Table 4.
Impact of delayed cytobrush processing on cervical T cell responses to CEF peptide pool.
| T cell subset | Transport conditions | Na | Number of failuresb/N | Percentage | Odds ratio of positive response with delayed processing [OR (95% CI)] |
p-valuec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD8 | Ex vivo | 18 | 16/18 | 88.9 | – | |
| 37 °C | 12 | 3/12 | 25.0 | 24.0 (3.4–171.6) | 0.00 | |
| 4 °C | 2 | 1/2 | 50.0 | 8.00 (0.3–184.5) | 0.14 | |
| Room temp | 15 | 10/15 | 66.7 | 4.00 (0.6–24.7) | 0.12 | |
| CD4 | Ex vivo | 18 | 17/18 | 94.4 | – | |
| 37 °C | 11 | 3/11 | 27.3 | 45.3 (4.–507.1) | 0.00 | |
| 4 °C | 2 | 1/2 | 50.0 | 17.0 (0.6–524.2) | 0.05 | |
| Room temp | 12 | 7/12 | 50.0 | 12.1 (1. 2–123.7) | 0.02 |
a
Number of PMA-responsive samples concomitantly stimulated with CEF-peptides.
b
Cervical samples failing to respond (≤ 0% IFN-γ responsive cells) to the CEF-peptide stimulation.
c
Chi-squared analysis was used to compare groups to ex vivo. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant.