A Randomized Comparison of Different Vaginal Self-sampling Devices and Urine for Human Papillomavirus Testing-Predictors 5.1.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening is rapidly replacing cytology as the cervical screening modality of choice. In addition to being more sensitive than cytology, it can be done on self-collected vaginal or urine samples. This study will compare the high-risk HPV positivity rates and sensitivity of self-collected vaginal samples using four different collection devices and a urine sample.Methods
A total of 620 women referred for colposcopy were invited to provide an initial stream urine sample collected with the Colli-Pee device and take two vaginal self-samples, using either a dry flocked swab (DF) and a wet dacron swab (WD), or a HerSwab (HS) and Qvintip (QT) device. HPV testing was performed by the BD Onclarity HPV Assay.Results
A total of 600 vaginal sample pairs were suitable for analysis, and 505 were accompanied by a urine sample. Similar positivity rates and sensitivities for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were seen for DF, WD, and urine, but lower values were seen for QT and HS. No clear user preferences were seen between devices, but women found urine easiest to collect, and were more confident they had taken the sample correctly. The lowest confidence in collection was reported for HS.Conclusions
Urine, a DF swab, and WD swab all performed well and were well received by the women, whereas the Qvintip and HerSwab devices were less satisfactory.Impact
This is the first study to compare five self-sampling methods in the same women taken at the same time. It supports wider use of urine or vaginal self-sampling for cervical screening.
SUBMITTER: Cadman L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7611176 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate if human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (Self-HPV) using a dry vaginal swab is a valid alternative for HPV testing.MethodsWomen 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionSelf-HPV using dry swab transfer does not appear to compromise specimen integrity. Further study in a large screening population is needed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01316120.
| S-EPMC3750271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (self-HPV) is valuable in cervical cancer screening. HPV testing is usually performed on physician-collected cervical smears stored in liquid-based medium. Dry filters and swabs are an alternative. We evaluated the adequacy of self-HPV using two dry storage and transport devices, the FTA cartridge and swab.MethodsA total of 130 women performed two consecutive self-HPV samples. Randomization determined which of the two tests was performed first: self-HPV using dry swabs (s-DRY) or vaginal specimen collection using a cytobrush applied to an FTA cartridge (s-FTA). After self-HPV, a physician collected a cervical sample using liquid-based medium (Dr-WET). HPV types were identified by real-time PCR. Agreement between collection methods was measured using the kappa statistic.ResultsHPV prevalence for high-risk types was 62.3% (95%CI: 53.7-70.2) detected by s-DRY, 56.2% (95%CI: 47.6-64.4) by Dr-WET, and 54.6% (95%CI: 46.1-62.9) by s-FTA. There was overall agreement of 70.8% between s-FTA and s-DRY samples (kappa = 0.34), and of 82.3% between self-HPV and Dr-WET samples (kappa = 0.56). Detection sensitivities for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (LSIL+) were: 64.0% (95%CI: 44.5-79.8) for s-FTA, 84.6% (95%CI: 66.5-93.9) for s-DRY, and 76.9% (95%CI: 58.0-89.0) for Dr-WET. The preferred self-collection method among patients was s-DRY (40.8% vs. 15.4%). Regarding costs, FTA card was five times more expensive than the swab (~5 US dollars (USD)/per card vs. ~1 USD/per swab).ConclusionSelf-HPV using dry swabs is sensitive for detecting LSIL+ and less expensive than s-FTA.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 43310942.
| S-EPMC4668032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCervical cancer screening coverage remains low in many countries worldwide. Self-sampling approach for cervical cancer screening has a good potential to improve the screening coverage. This study aims to compare different types of HPV self-sampling devices for cervical cancer screening to identify the most accurate and acceptable device(s).MethodsA systematic review was performed on data extracted from all studies specific to HPV self-sampling devices by searching relevant articles in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO published from 2013 to October 2023. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022375682).ResultsOverall, 70 papers met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review and were included in the analysis: 22 studies reported self-sampling devices diagnostic accuracy, 32 studies reported self-sampling devices acceptability and 16 studies reported both (accuracy and acceptability). The most popular self-sampling devices were Evalyn Brush, FLOQ Swab, Cervex-Brush, and Delphi Screener. Out of overall 38 studies analyzing self-sampling devices' diagnostic accuracy, 94.7% of studies reported that self-collected specimens provided sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples; acceptability of Evalyn Brush, FLOQ Swab, Delphi Screener, and Colli-Pee, varied between 84.2% and 100%.ConclusionThe self-sampling approach has a good potential to increase cervical cancer screening coverage. Evalyn Brush, Cervex-Brush, FLOQ Swab, and Delphi Screener self-sampling devices for HPV detection were the most commonly utilized and found to be the most accurate, and patient-acceptable. HPV detection accuracy using these self-sampling devices had no significant difference compared to the sampling performed by healthcare providers.
