User perception of endocervical sampling: A randomized comparison of endocervical evaluation with the curette vs cytobrush

Objectives

To evaluate whether the endocervical brush (ECB) is better accepted by patients and health care providers for endocervical evaluation when compared to the endocervical curette (ECC), without a decrease in the quality of sampling.

Methods

Two hundred patients with cervical dysplasia were randomized at the colposcopy clinic of the University Hospital of Geneva into two groups according to technique. Patients and physicians’ preference regarding the technique as well as the quality of samples were assessed. ECB samples were analyzed using both cytological (cell block) and histologic analysis, while ECC samples were analyzed using standard histologic analysis.

Results

Of the 200 patients, 89 were randomized to ECC, 101 to ECB and 10 were excluded due to incomplete information or cervical stenosis. Physicians preferred ECB against ECC, classifying it more frequently as an easy technique (94.1% vs.61.4%, p<0.001). Physicians more frequently evaluated the ECB as little or not uncomfortable for patients (28.7% vs.10.2%, p<0.001), though patients themselves didn’t express a preference for either technique. From a quality standpoint, the brush allowed for a better quality of samples, with a lower rate of inadequate samples (2.0% vs 14.3%, p = 0.002) and greater amount of material.

Conclusion

Endocervical sampling using ECB seems to be easier to perform and provides better quality samples. ECB can therefore be an acceptable alternative to ECC in standard practice.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01435590

[A new perspective in adolescent contraception--why prescribe an IUD first?]

Adolescent girls are very fertile and therefore need a reliable contraceptive strategy in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Although highly recommended by international gynecological and adolescent societies and in spite of its high efficiency, good tolerance and ease of use, only minority of adolescents use IUD as a contraceptive method. This article will focus on available IUDs suitable for adolescents and will address misconceptions and barriers to use of IUDs in this age group. We believe this information will encourage physicians in recommending IUD use to adolescents during their most vulnerable years.

HPV self-sampling as primary screening test in sub-Saharan Africa: implication for a triaging strategy

Our objective was (i) to assess if a self-collected test for human papillomavirus (HPV) may serve as a primary cervical cancer screening method in a low-resource setting, (ii) to evaluate its implication in a screen and treat approach and (iii) to identify the most eligible age group in a screening program. Women were recruited through a cervical cancer screening campaign conducted in Cameroon. Written and oral instructions were given to participants by a health-care professional to carry out an unsupervised self-collected HPV-test (Self-HPV), followed by a physician-collected cervical sample for HPV testing (Physician-HPV) and cytology. Differences in performance between Self-HPV versus Physician-HPV and their ability to detect abnormal cytology results (ASC-US+) were evaluated. Descriptive analyses were used to examine the correlation between HPV positivity and cervical abnormalities by age. A sample of 789 women was prospectively enrolled. HPV prevalence was 14.6% and 12.7% for Self-HPV and Physician-HPV, respectively (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). HPV positivity by cytological diagnosis for ASC-US+ was similar with the two tests. positive predictive value of the Self-HPV for ASC-US+ was 20.4; odds ratio and number needed to treat were 6.5 (3.2-13.4) and 6 (4.2-10.9), respectively. We observed a trend of increasing cytological abnormalities in 30-49 year-old women and a concomitant trend of decreasing HPV prevalence supporting that this age group might be the most eligible group for screening. In conclusion, Self-HPV can be used as a primary screening test but needs to be followed by a triaging test that would identify the subset of women affected by clinically significant precancer or cancer.

Randomized comparison of vaginal self-sampling by standard vs. dry swabs for human papillomavirus testing

Background

To evaluate if human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (Self-HPV) using a dry vaginal swab is a valid alternative for HPV testing.

Methods

Women attending colposcopy clinic were recruited to collect two consecutive Self-HPV samples: a Self-HPV using a dry swab (S-DRY) and a Self-HPV using a standard wet transport medium (S-WET). These samples were analyzed for HPV using real time PCR (Roche Cobas). Participants were randomized to determine the order of the tests. Questionnaires assessing preferences and acceptability for both tests were conducted. Subsequently, women were invited for colposcopic examination; a physician collected a cervical sample (physician-sampling) with a broom-type device and placed it into a liquid-based cytology medium. Specimens were then processed for the production of cytology slides and a Hybrid Capture HPV DNA test (Qiagen) was performed from the residual liquid. Biopsies were performed if indicated. Unweighted kappa statistics (к) and McNemar tests were used to measure the agreement among the sampling methods.

Results

A total of 120 women were randomized. Overall HPV prevalence was 68.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.3–77.2) by S-WET, 54.4% (95% CI 44.8–63.9) by S-DRY and 53.8% (95% CI 43.8–63.7) by HC. Among paired samples (S-WET and S-DRY), the overall agreement was good (85.7%; 95% CI 77.8–91.6) and the κ was substantial (0.70; 95% CI 0.57-0.70). The proportion of positive type-specific HPV agreement was also good (77.3%; 95% CI 68.2-84.9). No differences in sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade one (CIN1) or worse between the two Self-HPV tests were observed. Women reported the two Self-HPV tests as highly acceptable.

Conclusion

Self-HPV using dry swab transfer does not appear to compromise specimen integrity. Further study in a large screening population is needed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01316120