Feasibility of vaginal tampon versus swab in the collection of vaginal fluid for endometrial cancer testing.

Abstract

e17617 Background: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a cardinal symptom of endometrial cancer (EC). However, 90-95% of those with AUB will undergo invasive endometrial sampling with the finding of benign etiology. Our group has identified EC-related methylated DNA markers (MDMs) detectable in vaginal fluid obtained via self-collected tampon with high sensitivity to detect EC. To provide alternative vaginal fluid collection options, we compared total DNA recovery and detection of EC MDMs between tampon and swab collection methods. Methods: Patients ≥45 yrs with AUB or undergoing routine gynecologic care, and patients ≥18 yrs with biopsy-confirmed EC or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) were prospectively enrolled for paired vaginal fluid biospecimens collection. Participants self-collected vaginal fluid via tampon before provider-collected vaginal fluid sampling via swab immediately prior to clinically indicated endometrial sampling or hysterectomy. Cases (EC/AEH) and benign controls were determined by expert review. DNA was extracted from vaginal fluid. Bisulfite converted DNA was then used in long-probe quantitative amplified signal (LQAS) assays for 10 MDMs and 2 reference markers (RMs). Total DNA recovery using the RMs and detection of EC-specific MDMs were compared across sampling techniques. MDMs were standardized using the log of the ratio of the MDM and RM1. Standardized MDMs were compared between swabs and tampons using median and interquartile range (IQR). Results: A total of 40 eligible participants were evaluated in this study, 20 cases and 20 controls. Median time between tampon and swab collection was 27 hours (range 1-53). DNA quantity as measured using both RM1 and RM2 were comparable between swab and tampon in both cases and controls; MDM detection was also comparable between swab and tampon in both cases and controls (Table 1; 8 representative MDMs shown). Though not powered for sensitivity and specificity estimation, EC-related MDMs appear higher in EC cases vs controls, using either sample type. Conclusions: Sampling vaginal fluid with provider-collected swabs or self-collected tampons are both effective for detection of validated EC MDMs. Studies are ongoing to optimize an MDM panel to detect EC in vaginal fluid. Control Tampon Control Swab Case Tampon Case Swab RM1 3.5 [3.3-3.8] 4.2 [3.8-4.2] 3.6 [3.2-3.9] 4.2 [3.8-4.5] MDM1 0.5 [0.4-0.7] 0.4 [0.2-0.6] 1.3 [0.8-1.8] 1.1 [0.6-1.7] MDM2 1.5 [1.2-1.9] 0.9 [0.7-1.2] 3.2 [2.2-4.7] 2.9 [1.7-4.5] MDM3 0.5 [0.4-0.6] 0.4 [0.3-0.5] 1.5 [0.9-2.3] 1.0 [0.8-2.3] MDM4 0.9 [0.6-1.3] 0.5 [0.4-0.7] 2.3 [1.3-3.7] 1.9 [1.0-3.6] MDM5 1.3 [0.6-1.4] 0.8 [0.6-1.0] 3.3 [2.5-4.1] 3.1 [2.4-3.9] MDM6 1.6 [1.3-2.1] 1.2 [0.8-1.7] 3.3 [2.6-4.3] 3.1 [2.3-4.1] MDM7 1.5 [1.1-1.7] 1.0 [0.4-1.4] 3.5 [2.6-4.1] 3.3 [2.1-3.8] MDM8 0.5 [0.3-0.6] 0.5 [0.4-0.7] 1.8 [1.0-2.7] 1.7 [1.0-2.5] Median (IQR) for RM1 and 8 MDMs by case/control and sampling technique.