Dataset Information

Performance of self-collected cervical samples in screening for future precancer using human papillomavirus DNA testing.

ABSTRACT: Self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing could reduce barriers to cervical cancer screening, with performance comparable to clinician-collected specimens. The ability of self-collected specimens to cross-sectionally and prospectively detect precursor lesions was investigated in an HPV vaccine randomized trial in Costa Rica.In the trial, 7466 women age 18 to 25 years received an HPV16/18 or control vaccine and were followed at least annually for four years. In this secondary analysis, we included all women who provided a self-collected cervicovaginal specimen six months after enrollment (5109 women = full analytical cohort). A subset (615 women = restricted cohort) also had clinician-collected specimens at the six-month postenrollment visit. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or repeat low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion prompted colposcopic referral throughout the study. HPV testing was performed with SPF10PCR/DEIA/LiPA25. Cross-sectional and prospective sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were estimated.In the full cohort, one-time HPV testing on self-collected samples detected prevalent CIN2+ with a sensitivity of 88.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] =77.0% to 95.7%) and a specificity of 68.9% (95% CI = 67.6% to 70.1%). For predicting incident CIN2+ in the subsequent four years, sensitivity was 73.9% (95% CI = 65.8% to 81.0%) and specificity 69.4% (95% CI = 68.1% to 70.7%). In the restricted cohort, for incident CIN2+, self-collected HPV was much more sensitive than cytology (80.0% vs 10.0%); relative sensitivity was 0.1 (95% CI = 0.03% to 0.5%). Furthermore, three times more women with normal baseline cytology developed incident CIN2+ than those with negative self-collected HPV. Self-collected and clinician-collected HPV testing had comparable performance. Agreement between self- and clinician-collected samples was 89.7% (kappa = 0.78, McNemar ?2 = 0.62) for carcinogenic HPV types.Self-collected specimens can be used for HPV-based screening, providing sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected specimens and detecting disease earlier than cytology.

SUBMITTER: Porras C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4271079 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance of self-collected cervical samples in screening for future precancer using human papillomavirus DNA testing.

Porras Carolina C Hildesheim Allan A González Paula P Schiffman Mark M Rodríguez Ana Cecilia AC Wacholder Sholom S Jiménez Silvia S Quint Wim W Guillen Diego D Kreimer Aimée R AR Herrero Rolando R

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20141205 1

<h4>Background</h4>Self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing could reduce barriers to cervical cancer screening, with performance comparable to clinician-collected specimens. The ability of self-collected specimens to cross-sectionally and prospectively detect precursor lesions was investigated in an HPV vaccine randomized trial in Costa Rica.<h4>Methods</h4>In the trial, 7466 women age 18 to 25 years received an HPV16/18 or control vaccine and were followed at least annually for four ye ...[more]

PMID: 25479804

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence affirms HPV testing as an effective cervical cancer screening tool, and many organized screening programs are considering adopting it as primary testing. HPV self-collection has comparable sensitivity to clinician collected specimens and is considered a feasible option in hard-to-reach women. We explored women's intentions to HPV self-collect for cervical cancer screening from a cohort participating in a Canadian randomized controlled cervical cancer screening trial. METHODS: Women aged 25-65 were invited to complete an online survey assessing intentions to be screened with HPV testing instead of the Pap smear. The survey was based in the Theory of Planned Behaviour and questions were included to assess women's intentions to self-collect for HPV. Demographic characteristics of women who intended to self-collect were compared with those who did not. Demographic and scale variables achieving a p-value <0.1 in the univariate and bivariate analyses were included in the stepwise logistic regression model. The final model was created to predict factors associated with women's intentions to self-collect an HPV specimen for cervical cancer. Odds ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals to identify variables associated with a woman's intention to self-collect for cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 63.8% (981/1538) with 447 (45.6%) reporting they intended to self-collect, versus 534 (54.4%) reporting they did not. In the univariate analysis, women with more than high school education were more likely to self-collect. Women who intended to receive HPV testing versus the Pap smear were 1.94 times as likely to be in favour of self-collection and those who intended to self-collect had significantly higher attitudinal scores towards HPV self-collection. The adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval from the multivariate analysis demonstrated attitude towards self-collection was the only significant variable predicting a woman's intention to self-collect (OR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22, 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: The primary predictor of a woman's intention to HPV self-collect for cervical cancer screening was her attitude towards the procedure. From a program planning perspective, these results indicate that education and awareness may be significant contributing factors to improving acceptance of self-collection and subsequently, improving screening attendance rates.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women.DesignUpdated meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review).Review methodsAccuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women.Results56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman's home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I2>95%).ConclusionsWhen used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.

Project description:IntroductionCervical cancer ranks as the third most prevalent cancer among women in Thailand. However, the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs is limited by several factors that impede the screening rate. The utilization of self-collected samples for screening purposes has the potential to alleviate barriers to screening in Thai women. This study assessed the cost-utility and budget impact of implementing cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing in Thailand.Materials and methodsWe employed a decision tree integrated with a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and health benefits associated with the cervical cancer screening program for women aged 25-65. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Four screening policy options were compared: (1) additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing, (2) clinician-collected samples for HPV DNA testing only, (3) clinician-collected samples for cytology test (i.e., status quo), and (4) no screening. The model inputs were based on unvaccinated women. The screening strategies and management in those with positive results were assumed followed to the Thai clinical practice guideline. Costs were reported in 2022 Thai baht. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. The ten-year budget impacts of the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing were calculated from a payer perspective.ResultsAll screening policies were cost-saving compared to no screening. When comparing the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing with the clinician-collected samples policy, it emerged as the dominant strategy. The incremental benefit in cervical cancer prevention achieved by incorporating self-collected samples for screening was observed at any additional screening rate that could be achieved through their use. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistently favorable results for the screening policies. The average annual budget impact of the additional self-collected samples for screening policy amounted to 681 million Thai baht. This budget allocation could facilitate cervical cancer screening for over 10 million women.ConclusionsAn addition of self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing into the cervical cancer screening program is cost-saving. The benefits of this screening policy outweigh the associated incremental costs. Policymakers should consider this evidence during the policy optimization process.

Project description:BackgroundColposcopy, currently included in WHO recommendations as an option to triage human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women, remains as the reference standard to guide both biopsy for confirmation of cervical precancer and cancer and treatment approaches. We aim to evaluate the performance of colposcopy to detect cervical precancer and cancer for triage in HPV-positive women.MethodsThis cross-sectional, multicentric screening study was conducted at 12 centres (including primary and secondary care centres, hospitals, laboratories, and universities) in Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). Eligible women were aged 30-64 years, sexually active, did not have a history of cervical cancer or treatment for cervical precancer or a hysterectomy, and were not planning to move outside of the study area. Women were screened with HPV DNA testing and cytology. HPV-positive women were referred to colposcopy using a standardised protocol, including biopsy collection of observed lesions, endocervical sampling for transformation zone (TZ) type 3, and treatment as needed. Women with initial normal colposcopy or no high-grade cervical lesions on histology (less than cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2) were recalled after 18 months for another HPV test to complete disease ascertainment; HPV-positive women were referred for a second colposcopy with biopsy and treatment as needed. Diagnostic accuracy of colposcopy was assessed by considering a positive test result when the colposcopic impression at the initial colposcopy was positive minor, positive major, or suspected cancer, and was considered negative otherwise. The main study outcome was histologically confirmed CIN3+ (defined as grade 3 or worse) detected at the initial visit or 18-month visit.FindingsBetween Dec 12, 2012, and Dec 3, 2021, 42 502 women were recruited, and 5985 (14·1%) tested positive for HPV. 4499 participants with complete disease ascertainment and follow-up were included in the analysis, with a median age of 40·6 years (IQR 34·7-49·9). CIN3+ was detected in 669 (14·9%) of 4499 women at the initial visit or 18-month visit (3530 [78·5%] negative or CIN1, 300 [6·7%] CIN2, 616 [13·7%] CIN3, and 53 [1·2%] cancers). Sensitivity was 91·2% (95% CI 88·9-93·2) for CIN3+, whereas specificity was 50·1% (48·5-51·8) for less than CIN2 and 47·1% (45·5-48·7) for less than CIN3. Sensitivity for CIN3+ significantly decreased in older women (93·5% [95% CI 91·3-95·3] in those aged 30-49 years vs 77·6% [68·6-85·0] in those aged 50-65 years; p<0·0001), whereas specificity for less than CIN2 significantly increased (45·7% [43·8-47·6] vs 61·8% [58·7-64·8]; p<0·0001). Sensitivity for CIN3+ was also significantly lower in women with negative cytology than in those with abnormal cytology (p<0·0001).InterpretationColposcopy is accurate for CIN3+ detection in HPV-positive women. These results reflect ESTAMPA efforts in an 18-month follow-up strategy to maximise disease detection with an internationally validated clinical management protocol and regular training, including quality improvement practices. We showed that colposcopy can be optimised with proper standardisation to be used as triage in HPV-positive women.FundingWHO; Pan American Health Organization; Union for International Cancer Control; National Cancer Institute (NCI); NCI Center for Global Health; National Agency for the Promotion of Research, Technological Development, and Innovation; NCI of Argentina and Colombia; Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social; National Council for Science and Technology of Paraguay; International Agency for Research on Cancer; and all local collaborative institutions.

Project description:ObjectivesTo increase effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening program, self-sampling can be an option. Both self-collected vaginal samples (SCV) and urine samples may be useful alternatives to clinician-taken cervical samples (CS).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingColposcopy clinic.ParticipantsWomen (n=305) referred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical screening result or conditions like postcoital bleeding.InterventionAll women self-collected a urine and a vaginal sample prior to colposcopy, where a CS and biopsies were taken. All samples were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) using the Cobas HPV assay. The gold standard was histology diagnoses (CIN2+/CIN3+) from biopsies obtained at the same examination.Primary outcomeAbsolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing on SCV and urine to detect CIN2+/CIN3+ compared with the CS.Secondary outcomeThe acceptability by women of self-sampling.ResultsBoth the vaginal and urine sample were comparable to the CS in identifying severe intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+). Absolute sensitivity ranged from 93% for urine samples to 96% for SCV for detecting CIN2+, which is comparable to the sensitivity of CS (overlapping 95% CI).The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) for SCV and 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) for urine samples. At CIN3+, the relative sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.07) for SCV and urine samples, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the self-collected samples and the CS (McNemar's test >0.05). The relative specificity was also similar (1.03 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) for SCV and 0.98 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.09) for urine samples) (McNemar's test >0.05).The acceptability of self-sampling was evaluated by questionnaire. The women found the instructions on sample collection easy to understand and were positive about self-sampling with a preference for the urine sample.ConclusionSelf-sampling by SCV and urine is a clinically safe alternative to CS with a high degree of acceptability.

Dataset Information

Performance of self-collected cervical samples in screening for future precancer using human papillomavirus DNA testing.

Publications

Performance of self-collected cervical samples in screening for future precancer using human papillomavirus DNA testing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets