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

Abstract

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. Ó2016 AACR.

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

“…Furthermore, whereas previous studies have almost all reported a moderate under detection of HPV in urine compared to paired cervical cell samples [1], we report that the combination of a strict protocol for urine sampling and a highly sensitive HPV detection assay (E7-MPG), resulted in detection of more HPV in urine than in cervical cells. This finding matches that of a recent study in Colombia using a similar urine sampling procedure and HPV assay (PR = 1.08 for any HPV) [17]. Neither in the present, nor the Colombian study, was there any clear evidence that HPV type distribution varied between the two sample types, suggesting that urine is broadly representative of the types collected at the cervix, at least with respect to the 21 types evaluated by both E7-MPG and GP5+/6+.…”

Vaginal and Urine Self-sampling Compared to Cervical Sampling for HPV-testing with the Cobas 4800 HPV Test

“…When urine HPV analyses were compared to HPV tests obtained from cervical material, the sensitivity ranged from 53-100% and the specificity from 67% to 100% (2,9). Our urine sample results regarding sensitivity and specificity values are similar to an earlier study comparing HPV testing in urine specimen to cervical samples (10).…”

Detection and Genotyping of HPV DNA in a Group of Unvaccinated Young Women from Colombia: Baseline Measures Prior to Future Monitoring Program

“…The results show that HPV infection is very common among sexually active young women. A total of 60.3% of participants were HPV positive, which confirms that HPV is highly endemic in our population (20). This prevalence is greater to the prevalence reported in other regions like Brazil, United States, and Europe, which has ranged from 25% to 49.9% among sexually active women (15,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26).…”

“…The high prevalence of this genotype has been reported also in others populations including Eastern Africa, Japan, and Eastern Asia among women with normal cytology and even in women with abnormal cytology. However, previous studies in Colombia have shown HPV 58 as the second most prevalent type in young women in cervical samples, but in urine samples, HPV 52 was the second type (20). These differences might be explained by differences in the method used to detect HPV DNA.…”