Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: To evaluate if human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (Self-HPV) using a dry vaginal swab is a valid alternative for HPV testing.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 (?) and McNemar tests were used to measure the agreement among the sampling methods.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 ? 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.Self-HPV using dry swab transfer does not appear to compromise specimen integrity. Further study in a large screening population is needed.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01316120.

SUBMITTER: Eperon I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3750271 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Eperon Isabelle I Vassilakos Pierre P Navarria Isabelle I Menoud Pierre-Alain PA Gauthier Aude A Pache Jean-Claude JC Boulvain Michel M Untiet Sarah S Petignat Patrick P

BMC cancer 20130722

<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate if human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (Self-HPV) using a dry vaginal swab is a valid alternative for HPV testing.<h4>Methods</h4>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. Quest ...[more]

PMID: 23875668

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPolymerase chain reaction-based Xpert human papillomavirus (HPV) assay is a rapid test that detects high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection. This point-of-care test is usually performed by collecting a cervical specimen in a vial of PreservCyt® transport medium. We compared HPV test positivity and accuracy between self-collected sample with a dry swab (s-DRY) versus physician-collected cervical sampling using a broom like brush and immediate immersion in PreservCyt (dr-WET).MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we recruited 150 women ? 18 years old attending the colposcopy clinic in the University Hospital of Geneva. Each participant first self-collected a vaginal sample using a dry swab and then the physician collected a cervical specimen in PreservCyt. HPV analysis was performed with Xpert. Part of the PreservCyt-collected sample was used for hrHPV detection with the cobas® HPV test. HPV test positivity and performance of the two collection methods was compared.ResultsHPV positivity was 49.1% for s-DRY, 41.8% for dr-WET and 46.2% for cobas. Good agreement was found between s-DRY and dr-WET samples (kappa±Standard error (SE) = 0.64±0.09,), particularly for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+) (kappa±SE = 0.80±0.17). Excellent agreement was found between the two samples for HPV16 detection in general (kappa±SE = 0.91±0.09) and among LSIL+ lesions (kappa±SE = 1.00±0.17). Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, 84.2% and 47.1%(s-DRY), 73.1% and 58.7%. (dr-WET) and 77.8% and 45.7% (cobas) for CIN2+ detection. The median delay between sampling and HPV analysis was 7 days for the Xpert HPV assay and 19 days for cobas. There were 36 (24.0%) invalid results among s-DRY samples and 4 (2.7%) among dr-WET (p = 0.001). Invalid results happened due to the long interval between collection and analysis.ConclusionSelf-collected vaginal dry swabs are a valid alternative to collecting cervical samples in PreservCyt solution for HPV testing with the Xpert HPV assay.ImpactHPV self-collection with dry cotton swabs might assist in the implementation of an effective screening strategy in developing countries.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN83050913.

Project description:Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples allows for improved coverage rates of cervical cancer (CC) screening programs. ThinPrep®PreservCyt® (HOLOGIC®, USA) medium is widely used for the suspension of cervical and vaginal self-samples. However, this medium is costly, toxic, and flammable, involving special handling procedures which make its use difficult in screening programs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of eNat ® (Copan SpA), an alternative non-alcohol-based suspension medium, compared to ThinPrep®PreservCyt® (HOLOGIC®) for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in vaginal self-collected swabs using three different real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) HPV assays: Anyplex™II HPV28 (Seegene, Korea), Papilloplex® High Risk HPV (GeneFirst, UK), and HPV OncoPredict (Hiantis, Italy). 30 women, referred to colposcopy, were enrolled in this observational, prospective pilot study and asked to collect two vaginal self-taken samples, which were suspended in 5 mL of ThinPrep®PreservCyt® or eNat®. Nucleic acids were extracted from 200 μL using Microlab Nimbus platform (Seegene, Korea) and tested with the three different RT-PCR full-genotyping high-risk HPV assays. The HPV results of vaginal samples resuspended in the two different media were compared to those obtained from the reference clinician-collected cervical sample from the same woman. hrHPV detection in vaginal self-samples suspended in both media demonstrated a substantial agreement with cervical samples with the three assays under-investigation (0.667 <k <0.796). Moreover, the discordances between vaginal self-samples collected from the same woman were found only in cases of normal cytology or low-grade cytological lesions and were generally related to low hrHPV viral loads as indicated by the quantitative HPV OncoPredict assay (6.24E+02 copies/10,000 cells). The study's preliminary findings demonstrated a very good agreement between cervical and vaginal self-collected samples suspended in ThinPrep®PreservCyt® and eNat®, suggesting that the latter could represent a good alternative medium in HPV screening programs based on self-collection.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets