Acceptability of self- collection for human papillomavirus detection in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

Novel diagnostics for improved treatment of gynecological cancer

This paper summarizes the efforts to develop novel biomarkers for diagnosis and screening of the three main gynecological cancers, cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer, with an emphasis on research performed during the last 20 years in Uppsala. A cervical cancer screening program has existed in Sweden since 1966 using cytology as the primary test. Over the last two decades, research has provided the scientific base for a transition to self-sampling to improve convenience of the woman and achieve higher population coverage, and use of human papillomavirus as the primary test. Also, efficient prophylactic vaccines and more efficient treatment strategies of women with cervical dysplasia have been introduced. Together, these medical tools have the potential to eradicate cervical cancer by 2120, as envisaged by WHO. By contrast, efficient biomarkers for endometrial and ovarian cancer are still lacking. Through the use of high-throughput proteomics, we have identified novel plasma protein biomarkers to be used in the diagnosis of women with adnexal ovarian mass upon transvaginal ultrasound, and possibly also for early detection in population screening. Similarly, novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer are being evaluated. To establish a population-based screening program requires careful cost-benefit analyses. One alternative would be to broaden the focus of the current cervical cancer screening program to include also the novel biomarkers for ovarian and endometrial cancer, and thereby achieve screening for all three gynecological cancers. A program that screens for all three diseases could increase motivation to participate and thereby population coverage.

Mapping the HPV Landscape in South African Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Viral Genotypes, Microbiota, and Immune Signals

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence, genotype distribution, and associations with cervicovaginal microbiota and cytokine profiles among South African women, where cervical cancer ranks as the second most common cancer. PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were searched for studies on HPV infection up to 21 September 2024. The pooled prevalence was estimated using a random-effects model, with subgroup analyses by province, sample type, and HIV status. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Of the 19,765 studies screened, 120 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 83,266 participants. Results indicate a high HPV burden, with a pooled prevalence of 58% (95% CI: 52-64%), varying regionally from 53% (95% CI: 41-65%) to 64% (95% CI: 55-73%), with some regions under-researched. Cervical samples had the highest HPV prevalence (60% (95% CI: 54-66%)), while non-genital samples were less studied. High-risk (HR) HPV types, notably HPV 16 (7.5%), HPV 35 (4.1%), and HPV 18 (3.9%), were prominent, with HPV 35 emphasizing the need for expanded vaccine coverage. HIV-positive women had a higher pooled HPV prevalence (63% (95% CI: 55-71%)). Funnel plot analysis and Egger's test suggested a potential publication bias (p = 0.047). HPV-positive women exhibited lower Lactobacillus levels and an increase in Bacterial Vaginosis (BV)-associated species like Gardnerella, potentially supporting HPV persistence. Cytokine analysis showed elevated MIP-1α and MIP-1β in HPV infections, though cytokine profiles may depend on HPV genotypes. These findings underscore the need for research on HPV-microbiome-immune interactions and call for comprehensive HPV-prevention strategies, including vaccines targeting regional HPV types and tailored interventions for HIV-positive populations.

Human papillomavirus self-sampling versus provider-sampling in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of accuracy, acceptability, cost, uptake, and equity

Introduction

HPV self-sampling is a relatively new, cost-effective and widely accepted method, however, uptake in LMICs remains limited. We aimed to map out the evidence and identify gaps in accuracy, acceptability, cost, equity and uptake of self-sampling vs. provider-sampling in LMICs.

Methods

We searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus, from 1946 to July 2023. Inclusion criteria entailed studies focusing on self-sampling alone or compared to provider-sampling for HPV testing and reporting on at least one outcome of interest (accuracy, acceptability, cost, equity, or uptake). Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, resolving disagreements through discussion. Data was extracted by one reviewer independently, with quality checks by senior authors, and results were synthesised narratively.

Results

Our search yielded 3,739 records, with 124 studies conducted on 164,165 women aged 15-88 years between 2000 and 2023 included. Most studies were from the African region (n = 61, 49.2%). Designs included cross-sectional (n = 90, 81.1%), randomised (n = 5, 4.5%), modelling (n = 4, 3.6%), micro-costing (n = 2, 1.8%), and non-randomised crossover (n = 1, 0.9%) studies. Outcomes included; acceptability (n = 79, 63.7%), accuracy (n = 51, 41.1%), cost (n = 7, 5.6%), and uptake (n = 7, 5.6%). Most studies reported that participants preferred self-sampling, with only a few studies (n = 7, 8.9%) studies favouring provider-sampling. The sensitivity and specificity of self-sampling ranged from 37.5-96.8% and 41.6-100.0%, respectively. One study directly compared the sensitivity and specificity of dry self-collected vs. wet provider-collected sample transportation. Laboratory costs were similar, but overall costs were lower for self-sampling. Uptake was higher for self-sampling in five of the seven studies. Most studies (n = 106) mentioned equity factors like age (n = 69, 65.1%), education (n = 68, 64.2%) and place of residence (n = 59, 55.6%) but no analysis of their impact was provided.

Conclusion

HPV self-sampling is acceptable and cost-effective but, evidence of its accuracy shows varying sensitivity and specificity. Evidence on the accuracy of dry self-collected vs. wet provider-collected sample transportation is limited. Research evaluating HPV self-sampling's accuracy, including comparisons of transportation modes, uptake, the impact of equity factors in LMICs and comparisons with high-income countries is essential to inform cervical cancer screening uptake.

Systematic review registration

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/34TUY.

Self-sampling for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening: A scoping review

Cervical cancer is the third most common gynecological cancer worldwide. Its origin is linked to intraepithelial lesions caused by high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) types, detected in 99.7% of cases. Early screening is essential to prevent cancer development from these lesions. Molecular methods are more specific and offer the possibility of being performed through a self-collected sample by the patient, thus contributing to increasing screening coverage for this pathology. This study aim was to map the medical-scientific literature on existing protocols for self-sampling for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening. A search strategy was developed using the following keywords and their synonyms: "self-sampling," "professional sampling," and "HPV", on the databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library - BVS, Scopus, National Institute for Health Research NHS EED, Web of Science, and EMBASE. The search strategy was formulated to identify relevant studies and describe their main characteristics, such as patient acceptance of self-sampling, cost differences between the tests used, and the accuracy of self-sampling compared to the gold standard test. A total of 876 studies were found, and 33 of those studies were included in this review. Out of these, 10 studies were domized clinical trials involving 46,751 patients, and 23 observational studies included 142,795 patients. Regarding acceptance, most studies reported a preference for self-sampling. Sensitivity analyses from various studies also showed that the low cost of self-sampling kits generally increased cost-effectiveness. The study concluded that using HPV testing on self-collected samples is a viable strategy for monitoring women with HPV.

Concordance of Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Clinicians and Patients: A Systematic Review

Objective: Primary high risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) testing is recommended as first-line screening for cervical cancer. Testing involves either a clinician-collected or a self-collected cervicovaginal swab. This study examines concordance between methods of collection of primary HPV testing. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies on self-collected and clinician-collected primary HPV testing published before December 31, 2022. English-language studies for primary HPV testing of average-risk patients were included. Studies conducted in screening settings rather than colposcopy clinics, that used standard devices for HPV collection, and that directly compared methods of collection were included. Outcomes were concordance and kappa between paired samples, and rate of HPV detection in self-collected and clinician-collected samples. Results: A total of 2381 studies were screened, of which 228 were included for full-text evaluation. Thirty-six studies, including 23,328 individuals screened, met the inclusion criteria. The rate of HPV detection ranged from 4.7% to 63% for self-collection and from 3.7% to 62% for clinician-collection. The concordance ranged from 78.2% to 96.9%, and kappa had substantial agreement for 26 of the 36 studies and moderate agreement for 7 of the 36 studies. Conclusions: This study directly compares clinician-collected and self-collected primary HPV screening rates. Studies were conducted in methods which are widely reproducible in the primary care setting. Primary HPV self-collection is a reliable and accurate method for cervical cancer screening.

