CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT01316120HPVDryUpdated Dec 23, 2011

Randomized Comparison of Vaginal Self Sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing by Standard Versus Dry Vaginal Swabs

An interventional study of Compare different self-obtained specimen for HPV identification and Compare different self-obtained specimen for HPV identification in Human Papillomavirus Infection, sponsored by University Hospital, Geneva. Status unknown. Open to female participants aged 20 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2011-12-23.

Sponsored by University Hospital, Geneva · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Dec 2011), so the status shown — last known as Enrolling by invitation — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
120
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
20 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Human papillomavirus (HPV) assays are likely to be used in cervical cancer screening. Our objective is to simplify the method of collection of female genital tract specimens by determining if vaginal dry swabs are as accurate as the standard transport medium for HPV diagnosis.

Read the detailed description

High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infections in women are clinically important because they have been associated with nearly all cases of preinvasive and invasive cervical neoplasia1. Genital HR-HPV related infection is common, affecting approximately 10-25% of women, depending on the population and age-groups studied2-4.

With the advance in our understanding of HPV biology and the development of technologies for HPV detection together with the poor sensitivity of a single Pap test, there has been now a growing interest concerning the potential use of HPV DNA testing as a screening tool for cervical cancer5.

Currently, there is no consensus on which sampling method is the most effective for HPV DNA testing. These last years, studies have reported that samples provided by women themselves were suitable for DNA testing and support the feasibility of self-collection for HPV DNA testing6-8. Data from these studies support that it is acceptable for the women and demonstrated that a fairly high concordance rate between the self- and physicians testing method has been achieved.

Potential advantage of self-collection is that it could improve access to health care, reduce healthcare costs and save time for patients and providers. Available data have been reported with the use of specimen transport medium (STM), but the use of dry vaginal swab may potentially offer similar reliability than standard STM. Small studies suggest that HPV test (PCR) sampled by physicians using dry vaginal swab seems to be as accurate as those performed in a standard medium for HPV detection9,10. Dry vaginal swab offers potential advantages in terms of being more convenient for collection and is less expensive than a vaginal swab placed in a transport medium.

The aim of our study is to assess the performance of self-obtained v-DRY versus "standard" v-STM and its acceptability.

02

Conditions studied

  • Human Papillomavirus Infection

Keywords

  • Self-collected vaginal samples
  • HPV
  • HPV self-obtained sample
  • HPV specimen transport medium
03

In context

Papillomavirus Infections

495 studies on the registry are indexed under Papillomavirus Infections; 125 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 120 is below the median of 202 across 332 interventional studies indexed under Papillomavirus Infections.

Browse Papillomavirus Infections studies →

Lead sponsor

University Hospital, Geneva is the lead sponsor of 372 studies on the registry; 68 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
20 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • 20 years or older,
  • First consultation in our colposcopy unit,
  • Understands study procedures and accepts voluntarily to participate by signing the informed consent form (ICF).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous hysterectomy,
  • Pregnant,
  • Virgin,
  • Not able to comply with the protocol study.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
120 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    HPV Dry first

    Randomization will determine the sequence of the two tests, avoiding potential bias that may advantage the "first" test. All specimens will be tested for the same pathogens (HR-HPV) using the same diagnostic tests

    Other: Compare different self-obtained specimen for HPV identification

  • Experimental
    HPV standard transport medium

    Randomization will determine the sequence of the two tests, avoiding potential bias that may advantage the "first" test. All specimens will be tested for the same pathogens (HR-HPV) using the same diagnostic tests

    Other: Compare different self-obtained specimen for HPV identification

Interventions

  • OtherCompare different self-obtained specimen for HPV identification

    Instructions will be given to the patients by a research nurse and ICF will be obtained. For specimen collection, participants will be instructed to wash their hands before the procedure. Each participant will receive a package containing a specimen collection kit. Recommendations will be to hold the swab by the end of the handle, to insert the swab into the vagina avoiding contact with the external genitalia, rotate 1 round and to replace the swab in a plastic sleeve (v-DRY) or in a tube containing specimen transport medium (v-STM),.

  • OtherCompare different self-obtained specimen for HPV identification

    Instructions will be given to the patients by a research nurse and ICF will be obtained. For specimen collection, participants will be instructed to wash their hands before the procedure. Each participant will receive a package containing a specimen collection kit. Recommendations will be to hold the swab by the end of the handle, to insert the swab into the vagina avoiding contact with the external genitalia, rotate 1 round and to replace the swab in a plastic sleeve (v-DRY) or in a tube containing specimen transport medium (v-STM),.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. To assess sensibility and specificity of dry swabs for HPV diagnosis

    Agreement between collection methods in terms of HPV risk categories will be measured using the kappa statistic ( ) with a precision of 10% (95% confidence interval). This measure of agreement is 0 when the amount of agreement is what would be expected by chance and 1 when there is perfect agreement.

    Time frame: day 1

Secondary outcomes

  1. Preference about HPV self-collection

    Women will complete a self administered questionnaire on demographics and preference for sampling method (Dry versus standard)

    Time frame: day 1

  2. Sensitivity and specificity of specimen transport medium (STM)

    Sensitivity and specificity to detect high-risk HPV using v-STM as gold standard will be reported.

    Time frame: day 1

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Eperon I, Vassilakos P, Navarria I, Menoud PA, Gauthier A, Pache JC, Boulvain M, Untiet S, Petignat P. Randomized comparison of vaginal self-sampling by standard vs. dry swabs for human papillomavirus testing. BMC Cancer. 2013 Jul 22;13:353. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-353. PubMed 23875668 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 23, 2011, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01316120
Lead sponsor
University Hospital, Geneva
Responsible party
Isabelle Eperon (medical doctor, University Hospital, Geneva) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 16, 2011
Start date
Nov 2010
Primary completion
Aug 2011
Completion
Dec 2011 (estimated)
Last update
Dec 23, 2011

Study contacts

Patrick Petignat, Prof
study director · HUG

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Dec 2011. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion