Dataset Information

Clinical performance of high-risk HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician samples in routine primary HPV screening in the Netherlands: An observational study.

ABSTRACT: Background:High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing on self-collected samples has potential as a primary screening tool in cervical screening, but real-world evidence on its accuracy in hrHPV-based screening programmes is lacking. Methods:In the Netherlands, women aged 30-60 years invited for cervical screening can choose between sampling at the clinician's office (Cervex Brush) or self-sampling at home (Evalyn Brush). HrHPV testing is performed using Roche Cobas 4800. We collected screening test results between January 2017 and March 2018 and histological follow-up until August 2019. The main outcome measures were mean cycle threshold (Ct) value, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) and CIN grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). Findings:30,808 women had a self-collected and 456,207 had a clinician-collected sample. In hrHPV-positive women with adequate cytology, Ct values were higher for self-collection than clinician-collection with a mean Ct difference of 1·25 (95% CI 0·98-1·52) in women without CIN2+, 2·73 (1·75-3·72) in CIN2 and 3·59 (3·03-4·15) in CIN3+. The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN3+ was 0·94 (0·90-0·97) for self-collection versus clinician-collection and the relative specificity was 1·02 (1·02-1·02). Interpretation:The clinical accuracy of hrHPV testing on a self-collected sample for detection of CIN3+ is high and supports its use as a primary screening test for all invited women. Because of the slightly lower sensitivity of hrHPV testing on a self-collected compared to a clinician-collected sample, an evaluation of the workflow procedure to optimise clinical performance seems warranted. Funding:National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (the Netherlands) and the European Commission.

SUBMITTER: Inturrisi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8642706 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundCervical cancer (CC) is the fourth leading cause of death from neoplasms in women and is caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV). Several methods have been developed for the screening of cervical lesions and HPV; however, some socio-cultural factors prevent women from undergoing gynecological inspection, which results in a higher risk of mortality from cervical cancer in certain population groups as indigenous communities. This study aimed to compare the concordance in HPV detection from urine and cervical samples, to propose an alternative to cervical scraping, which is commonly used in the cervical cancer screening.MethodologyThe DNA from cervical scrapings and urine samples was extracted using the proteinase K method followed by precipitation with alcohol, phenol andchloroform; a modification of the proteinase K method was developed in the management of urine sediment. Viral genotyping was performed using INNOLipa.ResultsThe study population consisted of 108 patients from an indigenous population at southern Mexico, 32 without squamous intraepithelial lesions (NSIL) and 76 with low squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL). The majority of NSIL cervical scrapes were negative for HPV (90.63%), whereas more than half of LSIL cases were high-risk HPV positive (51.32%), followed by multiple infection by HR-HPV (17.11%), and multiple infection by LR- and HR-HPV (9.21%). No statistically significant relationship between the cytological diagnosis and the HPV genotypes detected in the urine samples was observed. A concordance of 68.27% for HPV positivity from urine and cervical samples was observed. Similarly, a concordance of 64.52% was observed in the grouping of HPVs by oncogenic risk. HR-HPV was detected in 71% of the urine samples from women with LSIL diagnosis, which suggests that HR-HPV detected in a urine sample could indicate the presence or risk of developing SIL.ConclusionHR-HPV detection in urine samples could be an initial approach for women at risk of developing LSIL and who, for cultural reasons, refuse to undergo a gynecological inspection.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to international guidelines, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA tests represent a valid alternative to Pap Test for primary cervical cancer screening, provided that they guarantee balanced clinical sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) lesions. The study aimed to assess whether HPV Selfy (Ulisse BioMed - Trieste, Italy), a full-genotyping HPV DNA test that detects and differentiates 14 high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) types, meets the criteria for primary cervical cancer screening described in the international guidelines, on clinician-collected as well as on self-collected samples.MethodsFor each participant woman, consecutively referring to Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Giuliano Isontina (Trieste, Italy) and CRO-National Cancer Institute (Aviano, Italy) for the cervical cancer screening program, the following samples were tested: (a) a clinician-collected cervical specimen, analyzed with the reference test (Hybrid Capture®2 test, HC2) and HPV Selfy; and (b) a self-collected vaginal sample, analyzed with HPV Selfy. Enrolled women were also asked to fulfill a questionnaire about self-sampling acceptability. As required by guidelines, a non-inferiority test was conducted to compare the clinical performance of the test under evaluation with its reference test.ResultsHPV Selfy clinical sensitivity and specificity resulted non-inferior to those of HC2. By analysis of a total of 889 cervical liquid-based cytology samples from a screening population, of which 98 were from women with CIN2+, HPV Selfy showed relative sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ of 0.98 and 1.00 respectively (non-inferiority score test: P = 0.01747 and P = 0.00414, respectively); the test reached adequate intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility. Moreover, we demonstrated that the performance of HPV Selfy on self-collected vaginal samples was non-inferior to the performance obtained on clinician-collected cervical specimen (0.92 relative sensitivity and 0.97 relative specificity). Finally, through HPV Selfy genotyping, we were able to describe HPV types prevalence in the study population.ConclusionsHPV Selfy fulfills all the requirements of the international Meijer's guidelines and has been clinically validated for primary cervical cancer screening purposes. Moreover, HPV Selfy has also been validated for self-sampling according to VALHUDES guidelines. Therefore, at date, HPV Selfy is the only full-genotyping test validated both for screening purposes and for self-sampling. Trial registration ASUGI Trieste n. 16008/2018; CRO Aviano n.17149/2018.