Preliminary Results of Feasibility and Acceptability of Self-Collection for Cervical Screening in Italian Women

BACKGROUND

Given the diagnostic accuracy of HPV-DNA tests in terms of self-collected samples, in order to implement self-sampling in cervical screening programs, the standardization of the pre-analytical phase, including decisions concerning the choice of medium, the volume of elution, and storage conditions, are necessary, in addition to understanding the potential factors involved in acceptability by women. On this basis, we carried out a cross-sectional study to assess (i) the stability of dry vaginal self-collected samples stored at room temperature for up to 4 weeks after elution in 2 mL of eNat® (Copan) medium, and (ii) the acceptability of self-collection in enrolled women.

METHODS

185 women were enrolled in the LILT (Italian League Against Tumors) regional project. A self-sampling kit, including a dry FLOQSwab® (Copan), instructions for use, and a satisfaction questionnaire, were supplied for each woman and sent by mail to the laboratory. The HPV-DNA test was carried out using the Anyplex™ II HPV HR (Seegene) kit. To evaluate the specimen's stability, 185 dry vaginal swabs were eluted in eNat®, a lyses-based molecular medium and tested for HPV detection at two different time points (<6 days and 1 month after elution). The Cohen's Kappa coefficients and McNemar test were used to assess the agreement of HPV-DNA at different times.

RESULTS

We found high agreement in terms of HPV-DNA results among the samples tested at two different time points (Cohen K = 0.98; p < 0.0001). Moreover, most of the women found it easy to use self-collection devices and the pictorial instructions clear to understand. Approximately half of the enrolled women declared preferring self-sampling to clinician-collected methods.

CONCLUSION

Our results display the high reliability and accuracy of HPV-DNA tests using dry vaginal self-collection FLOQSwabs® devices eluted in 2 mL of molecular medium. The analysis of the questionnaire showed a high acceptability of self-collection among women, although a high percentage preferred standard collection devices. Overall, our preliminary results support the adoption of self-collection in screening programs, even though further analyses should be performed to optimize and standardize protocols for HPV tests on self-samples, and educational campaigns are needed to adequately inform and increase responsiveness in a target population.

Mapping evidence on the acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling for cervical cancer screening among women in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this scoping review was to map evidence on the acceptability of self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing (HPVSS) for cervical cancer screening among women in the sub-Saharan Africa region.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, we searched Scopus, PubMed, Medline Ovid, Cochrane and Web of Science databases for evidence on the acceptability of HPVSS among women aged 25 years and older published between January 2011 and July 2021. We included studies that reported evidence on the acceptability of HPVSS for cervical cancer screening. Review articles and protocols were excluded. We also searched for evidence from grey literature sources such as dissertations/theses, conference proceedings, websites of international organisations such as WHO and relevant government reports. Two reviewers independently performed the extraction using a pre-designed Excel spreadsheet and emerging themes were narratively summarised.

RESULTS

The initial search retrieved 1018 articles. Of these, 19 articles were eligible and included in the review. The following themes emerged from the included articles: acceptability of HPVSS; lack of self-efficacy to perform HPVSS, complications when performing HPVSS, preferences for provider sampling or assistance; setting of HPVSS; HPVSS by vulnerable populations.

CONCLUSION

Evidence shows that HPVSS is highly acceptable for cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa. Further research exploring the acceptability of HPVSS among women residing in rural areas is required, as well as studies to determine women's preferences for HPVSS intervention including the preferred type of sampling devices. Knowledge on the acceptability and preferences for HPVSS is important in designing women-centred interventions that have the potential to increase screening coverage and participation in cervical cancer screening programmes.

Experiences of human papillomavirus self-sampling by women >60 years old: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling has shown to be acceptable and feasible across cultures and effective in reaching women who do not participate in regular cervical cancer screening. However, most of these studies have included younger women. There is a lack of knowledge of how older women reason about HPV self-sampling.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe how women (>60 years old) experience the offering of self-sampling of HPV, compared to having a sample collected by a healthcare professional.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

The study had a qualitative explorative design. Four focus group discussions were conducted with women 60-69 years old (n = 22). Data were analysed using principles of interpretive description.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: self-sampling-convenient and without pain, lack of knowledge, worries related to HPV self-sampling, need for information and taking a societal perspective.

CONCLUSION

Women aged >60 years found that HPV self-sampling was convenient and easy to perform. Further, they stressed the importance of being able to remain in the screening programme in advanced age and that self-sampling could be a possible solution. This study also revealed a lack of knowledge among women in this age group regarding HPV infection, how the disease is transmitted and its relation to cervical cancer.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Women who had performed HPV self-sampling participated in the focus group discussion.

Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials

Objectives

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling proposal on cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake when compared with an invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. Secondary outcomes were acceptability and preference of self-sampling compared to clinician-collected samples.

Methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies examining the CCS uptake comparing self-sampling over invitation to be sampled by an healthcare professional and examining the proportion of women accepting or preferring self-sampling vs. clinician-collected sampling were included. The CCS uptake was also explored according to strategy of self-samplers' distribution, collection device type and screening status. Peters' test and Funnel Plot inspection were used to assess the publication bias. Quality of the studies was assessed through Cochrane Risk of Bias and NIH Quality Assessment tools.

Results

One hundred fifty-four studies were globally identified, and 482,271 women were involved. Self-sampling procedures nearly doubled the probability (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.7-2.0) of CCS uptake when compared with clinician-collected samples. The opt-out (RR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.9-2.4) and the door-to-door (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.6-2.0) did not statistically significant differ (p = 1.177) in improving the CCS uptake. A higher relative uptake was shown for brushes (RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5-1.7) and swabs (RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9-3.1) over clinician-collected samples. A high between-studies variability in characteristics of sampled women was shown. In all meta-analyses the level of heterogeneity was consistently high (I 2 > 95%). Publication bias was unlikely.

Conclusions

Self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of under-screened women in the CCS, in addition to the standard invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. For small communities door-to-door distribution could be preferred to distribute the self-sampler while; for large communities opt-out strategies should be preferred over opt-in. Since no significant difference in acceptability and preference of device type was demonstrated among women, and swabs and brushes exhibited a potential stronger effect in improving CCS, these devices could be adopted.

Self-collected versus medic-collected sampling for human papillomavirus testing among women in Lagos, Nigeria: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and performance of self-collected vaginal swab samples for HPV screening among women in Lagos, Nigeria.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was implemented from March to August 2020 among sexually active women. Study participants provided same-day paired vaginal swab samples. Medic-sampling and poster-directed self-sampling methods were used to collect the two samples per participant. A real-time PCR assay detected HPV 16, HPV 18, other-high-risk (OHR) HPV, and the human β-globin gene. The self-collected samples' sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined against the medic-collected samples using the MedCalc Online Diagnostic Calculator.

RESULTS

Of the 213 women aged 16 ~ 63-year-old recruited, 187 (88%) participants had concordant results, while 26 (12%) participants had discordant results. Among the 187 concordant results, 35 (19%) were HPV positive, 150 (80%) participants were HPV negative, and two (1%) were invalid. 18 (69%) out of the 26 discordant samples were invalid. The self-collected sample was invalid for 14 (54%) participants. Two (8%) medic-collected samples were invalid. Compared to the medic-collected sample, the self-collected sample was 89.80% (95% CI: 77.77 ~ 96.60%) sensitive and 98.21% (95% CI: 94.87 ~ 99.63%) specific, with an accuracy of 96.31% (95% CI: 92.87 ~ 98.40%). The mean age for HPV positive and negative participants were 39 and 40, respectively, with an ANOVA p-value of 0.3932. The stratification of HPV infection by the age group was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

With high accuracy of 96%, self-collected sampling is adequate when tested with real-time PCR and may increase the uptake of HPV testing. Though more self-collected samples were invalid than medic-collected samples, most likely due to poor collection, they could be identified for repeat testing. Future implementation can avoid this error with improved guidance and awareness.

Prevalence and distribution of selected cervical human papillomavirus types in HIV infected and HIV uninfected women in South Africa, 1989-2021: A narrative review

Background

Human papillomavirus infection, a causative agent of cervical cancer, is of great concern, more so in populations with high HIV prevalence, such as South Africa.

Aim

This review aimed to examine the prevalence and distribution of selected cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) types in HIV infected and HIV uninfected women in South Africa.

Methods

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched using key words. For data integrity, data was assessed by two authors independently. The study inclusion criteria comprised records on cervical HPV, HPV genotyping and HPV type distribution among South African women. Statistical analysis was performed using Social Science Statistics.

Results

Sixty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Data on cervical HPV prevalence and type distribution was available only for five of the nine provinces of South Africa. Only 4/69 studies used sequencing as an approach to identify HPV types. In a general population, HPV type 16 was the most frequent (8.80%), followed by types 35 (4.86%), 18 (4.14%), 58 and 52 with the frequency of 3.65% and 3.62%, respectively. Furthermore, the least frequent type was HPV 70 (0.74%). Both HIV infected and HIV uninfected populations had a higher prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types 16, 18 and 35 than other HPV types; while HPV types 6, 11 and 70 were the least frequent types from these populations. Lastly, HPV 16 was the most predominant type among women with normal (2.03%) and abnormal cervical cytology (6.60%).

Conclusion

Expanding on HPV genotyping will improve the knowledge in patterns of HPV type distribution in South Africa that will further help in decision making to improve current diagnostics, and future vaccine development and assessment.

Progress and challenges in human papillomavirus and cervical cancer in southern Africa

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although cervical cancer is preventable, it is the leading cancer among women in southern Africa. The association of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) with almost all invasive cervical cancers has led to the development of effective primary and secondary prevention measures. This review focuses on updated and new evidence of the epidemiology of HPV and HPV-based secondary prevention in southern Africa.

RECENT FINDINGS

HR-HPV prevalence in southern Africa differs between regions, and varies most by HIV prevalence and age. HR-HPV prevalence among women living with HIV (WLWH) is reported between 29 and 59.7%, and between 16.2 and 25.2% among women without HIV. HPV16 is the most common HR-HPV type present in invasive cervical cancers in the region; and vaccination may potentially prevent approximately 80% of these cancers. Concerning preliminary data suggests faster development of new cervical precancer within a short follow-up period.

SUMMARY

We need tools that identify the small number of women with precancer from the many with transient HR-HPV infection in southern Africa. The high-volume of test-positive women leads to challenges in managing triage in a HR-HPV-based screening program. Longitudinal data from the entire region is urgently needed to guide effective implementation of HPV-based screening programs.

Cervical cancer prevention: Human papillomavirus testing as primary screening

Low- and middle-income countries carry a high burden of preventable cervical cancer cases and deaths. Because human papillomavirus DNA-based testing is increasingly becoming the preferred method of screening for cervical cancer prevention, this commentary discusses next steps and key considerations for its expansion.

Evaluation of ILEX SelfCerv for Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection in Gynecology Clinic Attendees at a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa

BACKGROUND

The SelfCerv Self-Collection Cervical Health Screening Kit (Ilex Medical Ltd., Johannesburg, South Africa) is an applicator tampon designed for self-collection of vaginal samples for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and E6/E7 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA). The study aimed to evaluate the performance of the SelfCerv applicator tampon for the detection of hr-HPV for cervical cancer screening, and further to investigate women's experiences and preferences regarding self-sampling.

METHODS

Vaginal samples were collected from 527 gynecology clinic attendees aged ≥18 years at a tertiary hospital in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Self-samples were collected using the SelfCerv kit, followed by endocervical samples collected by a healthcare professional using Cervex-Brush^® Combi. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on self-sampling experiences and preferences. Both samples were tested for 14 high-risk (hr) HPV types and E6/E7 mRNA using the Abbott RealTime HR-HPV and Aptima HR-HPV mRNA assays, respectively.

RESULTS

The overall agreement for hr-HPV typing between 527 paired samples was good (87.1%; κ =0.74) with high sensitivity (86.2%) and specificity (88.0%). HPV-16 (96.4%; κ = 0.83) had higher agreement rate than HPV-18 (96.8%; κ = 0.72) and the other 12 hr-HPVs (86.5%; κ = 0.72). Two hundred and eighty-five (285) sample pairs tested for E6/E7 mRNA showed fair agreement (70.2%; κ= 0.34). Furthermore, self-sampling was reported as comfortable (90.5%) and painless (86.7%), with 88.4% of women preferring self-collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-collected samples had good agreement with the healthcare professional-collected samples for the detection of hr-HPV DNA and the procedure was highly preferred by women. Self-sampling using SelfCerv can be used as an alternative to healthcare professional sampling in clinic-based routine cervical cancer screening.

Human papillomavirus self-sampling versus standard clinician-sampling for cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection remains a major health threat in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). HPV self-sampling could help find and treat cervical cancer at an early stage. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling over the standard health facility-based clinician-sampling for cervical cancer screening through a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrial.gov, and the WHO Global Health Library for articles in SSA published as of 31 May 2020. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for the design and reporting of the results. We included randomized control trials that compared HPV self-sampling with the standard of care. The primary endpoint was uptake of cervical cancer screening service. The secondary endpoints were linkage to care, acceptability, screening frequency, and adverse events. We used RevMan V.5.3 software for statistical analysis. We computed random-effect model to provide pooled estimates of available data and I-squared (I2) test to assess heterogeneity.

RESULT

Of 77 citations, we included four trials from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, encompassing 8200 participants with age ranging from 25 to 65 years. The pooled analysis showed significantly higher uptake of cervical cancer screening in women who used HPV self-sampling (risk ratio [RR] 1.72, 95% CI 1.58-1.87; p = 0.01), while this had a considerable heterogeneity as explained by subgroup analysis. Uptake was higher in women who were offered sampling kit at home or work (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.80-2.33) and those who's kit was mailed to or invited to a nearby health center (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.58-1.72, I2 = 0%) than those screened with the standard of care. There was no difference between the two groups in the rate of linkage to care of positive cases (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.90-2.74, I2 = 91%). HPV self-sampling was acceptable and easy to use. None of the trials compared the frequency of screening or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

HPV self-sampling is an effective and feasible alternative to the standard health facility-based clinician-sampling for cervical cancer screening in SSA. It could improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening and harness the global strategy towards elimination of cervical cancer by 2030.

Distribution of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Genotypes in HIV-Negative and HIV-Positive Women with Cervical Intraepithelial Lesions in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

South African women have a high rate of cervical cancer cases, but there are limited data on human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. A total of 193 cervical specimens with confirmed CIN from women aged 18 years or older, recruited from a referral hospital, were tested for HPV infection. The cervical specimens, smeared onto FTA cards, were screened for 36 HPV types using an HPV direct flow kit. HPV prevalence was 93.5% (43/46) in CIN2 and 96.6% (142/147) in CIN3. HIV-positive women had a significantly higher HPV prevalence than HIV-negative women (98.0% vs. 89.1%, p = 0.012). The prevalence of multiple types was significantly higher in HIV-positive than HIV-negative women (p = 0.034). The frequently detected genotypes were HPV35 (23.9%), HPV58 (23.9%), HPV45 (19.6%), and HPV16 (17.3%) in CIN2 cases, while in CIN3, HPV35 (22.5%), HPV16 (21.8%), HPV33 (15.6%), and HPV58 (14.3%) were the most common identified HPV types, independent of HIV status. The prevalence of HPV types targeted by the nonavalent HPV vaccine was 60.9% and 68.7% among women with CIN2 and CIN3, respectively, indicating that vaccination would have an impact both in HIV-negative and HIV-positive South African women, although it will not provide full protection in preventing HPV infection and cervical cancer lesions.