Scholarlink

<p>Cervical cancer screening commonly requires clinician-collected cervical specimens, prompting interest in less invasive sampling approaches. This paired pilot study assessed agreement in high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection and <i>PAX1</i> methylation testing between cervical swab and urine specimens and evaluated their performance for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). We enrolled 104 women with abnormal cervical cytology and histopathological confirmation. Among 94 pairs with valid hrHPV results, overall agreement was 94.7% (Cohen’s κ = 0.883; 95% CI, 0.783–0.983). Among 91 pairs with valid <i>PAX1</i> results, agreement was 79.1% (κ = 0.446; 95% CI, 0.241–0.651). For CIN3 + detection, cervical swab and urine hrHPV testing showed sensitivities of 86.8% and 80.6% and specificities of 44.4% and 45.9%, respectively. Cervical swab and urine <i>PAX1</i> methylation showed lower sensitivities of 52.6% and 41.2% but higher specificities of 85.7% and 90.0%, respectively. Rule-based combinations showed sensitivity–specificity trade-offs. In this referral-based cohort, urine hrHPV testing showed high agreement with cervical swab testing, whereas urine <i>PAX1</i> methylation had lower agreement and sensitivity. Urine-based <i>PAX1</i> testing remains exploratory and requires optimization and independent validation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of cervical swab and urine samples for high-risk HPV infection and PAX1 methylation in detection of cervical neoplasia

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月30日

查看全文
  • Tsai-Yin Wei,
  • Wen-Hsuan Lin,
  • Chia-Sui Weng,
  • Yeou-Lih Wang,
  • Chao-Chih Wu,
  • Yu-Chia Hsiao,
  • Li-Chu Tsai,
  • Hong-Ling Wang,
  • Chih-Long Chang

摘要

Cervical cancer screening commonly requires clinician-collected cervical specimens, prompting interest in less invasive sampling approaches. This paired pilot study assessed agreement in high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection and PAX1 methylation testing between cervical swab and urine specimens and evaluated their performance for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). We enrolled 104 women with abnormal cervical cytology and histopathological confirmation. Among 94 pairs with valid hrHPV results, overall agreement was 94.7% (Cohen’s κ = 0.883; 95% CI, 0.783–0.983). Among 91 pairs with valid PAX1 results, agreement was 79.1% (κ = 0.446; 95% CI, 0.241–0.651). For CIN3 + detection, cervical swab and urine hrHPV testing showed sensitivities of 86.8% and 80.6% and specificities of 44.4% and 45.9%, respectively. Cervical swab and urine PAX1 methylation showed lower sensitivities of 52.6% and 41.2% but higher specificities of 85.7% and 90.0%, respectively. Rule-based combinations showed sensitivity–specificity trade-offs. In this referral-based cohort, urine hrHPV testing showed high agreement with cervical swab testing, whereas urine PAX1 methylation had lower agreement and sensitivity. Urine-based PAX1 testing remains exploratory and requires optimization and independent validation.