Project description:BackgroundConsensus United States cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend use of combination Pap plus human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women aged 30 to 65 years. An HPV test was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for primary cervical cancer screening in women age 25 years and older. Here, we present the results of clinical-economic comparisons of Pap plus HPV mRNA testing including genotyping for HPV 16/18 (co-testing) versus DNA-based primary HPV testing with HPV 16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology (HPV primary) for cervical cancer screening.MethodsA health state transition (Markov) model with 1-year cycling was developed using epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data from healthcare databases and published literature. A hypothetical cohort of one million women receiving triennial cervical cancer screening was simulated from ages 30 to 70 years. Screening strategies compared HPV primary to co-testing. Outcomes included total and incremental differences in costs, invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases, ICC deaths, number of colposcopies, and quality-adjusted life years for cost-effectiveness calculations. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsIn a simulation cohort of one million 30-year-old women modeled up to age 70 years, the model predicted that screening with HPV primary testing instead of co-testing could lead to as many as 2,141 more ICC cases and 2,041 more ICC deaths. In the simulation, co-testing demonstrated a greater number of lifetime quality-adjusted life years (22,334) and yielded $39.0 million in savings compared with HPV primary, thereby conferring greater effectiveness at lower cost.ConclusionsModel results demonstrate that co-testing has the potential to provide improved clinical and economic outcomes when compared with HPV primary. While actual cost and outcome data are evaluated, these findings are relevant to U.S. healthcare payers and women's health policy advocates seeking cost-effective cervical cancer screening technologies.

Project description:BackgroundHPV self-sampling has been widely supported by the scientific community following a strong body of literature on the subject. Self-sampling is important in cervical cancer screening as it has been shown to improve participation. It is well documented that HPV-testing has proven superior to cytology with regards to sensitivity in detection of CIN and cancer. The value of self-collected samples is reliant on the quality of the molecular testing performed, as well as the patients' preference in sampling procedure and compliance to follow up on positive test results. Due to the incompatibility of self-samples and cytology, triage of HPV-DNA positives by testing for molecular biomarkers is highly warranted.MethodsOur objective was to compare the detection rate of genital Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection in self- and clinician-collected samples by a 14-type HPV-DNA test and a 7-type mRNA E6/E7 test.ResultsFive hundred five women were recruited. Each study participant had two sample collection procedures performed upon the same visit, alternating order in execution of the self-collection or the clinician-taken procedure first or second, 1010 samples in total. HPV-DNA prevalence was 22.8% in self-collected versus 19.2% in clinician-collected samples (P = 0.19). Overexpression of mRNA E6/E7 from 7 HPV types was 7.1 and 6.3%, respectively (P = 0.71). The difference between HPV-DNA and HPV-mRNA positivity rates were statistically significant in both self-collected (22.8% versus 7.1%, P < 0.001) and clinician-collected samples (19.2% versus 6.3%, P < 0.001). Overall agreement between the two collection methods was fair, with a concordance rate of 78.2% (390/505), k = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.25-0.44), P < 0.001, for the HPV-DNA test and 92.5% (467/505), k = 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.56), P < 0.001, for the mRNA test, respectively. 96.8% of the participants reported they felt confident carrying out the self-collection themselves, and 88.8% reported no discomfort at all performing the procedure.ConclusionsThis comparative study of two sampling methods reports fair agreement of HPV positivity rates between the self-collected and clinician-collected specimens using Abbott hrHPV and PreTect HPV-Proofer'7 tests. Only one third of HPV-DNA positive women had overexpression of mRNA E6/E7.Trial registrationISRCTN77337300 .

Project description:BackgroundSelf-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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsIn 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 χ2 = 0.62) for carcinogenic HPV types.ConclusionsSelf-collected specimens can be used for HPV-based screening, providing sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected specimens and detecting disease earlier than cytology.

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.

Dataset Information

Clinical performance of high-risk HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician samples in routine primary HPV screening in the Netherlands: An observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets