SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the results and efficiency of two real-time polymerase chain reaction procedures for detecting human papillomavirus utilizing urine samples. METHODS: This study comprised 151 patients who had previously tested positive for human papillomavirus in their cervical samples. Two different commercial real-time polymerase chain reaction techniques were used for identification and genotyping human papillomavirus in urine specimens. The urine samples of 151 patients were evaluated via the Roche Cobas test, and the urine samples of 91 patients were also evaluated via the Qiagen test. RESULTS: The overall consistency of urine and cervical swab specimens for the identification of human papillomavirus in Roche Cobas and Qiagen tests were 44.8 and 44%, respectively. The rates of positive human papillomavirus results from urine samples were 57 and 70.3%, respectively. The overall concordance among Roche Cobas and Qiagen tests utilizing urine samples for human papillomavirus type 16/18 was 84.3% with a kappa value of 0.675, and for other high-risk-human papillomavirus, it was 75.60% with a kappa value of 0.535. Roche Cobas showed high concordance with Qiagen test. CONCLUSION: human papillomavirus positivity was not detected in all urine samples. It is still inappropriate to recommend the use of urine liquid biopsy for the accurate and reliable detection of human papillomavirus. Due to the lack of a standardized tool, the utilization of urine samples as a screening human papillomavirus test remains a challenge.

OBJECTIVE: Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common cause of viral intrauterine infections in the world. Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) and human papillomavirus (HPV) are the main agents of viral sexually transmitted diseases, which cause genital ulcers and genital warts, respectively. HPV infection has been linked to the majority of the anogenital malignancies. The aim of this study was to detect the existence of CMV, HSV-2 and HPV type 16-18 in Turkish pregnants by using sensitive molecular assays. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four women (18-41 years old; mean age ± SD: 27 ± 8) applied to outpatient clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, in between 18th - 22nd weeks of their pregnancy and a control group of 99 healthy women (15-39 years old; mean age ± SD: 24 ± 8) were included in the study. Cervical smear samples were used for DNA extraction. CMV, HSV-2 and HPV 16-18 detections were carried out by real time PCR and in house PCR method, respectively. RESULTS: Three patients (3/134; 2.2%) were found to be positive for each HPV and HSV-2. Dual infection with HPV and HSV was found in just one patient. HPV 18 was detected in all positive samples. CMV was found to be positive in two patients (2/134; 1.4 %). CONCLUSION: HPV, HSV and CMV must be screened due to high prevalence of these viruses in pregnants by using sensitive molecular methods.

PURPOSE: this study was planned to evaluate the prevalence of HPV (excepting type 16) and HPV 16 by real-time PCR in colposcopy patients and to interprete the results with age, age of first sexual intercourse (FSI), parity and Pap smear results. METHODS: one hundred and two colposcopy patients (50 and 52 of the patients were classified as colposcopy positive and negative, respectively) applying to Gynecology clinic were included. HPV (excepting type 16) and HPV 16 were detected by realtime PCR using the L1 region. Real-time nested amplifications of MY09/11 products were done by GP5+/GP6+ primers and Cyanine-5 labeled HPV and HPV 16 DNA specific probe after HPV DNA extraction by phenol chloroform isoamylalcohol. RESULTS: HPV (excepting type 16) and HPV 16 were positive in 12% and 18% of the colposcopy positive patients respectively. HPV (excepting type 16) and HPV 16 were positive in 5.7% and 3.8% of the colposcopy negative patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: there was a statistically significant difference between colposcopy positive and colposcopy negative patients comparing HPV 16 with total HPV positivity (p = 0.021 for type 16 and p = 0.010 for total HPV) but there was not a statistically significant difference between colposcopy positive and colposcopy negative patients when we compared HPV (excepting type 16) positivity (p = 0.314). In conclusion, HPV detection and typing may be helpful for cervical cancer screening and prevention.