{"title":"男性生殖器部位人乳头瘤病毒检测的两种临床采样技术比较评估:随机对照研究。","authors":"Jinyu Zhang, Linge Li, Shangying Hu, Ningbo Wu, Huiqin Guo, Jian Yin, Shimin Chen, Changchang Dun, Qinjing Pan, Fanghui Zhao","doi":"10.1093/jambio/lxae184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The optimal sampling methods for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) in male genital sites remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the performance, acceptability, and comfort of two sampling techniques for male genital HPV detection.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>A total of 490 men aged 18-45 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either the rub-brush (nail file followed by swab) or brush-only method (swab only) for sampling at external genitalia sites (PGS) and perineum/perianal (PA) sites. HPV distribution, specimen validity (β-globin as a quality reference), and participant acceptability and comfort were evaluated between the two sampling methods. The brush-only method demonstrated non-inferiority in detecting 14 high-risk HPV types (16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) compared to the rub-brush method in both PGS (18.9% vs. 16.9%) and PA (10.5% vs. 11.9%). Although no significant differences were observed in positive rates for other HPV types, the brush-only method had a significantly higher invalid rate in PA (8.5% vs. 1.5%). Approximately 85.0% of participants reported good acceptability and comfort with both sampling methods, regardless of anatomical sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests comparable performance, acceptability and comfort between the two sampling techniques for HPV detection. However, the rub-brush method may offer an advantage in higher sample validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":15036,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of two clinical sampling techniques for HPV detection in male genital sites: a randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Jinyu Zhang, Linge Li, Shangying Hu, Ningbo Wu, Huiqin Guo, Jian Yin, Shimin Chen, Changchang Dun, Qinjing Pan, Fanghui Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jambio/lxae184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The optimal sampling methods for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) in male genital sites remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the performance, acceptability, and comfort of two sampling techniques for male genital HPV detection.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>A total of 490 men aged 18-45 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either the rub-brush (nail file followed by swab) or brush-only method (swab only) for sampling at external genitalia sites (PGS) and perineum/perianal (PA) sites. HPV distribution, specimen validity (β-globin as a quality reference), and participant acceptability and comfort were evaluated between the two sampling methods. The brush-only method demonstrated non-inferiority in detecting 14 high-risk HPV types (16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) compared to the rub-brush method in both PGS (18.9% vs. 16.9%) and PA (10.5% vs. 11.9%). Although no significant differences were observed in positive rates for other HPV types, the brush-only method had a significantly higher invalid rate in PA (8.5% vs. 1.5%). Approximately 85.0% of participants reported good acceptability and comfort with both sampling methods, regardless of anatomical sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests comparable performance, acceptability and comfort between the two sampling techniques for HPV detection. However, the rub-brush method may offer an advantage in higher sample validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Microbiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxae184\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxae184","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative evaluation of two clinical sampling techniques for HPV detection in male genital sites: a randomized controlled study.
Aims: The optimal sampling methods for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) in male genital sites remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the performance, acceptability, and comfort of two sampling techniques for male genital HPV detection.
Methods and results: A total of 490 men aged 18-45 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either the rub-brush (nail file followed by swab) or brush-only method (swab only) for sampling at external genitalia sites (PGS) and perineum/perianal (PA) sites. HPV distribution, specimen validity (β-globin as a quality reference), and participant acceptability and comfort were evaluated between the two sampling methods. The brush-only method demonstrated non-inferiority in detecting 14 high-risk HPV types (16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) compared to the rub-brush method in both PGS (18.9% vs. 16.9%) and PA (10.5% vs. 11.9%). Although no significant differences were observed in positive rates for other HPV types, the brush-only method had a significantly higher invalid rate in PA (8.5% vs. 1.5%). Approximately 85.0% of participants reported good acceptability and comfort with both sampling methods, regardless of anatomical sites.
Conclusions: This study suggests comparable performance, acceptability and comfort between the two sampling techniques for HPV detection. However, the rub-brush method may offer an advantage in higher sample validity.
期刊介绍:
Journal of & Letters in Applied Microbiology are two of the flagship research journals of the Society for Applied Microbiology (SfAM). For more than 75 years they have been publishing top quality research and reviews in the broad field of applied microbiology. The journals are provided to all SfAM members as well as having a global online readership totalling more than 500,000 downloads per year in more than 200 countries. Submitting authors can expect fast decision and publication times, averaging 33 days to first decision and 34 days from acceptance to online publication. There are no page charges.