Dataset Information

Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus screening in rural Zimbabwe.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), women have limited access to and uptake of cervical cancer screening. Delayed diagnosis leads to poorer outcomes and early mortality, and continues to impede cancer control disproportionately in LMIC. Integrating self-collected, community-based screening for High Risk-Human Papilloma Virus (HR-HPV) into existent HIV programs is a potential screening method to identify women at high risk for developing high-risk cervical lesions. METHODS:We implemented community-based cross-sectional study on self-collection HR-HPV screening in conjunction with existing community outreach models for the distribution of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and the World Health Organization Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) outreach in villages in rural Zimbabwe from January 2017 through May 2017. RESULTS:Overall, there was an 82% response rate: 70% of respondents participated in self-collection and 12% were ineligible for the study (inclusion criteria: age 30-65, not pregnant, with an intact uterus). Women recruited in the first 2-3 months of the study had more opportunities to participate and therefore significantly higher participation: 81% participation (additional 11% ineligible), while those with fewer opportunities also had lower participation: 63% (additional 13% ineligible) (p < 0.001). Some village outreach centers (N = 5/12) had greater than 89% participation. CONCLUSIONS:Integration of HR-HPV screening into existing community outreach models for HIV and immunizations could facilitate population-based screening to scale cancer control and prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa. Community/village health workers (CHW/VHW) and village outreach programs offer a potential option for cervical cancer screening programs to move towards improving access of sexual and reproductive health resources for women at highest risk.

SUBMITTER: Fitzpatrick MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6538544 | biostudies-other | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus screening in rural Zimbabwe.

Fitzpatrick Megan B MB El-Khatib Ziad Z Katzenstein David D Pinsky Benjamin A BA Chirenje Zvavahera Mike ZM McCarty Kathy K

BMC public health 20190529 Suppl 1

<h4>Background</h4>In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), women have limited access to and uptake of cervical cancer screening. Delayed diagnosis leads to poorer outcomes and early mortality, and continues to impede cancer control disproportionately in LMIC. Integrating self-collected, community-based screening for High Risk-Human Papilloma Virus (HR-HPV) into existent HIV programs is a potential screening method to identify women at high risk for developing high-risk cervical lesions.<h4>M ...[more]

PMID: 31138174

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral trials of community-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) provide evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of campaign-style distribution to reach first-time testers, men and adolescents. However, we do not know how many remain unaware of HIVST after distribution campaigns, and who these individuals are. Here we look at factors associated with never having heard of HIVST after community-based campaign-style HIVST distribution in rural Zimbabwe between September 2016 and July 2017.MethodsAnalysis of representative population-based trial survey data collected from 7146 individuals following community-based HIVST distribution to households was conducted. Factors associated with having never heard of HIVST were determined using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for clustered design.ResultsAmong survey participants, 1308 (18.3%) self-reported having never heard of HIVST. Individuals who were between 20 and 60 years old {20-29 years: [aOR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.58-0.95)], 30-39 years: [aOR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42-0.74)], 40-49 years: [aOR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.36-0.68)], 50-59 years [aOR = 0.58, 95% CI (0.42-0.82)]}, who had attained at least ordinary level education [aOR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.34-0.76)], and who had an HIV test before [aOR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.25-0.37)] were less likely to have never heard of HIVST compared with individuals who were between 16 and 19 years old, who had a lower educational level and who had never tested for HIV before, respectively. In addition, non-household heads or household head representatives [aOR = 1.21, 95% CI (1.01-1.45)] were more likely to report never having heard of HIVST compared to household head and representatives.ConclusionsAround one fifth of survey participants remain unaware of HIVST even after an intensive community-based door-to-door HIVST distribution. Of note, those least likely to have heard of self-testing were younger, less educated and less likely to have tested previously. Household heads appear to play an important role in granting or denying access to self-testing to other household members during door-to-door distribution. Differentiated distribution models are needed to ensure access to all. Trial registration PACTR, PACTR201607001701788. Registered 29 June 2016, https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/ PACTR201607001701788.

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:Background/objectiveHuman papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping and cytology have been recommended for colposcopy triage, but it is unclear which combinations of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types and cytology with various thresholds provide clinically useful information for the triage after primary HPV screening on self-collected samples.MethodChinese Multi-site Screening Trial (CHIMUST) database focused on self-collected samples was reviewed using the results of Cobas4800 HPV assay. Absolute risks of each genotype for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse/ 3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+) were calculated. Triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or worse cytology was used as the comparator, and diagnostic accuracy for paired comparisons between algorithms was obtained using McNemar's test.ResultsA total of 10, 498 women were included, the overall prevalence of hrHPV, HPV16, HPV18, and Other hrHPV genotypes were 13.7%, 2.4%, 0.8%, and 10.5%, respectively. HPV16-positive women had the highest absolute risk among various genotypes for CIN2+/CIN3+ whether in normal or abnormal cytology (ASCUS or worse) and among all age groups. When compared with the comparator, combining HPV16 positivity and/or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) or worse yielded higher specificity (97.7% vs. 97.0%, p<0.0001), similar sensitivity (90.7% vs. 96.3%, p = 0.256) for detection of CIN3+, and a decrease in colposcopy referral rate from 3.5% to 2.7%, similar results were found for CIN2+. Positivity for HPV16 and/or (ASCUS or worse), and positivity for (HPV16 and/or HPV18) and/or (ASCUS or worse) achieved favorable sensitivity compared with the comparator (80.6% and 81.3% vs. 70.1% respectively for CIN2+, p<0.0001; both 96.3% vs. 96.3% for CIN3+, p = 1.000), these algorithms would reduce the colposcopy referral rate to 5.0% and 5.6% respectively, compared with 13.7% of that for HPV alone.ConclusionsTriage of HPV-positive women on self-collected samples by combining HPV16 or HPV16/18 genotyping with different thresholds of cytology could provide tradeoffs in sensitivity for detecting cervical lesions and colposcopy referral rates, and tailor management in various circumstances of clinical practice.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus screening in rural Zimbabwe.

Publications

Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus screening in rural Zimbabwe.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets