Dry storage and transport of a cervicovaginal self-sample by use of the Evalyn Brush, providing reliable human papillomavirus detection combined with comfort for women. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:3937-3943. [PMID: 23015677 DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01506-12]

Daily self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing

BACKGROUND

Self-sampling for HPV as part of primary screening is a well-tolerated method for women not attending organized Pap smear screening and could increase coverage of cervical cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if the prevalence of HR-HPV varies from day to day in infected women and if one single sample is reliable for detecting an ongoing infection.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective cohort study on 12 premenopausal and 13 postmenopausal women performing daily self-sampling for HR-HPV testing. They were all HR-HPV-positive 1-3 months ago. Postmenopausal women were sampled for 28 days and premenopausal women sampled during bleeding-free days in one menstrual cycle. A possible difference in viral load between the estrogen-dominated proliferative phase and the progesterone-dominated secretory phase was analyzed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Consistent results throughout the sampling period were observed for 19 women, with either a daily presence of HPV (14 women) or no HPV at all during the sampling period (5 women). Of 607 samples from 25 women, 596 were consistently positive or negative for HPV during the sampling period and 11 were inconsistent (2%). There was no difference in HPV copy number between the estrogen dominated proliferative or progesterone dominated secretory menstrual cycle phases. The major finding was a high degree of consistency concerning HR-HPV positivity and negativity of HR-HPV in vaginal fluid during a sustained period of daily self-sampling. It does not appear to matter whether the sample is collected in the proliferative or secretory phase.

WITHDRAWN: Comparative evaluation of two vaginal self-sampling devices for the detection of human papillomavirus infections

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

Self-collection tools for routine cervical cancer screening: a review

Sub-optimal participation is a major problem with cervical cancer screening in developing countries which have no organized national screening program. There are various notable factors such as 'embarrassment', 'discomfort' and 'no time' cited by women as they are often also the bread winners for the family. Implementation of self-sampling methods may increase their participation. The aim of this article was to provide a survey of various types of self-sampling tools which are commonly used in collection of cervical cells. We reviewed currently available self-sampling devices and collated the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of its acceptance and its accuracy in giving desired results. In general, regardless of which device is used, self-sampling for cervical scrapings is highly acceptable to women in most of the studies cited.

Acceptability of self-sampling HPV testing among Thai women for cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Acceptability of self-sampling HPV testing is confirmed worldwide. However, some cultural differences may affect this question. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability of self- sampling HPV testing in Thai women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred women aged 30-65 years with an intact cervix were included in this study. The participants were asked to do the Pap test by physicians and then brush type self-sampling instruments were assigned for self-collection and finally completed a questionnaire for acceptability evaluation. The questionnaire contains 2 parts. Part one covered general information of the participants and part two is the acceptability questions.

RESULTS

Mean age was 40.6 years. The incidence of high risk HPV detection in this study was 16%. The most common reason for doing Pap smear was for annual checkup. On the topic of ease of use, 85 % of the subjects agreed. Most of the participants (82%) reported that they felt less pain. However, reliability of the result was not satisfactory because 37% of the participants hesitated to rely on the results of the test. According to the price, if the price is less than 1,000 Baht (32.59 Baht = 1USD), 82% of the subjects would use it for their next screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The acceptability of self-sampling device in this study is quite good but the reliability of the test was questioned by some of the participants. Moreover, the price of the test in Thailand may also influence the acceptability of the test.

Cervicovaginal HPV infection in female renal transplant recipients: an observational, self-sampling based, cohort study

Immunosuppressive treatment of organ transplant recipients is associated with an increase in the occurrence of human papillomavirus (HPV) related anogenital (pre)malignancies. This cohort study investigated the genotype-specific prevalence of HPV infections in a large cohort of female renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Participants self-collected a cervicovaginal sample for detection and genotyping of HPV. Besides, they completed a questionnaire regarding sociodemographic variables, medical data and sexual behavior. Anogenital screening was offered to all HPV-positive participants. A total number of 218 female RTRs was included. The prevalence of mucosal HPV infections was 27.1% and 17.4% for high risk HPV in particular. The studied cohort showed a broad range of HPV genotypes and multiple HPV genotypes were found in 27.1% of HPV-positive patients. Seven participants were identified with occult premalignant anogenital lesions. In conclusion, this study shows a high point-prevalence of HPV in female RTRs (age-matched West-European general population: 9-10%) with a shift in the distribution of genotypes as compared with the general population. Moreover, a substantial number of patients with occult premalignancies was identified. The introduction of self-sampling for HPV positivity can help in early detection of (pre)malignant anogenital lesions in this vulnerable population.

