Brush-based self-sampling in combination with GP5+/6+-PCR-based hrHPV testing: High concordance with physician-taken cervical scrapes for HPV genotyping and detection of high-grade CIN

Exploratory Analysis of Concordance Between Clinician-Collected and Self-Sampled Human Papillomavirus Tests in a Small Cohort of Average- and High-Risk Patients

Objectives

Cervical cancer screening rates have stagnated, but self-sampling modalities have the potential to increase uptake. This study compares the test characteristics of self-sampled high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests with clinician-collected hrHPV tests in average-risk (i.e., undergoing routine screening) and high-risk patients (i.e., receiving follow-up after abnormal screening results).

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, a relatively small cohort of average-risk (n = 35) and high-risk (n = 12) participants completed both clinician-collected and self-sampled hrHPV testing, along with a brief phone survey. We assessed hrHPV positivity, concordance, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity across both methods (for types 16, 18, or other hrHPV). We also explored the relationship between test concordance and sociodemographic/behavioral factors.

Results

Among average-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 6% for both test methods (i.e., hrHPV-positive cases: n = 2), resulting in reported concordance, PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity of 100%. Among high-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 100% for clinician-collected tests but only 67% for self-sampled tests, showing varied concordance and sensitivity. Concordance was not associated with sociodemographic or behavioral factors.

Conclusions

Self-sampled hrHPV testing demonstrated high accuracy for average-risk patients in this exploratory study. However, its performance was less consistent in high-risk patients who had already received an abnormal screening result, which could be attributed to spontaneous viral clearance over time. The limited number of participants, particularly HPV-positive cases, suggests caution in interpreting these results. Further research with larger cohorts is necessary to validate these findings and to explore the integration of self-sampled hrHPV testing into routine clinical care, particularly for patients with a history of cervical abnormalities.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT04591977, NCT04585243.

Concordance of Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Clinicians and Patients: A Systematic Review

Objective: Primary high risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) testing is recommended as first-line screening for cervical cancer. Testing involves either a clinician-collected or a self-collected cervicovaginal swab. This study examines concordance between methods of collection of primary HPV testing. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies on self-collected and clinician-collected primary HPV testing published before December 31, 2022. English-language studies for primary HPV testing of average-risk patients were included. Studies conducted in screening settings rather than colposcopy clinics, that used standard devices for HPV collection, and that directly compared methods of collection were included. Outcomes were concordance and kappa between paired samples, and rate of HPV detection in self-collected and clinician-collected samples. Results: A total of 2381 studies were screened, of which 228 were included for full-text evaluation. Thirty-six studies, including 23,328 individuals screened, met the inclusion criteria. The rate of HPV detection ranged from 4.7% to 63% for self-collection and from 3.7% to 62% for clinician-collection. The concordance ranged from 78.2% to 96.9%, and kappa had substantial agreement for 26 of the 36 studies and moderate agreement for 7 of the 36 studies. Conclusions: This study directly compares clinician-collected and self-collected primary HPV screening rates. Studies were conducted in methods which are widely reproducible in the primary care setting. Primary HPV self-collection is a reliable and accurate method for cervical cancer screening.

Evaluation of the feasibility of human papillomavirus sponge-type self-sampling device at Japanese colposcopy clinics

AIM

Self-sampling human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been introduced for cervical cancer screening worldwide. In Japan, there are two types (brush and sponge) of HPV self-sampling devices. However, the recommended type for cervical cancer screening remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the HPV self-sampling device-sponge type (HSD-ST). Additionally, we aimed to examine the positive rate (sensitivity) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse using the HSD-ST. Finally, we aimed to perform a questionnaire survey regarding the usability of the HSD-ST.

METHODS

We included 165 women who underwent HPV testing at one of three gynecologic clinics. First, the women used the HSD-ST and completed a questionnaire regarding its usability. Subsequently, they underwent physician-sampling HPV testing and cytology. We examined the agreement rate of HPV positivity between self- and physician-sampling HPV testing.

RESULTS

The HPV-positive rates of self- and physician-collected samples were 59.4% and 62.4%, respectively, with an overall concordance rate of 88.5% and a calculated kappa coefficient of 0.76, indicating high concordance. Moreover, the positive (sensitivity) rates for CIN2 or worse were 81.4% and 89.8% in the self- and physician-collected samples, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrated the feasibility and usability of the HSD-ST.

