Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2018
High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Detection in Urine Samples From a Referral Population With Cervical Biopsy-Proven High-Grade Lesions.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lorenzi Adriana T, Fregnani José Humberto T, Dockter Janel, Fitzgerald Kerry, Strohecker Elizabeth, Eaton Barbara, Vibat Cecile Rose T, Erlander Mark G, Scapulatempo-Neto Cristovam, Smith Jennifer S, Longatto-Filho Adhemar
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: 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.
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.