| S-EPMC10821625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction ‒based high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) assays on self-collected vaginal and urine samples for detection of precancerous cervical lesions in referral population.Materials and methodsWomen referred for colposcopy following abnormal cytology, were included this study. A total of 314 matched urine, vaginal, and cervical samples were collected. All samples were tested for HPV DNA using the RealTime HR-S HPV and Anyplex II HPV 28 assays. Primary endpoints were sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+/CIN3+ and specificity for <CIN2. Secondary endpoints were the relative accuracy of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) test results in vaginal and urine samples versus cervical samples.ResultsThe sensitivity of Realtime HR-S and Anyplex HPV assay was 93.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.36 to 96.81) and 90.08% (95% CI, 83.63 to 94.61) for CIN2+ (n=130); specificity for <CIN2 was 32.69% (95% CI, 25.03 to 38.97) and 33.33% (95% CI, 26.26 to 41.00), respectively. Relative sensitivity of Realtime HR-S and Anyplex HPV tests for the detection of CIN2+ in vaginal versus cervical samples were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.03) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02), respectively; urine versus cervical comparisons were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89).ConclusionThe detection performance for hrHPV and CIN2+ on self-collected vaginal samples was comparable to that of clinician-collected cervical samples. On the other hand, HPV tests using urine were inferior to those using clinician-collected cervical samples in terms of detecting hrHPV and CIN2+.
| S-EPMC8291188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) based screening provides the possibility of vaginal self-sampling as a tool to increase screening attendance. In order to evaluate the impact and feasibility of opt-in self-sampling in the Finnish setting, we invited a randomized population of 5350 women not attending screening after age group invitation or after reminder, to attend HPV self-sampling-based screening in the autumn of 2018 in Helsinki. Out of those, 1282 (24.0%) expressed their interest and ordered the sampling package. Eventually 787 women (14.7% of the total invited population) took part in screening, 770 women by providing a vaginal sample within 2 months from invitation and 17 by providing a pap smear in the laboratory. Self-taken samples were collected in Aptima Multitest vials and tested using the Aptima HPV mRNA assay. A high proportion, 158/770 (20.5%) of the samples were positive in the Aptima HPV assay. One hundred and forty-one samples were further submitted to Aptima HPV Genotyping and extended genotyping by a Luminex based assay. Of those, 23 samples (16.3%) were HPV 16 positive and 7 (5.0%) were positive for HPV 18/45; extended genotyping revealed multiple high-risk and low-risk HPV genotypes. At follow-up seven cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) were diagnosed, which represents 4.4% of HPV positive women and 0.9% of screened women, whereas the rate was 0.5% in routine screening. Our findings suggest that self-sampling with HPV mRNA testing is a feasible approach to improve screening efficacy in a high-risk population among original nonattendees.
| S-EPMC9796070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) infection of the cervicovaginal tract is known to be the major cause of cervical cancer. Similar to various other countries, Germany introduced an organized combined screening including cytology and HPV testing in 2020. The participation rate was around 70% in the past. Self-testing for hr-HPV infections could be an option to increase the participation rate. Two dry vaginal self-sampling devices and a device for the self-collection of first-void urine were evaluated in combination with a PCR-based hr-HPV test regarding their clinical performance (sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN 2+). A cervical smear taken by a clinician during colposcopy was used as reference. This open prospective multicenter trial recruited patients referred to the two participating colposcopy clinics (Hannover Medical School and IZD Hannover, Germany) with abnormal results from cervical cancer screening from 05/2020 to 11/2020. All patients received three CE-certified self-sampling devices (FLOQSwabs, COPAN, Italy; Evalyn Brush, Rovers Medical Devices, the Netherlands; Colli-Pee FV-5000, Novosanis, Wijnegem, Belgium) with instructions to read and apply at home in a pre-specified alternating order without medical assistance. HPV testing was performed after adequate preservation and DNA extraction. Histological results from colposcopy or cervical excisional surgery after self-sampling were used as the gold-standard. The data of 65 patients were analyzed. All invasive cancer cases and over 90% of the CIN 3 lesions were found to be hr-HPV positive with all three self-collection devices. All devices were considered easy to use without any difficulties following the written instructions. Hr-HPV testing of self-collected first-void urine and dry vaginal self-samples showed a high sensitivity for CIN 3+ comparable to that of a clinician-taken smear. Self-sampling was well accepted as it is convenient and easy to use.
| S-EPMC8508434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUrine self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening is a non-invasive method that offers several logistical advantages and high acceptability, reducing barriers related to low screening coverage. This study developed and evaluated the performance of a low-cost urine self-sampling method for HPV-testing and explored the acceptability and feasibility of potential implementation of this alternative in routine screening.MethodsA series of sequential laboratory assays examined the impact of several pre-analytical conditions for obtaining DNA from urine and subsequent HPV detection. Initially, we assessed the effect of ethylaminediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as a DNA preservative examining several variables including EDTA concentration, specimen storage temperature, time between urine collection and DNA extraction, and first-morning micturition versus convenience sample collection. We further evaluated the agreement of HPV-testing between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples among 95 women. Finally, we explored the costs of self-sampling supplies as well as the acceptability and feasibility of urine self-sampling among women and healthcare workers.ResultsOur results revealed higher DNA concentrations were obtained when using a 40mM EDTA solution, storing specimens at 25°C and extracting DNA within 72 hrs. of urine collection, regardless of using first-morning micturition or a convenience sampling. We observed good agreement (Kappa = 0.72) between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples for HPV detection. Furthermore, urine self-sampling was an affordable method (USD 1.10), well accepted among cervical cancer screening users, healthcare workers, and decision-makers.ConclusionThese results suggest urine self-sampling is feasible and appropriate alternative for HPV-testing in HPV-based screening programs in lower-resource contexts.
| S-EPMC8294492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence suggests the vaginal microbiota (VM) may influence risk of persistent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Established cytology biobanks, typically collected with a cytobrush, constitute a unique resource to study such associations longitudinally. It is plausible that compared to rayon swabs; the most commonly used sampling devices, cytobrushes may disrupt biofilms leading to variation in VM composition. Cervico-vaginal samples were collected with cytobrush and rayon swabs from 30 women with high-grade cervical precancer. Quantitative PCR was used to compare bacterial load and Illumina MiSeq sequencing of the V1-V3 regions of the 16S rRNA gene used to compare VM composition. Cytobrushes collected a higher total bacterial load. Relative abundance of bacterial species was highly comparable between sampling devices (R2?=?0.993). However, in women with a Lactobacillus-depleted, high-diversity VM, significantly less correlation in relative species abundance was observed between devices when compared to those with a Lactobacillus species-dominant VM (p?=?0.0049). Cytobrush and swab sampling provide a comparable VM composition. In a small proportion of cases the cytobrush was able to detect underlying high-diversity community structure, not realized with swab sampling. This study highlights the need to consider sampling devices as potential confounders when comparing multiple studies and datasets.
| S-EPMC5575119 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14222-5.
| S-EPMC9569041 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Increasing attendance to screening offers the best potential for improving the effectiveness of well-established cervical cancer screening programs. Self-sampling at home for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as an alternative to a clinical sampling can be a useful policy to increase attendance. To determine whether self-sampling improves screening attendance for women who do not regularly attend the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP), 800 women aged 25-69 years in the Oslo area who were due to receive a 2nd reminder to attend regular screening were randomly selected and invited to be part of the intervention group. Women in this group received one of two self-sampling devices, Evalyn Brush or Delphi Screener. To attend screening, women in the intervention group had the option of using the self-sampling device (self-sampling subgroup) or visiting their physician for a cervical smear. Self-sampled specimens were split and analyzed for the presence of high-risk (hr) HPV by the CLART® HPV2 test and the digene® Hybrid Capture (HC)2 test. The control group consisted of 2593 women who received a 2nd reminder letter according to the current guidelines of the NCCSP. The attendance rates were 33.4% in the intervention group and 23.2% in the control group, with similar attendance rates for both self-sampling devices. Women in the self-sampling subgroup responded favorably to both self-sampling devices and cited not remembering receiving a call for screening as the most dominant reason for previous non-attendance. Thirty-two of 34 (94.1%) hrHPV-positive women in the self-sampling subgroup attended follow-up. In conclusion, self-sampling increased attendance rates and was feasible and well received. This study lends further support to the proposal that self-sampling may be a valuable alternative for increasing cervical cancer screening coverage in Norway.
| S-EPMC4830596 | biostudies-literature