Objectives: We compared the performance of commonly used Dacron versus flocked nylon swabs for anal cytology. Study Design: From 23 HIV-positive men screened at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco (San Francisco, Calif., USA), 2 anal specimens were collected, 1 with each swab in random order, and placed into liquid cytology medium. Specimens were tested for cellularity by quantifying a genomic DNA (erv-3). The number of cells was assessed from prepared slides by automated image analysis. Performance was compared between swabs using 2-sample t tests and standard crossover trial analysis methods accounting for period effect. Results: Flocked swabs collected slightly more erv-3 cells than Dacron for the first sample although not significantly (p = 0.18) and a similar number of erv-3 cells for the second sample (p = 0.85). Flocked swabs collected slightly more cells per slide than the Dacron swabs at both time periods although this was only significant in the second time period (p = 0.42 and 0.03 for first and second periods, respectively). In crossover trial analysis, flocked swabs outperformed Dacron for cell count per slide based on slide imaging (p = 0.03), but Dacron and flocked swabs performed similarly based on erv-3 quantification (p = 0.14). Conclusions: Further studies should determine whether flocked swabs increase the representation of diagnostically important cells compared to Dacron.

Keywords:
Human papillomavirus testing, Screening, Cytological techniques, Cytology, Anal neoplasia
1.
Palefsky JM, Holly EA, Hogeboom CJ, Berry JM, Jay N, Darragh TM: Anal cytology as a screening tool for anal squamous intraepithelial lesions. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1997;14:415–422.
2.
Chin-Hong PV, Berry JM, Cheng SC, et al: Comparison of patient- and clinician-collected anal cytology samples to screen for human papillomavirus-associated anal intraepithelial neoplasia in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:300–306.
3.
Cranston RD, Darragh TM, Holly EA, et al: Self-collected versus clinician-collected anal cytology specimens to diagnose anal intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-positive men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004;36:915–920.
4.
Pereira AC, Lacerda HR, Barros RC: Diagnostic methods for prevention of anal cancer and characteristics of anal lesions caused by HPV in men with HIV/AIDS. Braz J Infect Dis 2008;12:293–299.
5.
Krech T, Castriciano S, Jang D, Smieja M, Enders G, Chernesky M: Detection of high risk HPV and Chlamydia trachomatis in vaginal and cervical samples collected with flocked nylon and wrapped rayon dual swabs transported in dry tubes. J Virol Methods 2009;162:291–293.
6.
D’Souza G, Sugar E, Ruby W, Gravitt P, Gillison M: Analysis of the effect of DNA purification on detection of human papillomavirus in oral rinse samples by PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2005:43:5526–5535.
7.
Fontaine J, Gravitt P, Duh LM, Lefevre J, Pourreaux K, Hankins C, Coutlee F: High level of correlation of human papillomavirus-16 DNA viral load estimates generated by three real-time PCR assays applied on genital specimens. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005:14:2200–2207.
8.
Trimble CL, Piantadosi S, Gravitt P, et al: Spontaneous regression of high-grade cervical dysplasia: effects of human papillomavirus type and HLA phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:4717–4723.
9.
Yuan CC, Miley W, Waters D: A quantification of human cells using an ERV-3 real time PCR assay. J Virol Methods 2001;91:109–117.
10.
Grabe N, Lahrmann B, Pommerencke T, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Reuschenbach M, Wentzensen N: A virtual microscopy system to scan, evaluate and archive biomarker enhanced cervical cytology slides. Cell Oncol 2010;32:109–119.
11.
Hills M, Armitage P: The two-period cross-over clinical trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1979;8:7–20.
12.
Gravitt PE, Peyton CL, Alessi TQ, et al: Improved amplification of genital human papillomaviruses. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:357–361.
13.
Gravitt PE, Peyton CL, Apple RJ, Wheeler CM: Genotyping of 27 human papillomavirus types by using L1 consensus PCR products by a single-hybridization, reverse line blot detection method. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36:3020–3027.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.