paper, we examined the impact of a DNA-conservation buffer, the extraction method, and urine sampling on the detection of HPV DNA and human DNA in urine provided by 44 women with a cytologically normal but HPV DNA-positive cervical sample. Ten women provided first-void and midstream urine samples. DNA analysis was performed using real-time PCR to allow quantification of HPV and human DNA.The results showed that an optimized method for HPV DNA detection in urine should (a) prevent DNA degradation during extraction and storage, (b) recover cell-free HPV DNA in addition to cell-associated DNA, (c) process a sufficient volume of urine, and (d) use a first-void sample.In addition, we found that detectable human DNA in urine may not be a good internal control for sample validity. HPV prevalence data that are based on urine samples collected, stored, and/or processed under suboptimal conditions may underestimate infection rates.

No abstract