203
Views
9
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

A comparison of cotton and flocked swabs for vaginal self-sample collection

, , , , , , , & show all
Pages 229-236 | Published online: 15 May 2018
 

Abstract

Objective

Vaginal self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has recently been proposed to optimize cervical cancer screening coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of self-taken samples using flocked and cotton swabs for HPV detection and cellular retrieval.

Methods

We recruited women aged 21–65 years, referred to colposcopy at the Division of Gynecology of the Geneva University Hospitals between May and September 2016. Each participant collected 2 vaginal samples: 1 with a cotton swab and 1 with a flocked swab. A 1:1 randomization determined the order in which the 2 samples were taken. The swabs were introduced into a 20 mL PreservCyt® vial. Real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis using the Anyplex™ II HPV HR assay, cytofluorometric analysis and cytological cell counting were performed on each sample.

Results

A total of 119 participants were recruited in the study. Their mean ± standard deviation age was 35.1±8.9 years. The HPV prevalence was 29.7% and 38.1% according to the cotton and flocked swab, respectively (p=0.006). The mean number of cells collected per milliliter according to cytofluorometry was 96,726.6 with the cotton swab and 425,544.3 with the flocked swab (p<0.001). The mean number of cells detected at cytological cell count was 13,130.42 using the cotton swab and 17,503.6 using the flocked swab (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The flocked swab achieved a greater cellular retrieval and showed an improved performance in HPV detection. Further studies are needed to assess the usability and cost-effectiveness of the 2 self-sampling devices.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Geneva University Hospitals. The funders had no role in the study design, manuscript preparation, or its submission.

Author contributions

All authors were involved in data acquisition and interpretation, drafting/revising the manuscript, critical review and approval of the final manuscript for submission and publication.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.