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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lorenzi et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: