4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The optimal anatomic sites for sampling heterosexual men for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection: The HPV detection in men study

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 196, Issue 8, Pages 1146-1152

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/521629

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R25 CA078447, R01 CA098803] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [U36/CCU319276] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in men contributes to infection and cervical disease in women as well as to disease in men. This study aimed to determine the optimal anatomic site(s) for HPV detection in heterosexual men. Methods. A cross-sectional study of HPV infection was conducted in 463 men from 2003 to 2006. Urethral, glans penis/coronal sulcus, penile shaft/prepuce, scrotal, perianal, anal canal, semen, and urine samples were obtained. Samples were analyzed for sample adequacy and HPV DNA by polymerase chain reaction and genotyping. To determine the optimal sites for estimating HPV prevalence, site-specific prevalences were calculated and compared with the overall prevalence. Sites and combinations of sites were excluded until a recalculated prevalence was reduced by < 5% from the overall prevalence. Results. The overall prevalence of HPV was 65.4%. HPV detection was highest at the penile shaft (49.9% for the full cohort and 47.9% for the subcohort of men with complete sampling), followed by the glans penis/coronal sulcus (35.8% and 32.8%) and scrotum (34.2% and 32.8%). Detection was lowest in urethra (10.1% and 10.2%) and semen (5.3% and 4.8%) samples. Exclusion of urethra, semen, and either perianal, scrotal, or anal samples resulted in a < 5% reduction in prevalence. Conclusions. At a minimum, the penile shaft and the glans penis/coronal sulcus should be sampled in heterosexual men. A scrotal, perianal, or anal sample should also be included for optimal HPV detection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available