Sexual Anatomy and Function in Women With and Without Genital Mutilation: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Female genital mutilation (FGM), the partial or total removal of the external genitalia for non-medical reasons, can affect female sexuality. However, only few studies are available, and these have significant methodologic limitations. AIM: To understand the impact of FGM on the anatomy of the clitoris and bulbs using magnetic resonance imaging and on sexuality using psychometric instruments and to study whether differences in anatomy after FGM correlate with differences in sexual function, desire, and body image. METHODS: A cross-sectional study on sexual function and sexual anatomy was performed in women with and without FGM. Fifteen women with FGM involving cutting of the clitoris and 15 uncut women as a control group matched by age and parity were prospectively recruited. Participants underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging with vaginal opacification by ultrasound gel and completed validated questionnaires on desire (Sexual Desire Inventory), body image (Questionnaire d'Image Corporelle [Body Image Satisfaction Scale]), and sexual function (Female Sexual Function Index). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were clitoral and bulbar measurements on magnetic resonance images. Secondary outcomes were sexual function, desire, and body image scores. RESULTS: Women with FGM did not have significantly decreased clitoral glans width and body length but did have significantly smaller volume of the clitoris plus bulbs. They scored significantly lower on sexual function and desire than women without FGM. They did not score lower on Female Sexual Function Index sub-scores for orgasm, desire, and satisfaction and on the Questionnaire d'Image Corporelle but did report significantly more dyspareunia. A larger total volume of clitoris and bulbs did not correlate with higher Female Sexual Function Index and Sexual Desire Inventory scores in women with FGM compared with uncut women who had larger total volume that correlated with higher scores. CONCLUSION: Women with FGM have sexual erectile tissues for sexual arousal, orgasm, and pleasure. Women with sexual dysfunction should be appropriately counseled and treated.

Accuracy of self-collected vaginal dry swabs using the Xpert human papillomavirus assay.

BACKGROUND: Polymerase chain reaction-based Xpert human papillomavirus (HPV) assay is a rapid test that detects high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection. This point-of-care test is usually performed by collecting a cervical specimen in a vial of PreservCyt® transport medium. We compared HPV test positivity and accuracy between self-collected sample with a dry swab (s-DRY) versus physician-collected cervical sampling using a broom like brush and immediate immersion in PreservCyt (dr-WET). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 150 women ≥ 18 years old attending the colposcopy clinic in the University Hospital of Geneva. Each participant first self-collected a vaginal sample using a dry swab and then the physician collected a cervical specimen in PreservCyt. HPV analysis was performed with Xpert. Part of the PreservCyt-collected sample was used for hrHPV detection with the cobas® HPV test. HPV test positivity and performance of the two collection methods was compared. RESULTS: HPV positivity was 49.1% for s-DRY, 41.8% for dr-WET and 46.2% for cobas. Good agreement was found between s-DRY and dr-WET samples (kappa±Standard error (SE) = 0.64±0.09,), particularly for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+) (kappa±SE = 0.80±0.17). Excellent agreement was found between the two samples for HPV16 detection in general (kappa±SE = 0.91±0.09) and among LSIL+ lesions (kappa±SE = 1.00±0.17). Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, 84.2% and 47.1%(s-DRY), 73.1% and 58.7%. (dr-WET) and 77.8% and 45.7% (cobas) for CIN2+ detection. The median delay between sampling and HPV analysis was 7 days for the Xpert HPV assay and 19 days for cobas. There were 36 (24.0%) invalid results among s-DRY samples and 4 (2.7%) among dr-WET (p = 0.001). Invalid results happened due to the long interval between collection and analysis. CONCLUSION: Self-collected vaginal dry swabs are a valid alternative to collecting cervical samples in PreservCyt solution for HPV testing with the Xpert HPV assay. IMPACT: HPV self-collection with dry cotton swabs might assist in the implementation of an effective screening strategy in developing countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN83050913.

Randomized Comparison of Two Vaginal Self-Sampling Methods for Human Papillomavirus Detection: Dry Swab versus FTA Cartridge.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (self-HPV) is valuable in cervical cancer screening. HPV testing is usually performed on physician-collected cervical smears stored in liquid-based medium. Dry filters and swabs are an alternative. We evaluated the adequacy of self-HPV using two dry storage and transport devices, the FTA cartridge and swab. METHODS: A total of 130 women performed two consecutive self-HPV samples. Randomization determined which of the two tests was performed first: self-HPV using dry swabs (s-DRY) or vaginal specimen collection using a cytobrush applied to an FTA cartridge (s-FTA). After self-HPV, a physician collected a cervical sample using liquid-based medium (Dr-WET). HPV types were identified by real-time PCR. Agreement between collection methods was measured using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: HPV prevalence for high-risk types was 62.3% (95%CI: 53.7-70.2) detected by s-DRY, 56.2% (95%CI: 47.6-64.4) by Dr-WET, and 54.6% (95%CI: 46.1-62.9) by s-FTA. There was overall agreement of 70.8% between s-FTA and s-DRY samples (kappa = 0.34), and of 82.3% between self-HPV and Dr-WET samples (kappa = 0.56). Detection sensitivities for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (LSIL+) were: 64.0% (95%CI: 44.5-79.8) for s-FTA, 84.6% (95%CI: 66.5-93.9) for s-DRY, and 76.9% (95%CI: 58.0-89.0) for Dr-WET. The preferred self-collection method among patients was s-DRY (40.8% vs. 15.4%). Regarding costs, FTA card was five times more expensive than the swab (~5 US dollars (USD)/per card vs. ~1 USD/per swab). CONCLUSION: Self-HPV using dry swabs is sensitive for detecting LSIL+ and less expensive than s-FTA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 43310942.