Vaginal self-sampling is a cost-effective way to increase participation in a cervical cancer screening programme: a randomised trial

Background:

Cervical cancer screening coverage remains insufficient in most countries. Our objective was to assess whether in-home vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing is effective and cost-effective in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

Methods:

In March 2012, 6000 unscreened women aged 30–65 years, living in a French region covered by a screening programme, who had not responded to an initial invitation to have a Pap smear were equally randomised to three groups: ‘no intervention' ‘recall', women received a letter to have a Pap smear; and ‘self-sampling', women received a self-sampling kit to return to a centralised virology laboratory for PCR-based HPV testing.

Results:

Participation was higher in the ‘self-sampling' than in the ‘no intervention' group (22.5% vs 9.9%, P<0.0001; OR 2.64) and ‘recall' group (11.7%, P<0.0001; OR 2.20). In the ‘self-sampling' group, 320 used the self-sampling kit; for 44 of these women with positive HR-HPV test results, 40 had the recommended triage Pap smear. The ICER per extra screened woman was 77.8€ and 63.2€ for the ‘recall' and ‘self-sampling' groups, respectively, relative to the ‘no intervention' group.

Conclusions:

Offering an in-home, return-mail kit for vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab is more effective and cost-effective than a recall letter in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

Acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus specimens in cervical cancer screening: A review

Cervical cancer morbidity and mortality is an important public health problem around the world. Some of the barriers to cervical cancer screening include the embarrassment, discomfort, lack of privacy and time and cost associated with clinician-collected, clinic-based screening with cytology or human papillomavirus tests. Self-collection of a human papillomavirus (HPV) test has been found to be generally more acceptable, less embarrassing, more comfortable, more private and easy to do and preferred to pelvic examination for cervical cytology by many women worldwide. The most commonly reported limitation to self-collection is a woman’s lack of confidence in her ability to perform it correctly. Self-collected human papillomavirus tests have been shown to be as or more sensitive than cytology or clinician-collected HPV tests. With confidence-building education about self-collection, it is likely a viable method to extend the reach of screening in high and low-resource areas around the world.

DNA methylation analysis in self-sampled brush material as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women

BACKGROUND

Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in cervical cancer screening shows relatively low specificity, which makes triage testing necessary. In this study, DNA methylation analysis was compared with cytology for triage testing in hrHPV-positive women. Moreover, feasibility of DNA methylation analysis directly on brush-based self-sampled specimens was assessed.

METHODS

Non-responding women from population-based screening were invited to self-collect a cervico-vaginal specimen for hrHPV testing; hrHPV-positive women were referred to a physician for triage liquid-based cytology. DNA methylation analysis was performed on 128 hrHPV-positive physician-collected triage samples and 50 matched brush self-samples with QMSP for C13ORF18, EPB41L3, JAM3 and TERT.

RESULTS

In physician-taken triage material, DNA methylation analysis of JAM3 showed the highest combined specificity (88%) and sensitivity (82%) for detection of CIN3+, whereas cytology showed a specificity of 48% and a sensitivity of 91%. Out of 39 women with abnormal cytology and normal histology (false-positive by cytology), 87% were negative for JAM3 and 90% for C13ORF18 methylation. Agreement between DNA methylation analysis performed directly on the matched self-sampled material and physician-taken samples was 88% for JAM3 (κ=0.75, P<0.001) and 90% for C13ORF18 (κ=0.77; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

DNA methylation analysis as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women is an attractive alternative to cytology. Furthermore, DNA methylation is feasible directly on brush-based self-samplers and showed good correlation with matched physician-taken samples. Direct molecular triage on self-collected specimens could optimise the screening program, especially for non-responders, as this would eliminate the need for an additional physician-taken scraping for triage testing.

Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage-based one for testing for hrHPV (high-risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non-responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33-63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n = 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush-based or a lavage-based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self-sampling responders testing hrHPV-positive were invited for a physician-taken sample for cytology; triage-positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush-based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage-based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8-4.2). The hrHPV-positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87-1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83-1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92-1.70 for CIN3+. The two self-sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush-based device to non-responders is noninferior to offering a lavage-based device in terms of participation. The two self-sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted.

Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians.

METHODS

We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models.

FINDINGS

We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69-82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72-92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83-89) and 87% (84-90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85-0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83-0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95-0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93-0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples.

INTERPRETATION

In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs.

FUNDING

The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology.