Comparative evaluation of two clinical sampling techniques for HPV detection in male genital sites: a randomized controlled study

Abstract

Abstract Aims The optimal sampling methods for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) in male genital sites remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the performance, acceptability, and comfort of two sampling techniques for male genital HPV detection. Methods and results A total of 490 men aged 18–45 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either the rub-brush (nail file followed by swab) or brush-only method (swab only) for sampling at external genitalia sites (PGS) and perineum/perianal (PA) sites. HPV distribution, specimen validity (β-globin as a quality reference), and participant acceptability and comfort were evaluated between the two sampling methods. The brush-only method demonstrated non-inferiority in detecting 14 high-risk HPV types (16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) compared to the rub-brush method in both PGS (18.9% vs. 16.9%) and PA (10.5% vs. 11.9%). Although no significant differences were observed in positive rates for other HPV types, the brush-only method had a significantly higher invalid rate in PA (8.5% vs. 1.5%). Approximately 85.0% of participants reported good acceptability and comfort with both sampling methods, regardless of anatomical sites. Conclusions This study suggests comparable performance, acceptability and comfort between the two sampling techniques for HPV detection. However, the rub-brush method may offer an advantage in higher sample validity.