High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-collected vaginal samples compared with healthcare worker collected cervical samples among women attending gynecology clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the South African National Department of Health (NDoH) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Policy was revised. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples may offer improved screening uptake. The objectives of the study were to compare the positivity of high-risk (hr)-HPV deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and hrHPV viral messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) between healthcare worker-collected cervical and self-collected vaginal samples and investigate the accuracy of the applicator-tampon-based self-collected samples in detecting hrHPV DNA and hrHPV mRNA.

METHODS

A total of 527 women aged 18 years and older and seeking gynecology services at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa, were enrolled. Vaginal samples were self-collected using SelfCerv applicator tampon, followed by cervical samples collected by a healthcare worker using a Cervex Brush® Combi. Both samples were tested with the Abbott m2000 analyzer for 14-hrHPV types and 285 paired samples were tested for hrHPV E6/E7 mRNA using the Aptima HR-HPV mRNA assay. The prevalence of hrHPV DNA and hrHPV E6/E7 mRNA was estimated and the positivity between the two collection methods was compared for the total group as well as per age group.

RESULTS

HrHPV prevalence was 48.0% (95% CI 43.7-52.4) among healthcare worker collected samples and 47.6% (95% CI 43.3-52.0) among self-collected samples. There was no difference in positivity between healthcare worker collection (48.0%) and applicator-tampon-based self-collection, 47.6% (p-value = 0.90). The proportions of hrHPV were equal between the age groups as shown by the McNemar test (p = 0.9036) results for correlated proportions. The prevalence of hrHPV mRNA was 78.6% (95% CI 73.4-83.2) and 58.6% (95% CI 52.6-64.4) for healthcare worker- and self-collection, respectively. The McNemar test for correlated proportions was highly significant (p < 0.0001), indicating that the hrHPV mRNA proportions are not comparable, although this differed between age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Applicator-tampon-based self-collection has a comparable hrHPV DNA positivity rate as healthcare worker collection but different positivity rates for hrHPV mRNA. Self-sampling showed high concordance with healthcare worker-collected sampling for hrHPV DNA detection, especially regarding HPV 16/18 detection. HrHPV DNA was equally detected between the total group as well as per age group. Implementation of self-sampling using an applicator tampon as a primary screening tool may be considered.

Evaluation of Cobas HPV and SeqHPV Assays in the Chinese Multicenter Screening Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the Cobas 4800 Assay and the SeqHPV Assay with self (S) and direct (D) cervical samples in the Chinese Multicenter Screening Trial (CHIMUST).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CHIMUST is a large population-based multicenter clinical trial, and 10,885 women aged 30-59 years from 15 sites in 7 provinces with no cervical cancer screening for 3 years were eligible. All participating women contributed one self-collected sample (S) and 1 physician-collected endocervical sample (DL). The self-collected sample was first applied to the solid media transport card (SS), and then, the brush placed in 6 mL of ThinPrepSolution (SL). All samples were tested with Cobas 4800 and SeqHPV high-risk HPV assays. Patients human papillomavirus positive (self or direct) were recalled for colposcopy and biopsies.

RESULTS

A total of 10,399 women had complete data. The mean age was 43.9 years. A total of 1.4% (142/10,399) had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ and 0.5% (54/10,339) had CIN 3+. In the liquid specimens, the overall HPV infection rates were 10.8% for Cobas and 10.9% for SeqHPV in D sample, and 13.7% for Cobas and 11.6% for SeqHPV in SL sample, respectively. The sensitivity of Cobas-DL, Cobas-SL, SeqHPV-DL, and SeqHPV-SL for CIN 2+ was 95.07%, 95.07%, 94.33%, and 96.48%, respectively. The specificity of Cobas-DL, Cobas-SL, SeqHPV-DL, and SeqHPV-SL for CIN 2+ was 90.38%, 87.35%, 90.21%, and 89.53%, respectively. There were no differences in sensitivity when applying the 2 assays to both self- and directly collected samples in liquid transport media (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both Cobas and SeqHPV screening assays using both self-collected and directly endocervical collected specimens demonstrate similar sensitivity for the detection of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+.

Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays

Aim

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-based screening is becoming increasingly important, either by supplementing or replacing the traditional cytology-based cervical Pap smear. However, hrHPV screening lacks specificity, because it cannot differentiate between transient virus infection and clinically relevant hrHPV-induced disease. Therefore, reliable triage methods are needed for the identification of HPV-positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in need of treatment. Promising tools discussed for the triage of these patients are molecular diagnostic tests based on epigenetic markers. Here, we compare the performance of two commercially available DNA methylation-based diagnostic assays—GynTect® and the QIAsure Methylation Test—in physician-taken cervical scrapes from 195 subjects.

Findings

Both GynTect® and the QIAsure Methylation Test detected all cervical carcinoma and carcinoma in situ (CIS). The differences observed in the detection rates between both assays for the different grades of cervical lesions (QIAsure Methylation Test: CIN1 26.7%, CIN2 27.8% and CIN3 74.3%; GynTect®: CIN1 13.3%, CIN2 33.3% and CIN3 60%) were not significant. Concerning the false-positive rates, significant differences were evident. For the healthy (NILM) hrHPV-positive group, the false-positive rates were 5.7% for GynTect® and 26.4% for QIAsure Methylation Test (p = 0.003) and for the NILM hrHPV-negative group 2.2% vs. 23.9% (p = 0.006), respectively. When considering hrHPV-positive samples only for comparison (n = 149), GynTect® delivered significantly higher specificity compared to the QIAsure Methylation Test for CIN2 + (87.6% vs. 67.4% (p < 0.001)) and CIN3 + (84.1% vs. 68.2% (p = 0.002)).

Overall our findings suggest that DNA methylation-based tests are suitable for the triage of hrHPV-positive women. With the goal to provide a triage test that complements the limited specificity of HPV testing in HPV-based screening, GynTect® may be preferable, due to its higher specificity for CIN2+ or CIN3+ .

Acceptability of self- collection for human papillomavirus detection in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on vaginal self-collected and cervical clinician-collected specimens shows comparable performance. Self-sampling on FTA cards is suitable for women residing in rural settings or not attending regular screening and increases participation rate in the cervical cancer screening programme. We aimed to investigate and compare high-risk (HR)-HPV prevalence in clinician-collected and self-collected genital specimens as well as two different HPV tests on the clinician collected samples. A total of 737 women were recruited from two sites, a community health clinic (n = 413) and a referral clinic (n = 324) in the Eastern Cape Province. Cervical clinician-collected (FTA cards and Digene transport medium) and vaginal self-collected specimens were tested for HR-HPV using the hpVIR assay (FTA cards) and Hybrid Capture-2 (Digene transport medium). There was no significant difference in HR-HPV positivity between clinician-collected and self-collected specimens among women from the community-based clinic (26.4% vs 27.9%, p = 0.601) or the referral clinic (83.6% vs 79.9%, p = 0.222). HPV16, HPV35, and HPV33/52/58 group were the most frequently detected genotypes at both study sites. Self-sampling for HPV testing received a high positive response of acceptance (77.2% in the community-based clinic and 83.0% in referral clinic). The overall agreement between hpVIR assay and HC-2 was 87.7% (k = 0.754). The study found good agreement between clinician-collected and self-collected genital specimens. Self-collection can have a positive impact on a cervical screening program in South Africa by increasing coverage of women in rural areas, in particular those unable to visit the clinics and women attending clinics where cytology-based programs are not functioning effectively.

Extended HPV Genotyping to Compare HPV Type Distribution in Self- and Provider-Collected Samples for Cervical Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) testing of self-collected cervico-vaginal swabs could increase cervical cancer screening coverage, although triage strategies are needed to reduce unnecessary colposcopies. We evaluated the use of extended hr-HPV genotyping of self-collected samples for cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

We recruited women ages 25-65 years at two colposcopy clinics in North Carolina between November 2016 and January 2019, and obtained self-collected cervico-vaginal samples, provider-collected cervical samples, and cervical biopsies from all enrolled women. Self- and provider-collected samples were tested for 14 hr-HPV genotypes using the Onclarity Assay (Becton Dickinson). We calculated hr-HPV genotype-specific prevalence and assessed agreement between results in self- and provider-collected samples. We ranked the hr-HPV genotypes according to their positive predictive value (PPV) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher (CIN2+).

RESULTS

A total of 314 women participated (median age, 36 years); 85 women (27%) had CIN2+. More women tested positive for any hr-HPV on self-collected (76%) than on provider-collected samples (70%; P = 0.009) with type-specific agreement ranging from substantial to almost perfect. HPV-16 was the most common genotype in self-collected (27%) and provider-collected samples (20%), and HPV-16 prevalence was higher in self- than provider-collected samples (P < 0.001). In self- and provider-collected samples, HPV-16 had the highest PPV for CIN2+ detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall sensitivity for CIN2+ detection was similar for both sample types, but the higher HPV-16 prevalence in self-collected samples could result in increased colposcopy referral rates.

IMPACT

Additional molecular markers might be helpful to improve the triage of women who are hr-HPV positive on self-collected samples.

Evaluation of the concordance in HPV type between self- and physician-collected samples using a brush-based device and a PCR-based HPV DNA test in Japanese referred patients with abnormal cytology or HPV infection

BACKGROUND

To adopt HPV self-sampling in Japan, we assessed the concordance between self- and physician-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) samples from Japanese patients and examined the performance of HPV self-sampling for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).

METHODS

Patients who had previously tested negative for intraepithelial lesions or malignancy/HPV-positive, and patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (ASCUS+) cytology were eligible for this cross-sectional study. Participants performed HPV self-sampling using an Evalyn brush, which was submitted at the Fukui Prefectural Health Care Association. The Evalyn brush heads were stored in ThinPrep vials. The physician, however, performed HPV and cell sampling using an endocervical brush and immediately stored the brush heads in ThinPrep vials. All participants underwent colposcopy and biopsy. Histopathological diagnoses were made by pathologists at Fukui University Hospital. HPV infection was confirmed using a PCR-based Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test. Cytological analysis was performed at Fukui Prefectural Health Care Association.

RESULTS

HPV-positive rates for physician-collected samples and self-collected samples were 51 and 50%, respectively. The perfect match rate of HPV type between the groups was 88% (κ = 0.76). HPV16/18 showed higher agreement rates than other HPVs (99%, kappa 0.96 and 89% kappa 0.77, respectively). Both groups showed 100% sensitivity to CIN2+, but specificity was 57.0 and 58.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For HPV typing, a good concordance rate was seen between self- and physician-collected samples. Self-sampling showed high sensitivity for CIN2+. Self-sampling using the Evalyn brush and Cobas 4800 may be feasible for screening Japanese individuals.

Self-Collection for Cervical Screening Programs: From Research to Reality

In 2018, there were an estimated 570,000 new cases of cervical cancer globally, with most of them occurring in women who either had no access to cervical screening, or had not participated in screening in regions where programs are available. Where programs are in place, a major barrier for women across many cultures has been the requirement to undergo a speculum examination. With the emergence of HPV-based primary screening, the option of self-collection (where the woman takes the sample from the vagina herself) may overcome this barrier, given that such samples when tested using a PCR-based HPV assay have similar sensitivity for the detection of cervical pre-cancers as practitioner-collected cervical specimens. Other advantages of HPV-based screening using self-collection, beyond the increase in acceptability to women, include scalability, efficiency, and high negative predictive value, allowing for long intervals between negative tests. Self-collection will be a key strategy for the successful scale up of cervical screening programs globally in response to the WHO call for all countries to work towards the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. This review will examine self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening including the collection devices, assays and possible routine laboratory processes considering how they can be utilized in cervical screening programs.

Comparison of urine, self-collected vaginal swab, and cervical swab samples for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) with Roche Cobas HPV, Anyplex II HPV, and RealTime HR-S HPV assay

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is well established as the main cause of cervical cancer. Non-invasive self-collected urine and vaginal sampling have the potential advantage of increasing patient compliance with cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

Self-collected vaginal and urine samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were collected from 101 patients, including 84 patients with high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and 17 patients with benign ovarian disease. Each sample was evaluated with RealTime HR-S HPV, Anyplex™ II HPV, and Cobas^® HPV assays. The concordance of urine and of self-collected vaginal samples with cervical samples was assessed using the kappa (k) statistic.

RESULTS

In any high-risk HPV (hrHPV), the concordance of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared to cervical samples was moderate (k 0.49-0.58) and fair to moderate (k 0.33-0.51), respectively. In HPV 16/18, the concordance of vaginal and urine samples compared to cervical samples was almost perfect (k 0.81-0.86) and moderate to substantial (k 0.59-0.63), respectively. Among the three methods for HPV detection, RealTime HR-S showed the highest concordance with vaginal (k: any hrHPV 0.58, HPV 16/18 0.86) and urine samples (k: any hrHPV 0.51, HPV 16/18 0.63) compared to cervical samples.

CONCLUSION

HPV tests using self-collected vaginal samples and urine showed substantial and moderate agreement compared with cervical samples, respectively, although HPV tests using these samples were still inferior to clinician-collected cervical samples. Further research is needed on the clinical performance of HPV testing using urine and self-collected vaginal samples as the screening method.

Prevention of Cervical Cancer: Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3 Level, AWMF Register Number 015/027OL, December 2017) - Part 2 on Triage, Treatment and Follow-up

Aims Annual opportunistic screening for cervical carcinoma has been done in Germany since 1971. The creation of this S3 guideline meets an important need, outlined in the National Cancer Plan, with regard to screening for cervical cancer, as this guideline aims to provide important information and support for planned organized screening for cervical cancer in Germany. Methods With the financial support of German Cancer Aid, 21 professional societies developed evidence-based statements and recommendations (classified using the GRADE system) for the screening, management and treatment of precancerous conditions of the cervix. Two independent scientific institutes compiled systematic reviews for this guideline. Recommendations The second part of this short summary deals with the triage, treatment and follow-up care of cervical dysplasia. With regard to those women who do not participate in screening, the guideline authors recommend sending out repeat invitation letters or an HPV self-collection kit. Colposcopy should be carried out for further investigation if cytology findings are Pap II-p and HPV test results are positive or if the results of an HPV 16 or HPV 18 screening test are positive. A single abnormal Pap smear should be triaged and investigated using HPV testing or p16/Ki67 dual staining.

HPV testing in first-void urine provides sensitivity for CIN2+ detection comparable with a smear taken by a clinician or a brush-based self-sample: cross-sectional data from a triage population

OBJECTIVE

To compare the sensitivity of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and genotype detection in self-collected urine samples in the morning (U1), and later on (U2), brush-based self-samples (SS), and clinician-taken smears (CTS) for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) in a colposcopic referral population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional single-centre study.

SETTING

A colposcopy clinic in Spain.

POPULATION

A cohort of 113 women referred for colposcopy after an abnormal Pap smear.

METHODS

Women undergoing colposcopy with biopsy for abnormal Pap smears were sent a device (Colli-Pee™, Novosanis, Wijnegem, Belgium) to collect U1 on the morning of colposcopy. U2, CTS, and SS (Evalyn brush™, Rovers Medical Devices B.V., Oss, the Netherlands) were also analysed. All samples were tested for HPV DNA using the analytically sensitive SPF10-DEIA-LiPA25 assay and the clinically validated GP5+/6+-EIA-LMNX.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Histologically confirmed CIN2+ and hrHPV positivity for 14 high-risk HPV types.

RESULTS

Samples from 91 patients were analysed. All CIN3 cases (n = 6) tested positive for hrHPV in CTS, SS, U1, and U2 with both HPV assays. Sensitivity for CIN2+ with the SPF10 system was 100, 100, 95, and 100%, respectively. With the GP5+/6+ assay, sensitivity was 95% in all sample types. The sensitivities and specificities for both tests on each of the sample types did not significantly differ. There was 10-14% discordance on hrHPV genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

CIN2+ detection using HPV testing of U1 shows a sensitivity similar to that of CTS or brush-based SS, and is convenient. There was substantial to almost excellent agreement between all samples on genotype with both hrHPV assays. There was no advantage in testing U1 compared with U2 samples.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Similar CIN2+ sensitivity for HPV testing in first-void urine, physician-taken smear and brush-based self-sample.

Effect of Educational Intervention on Self-Sampling Acceptability and Follow-Up Paps in Border Dwelling Hispanic Females

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to evaluate the effect of a community outreach worker (promotora)-led high-intensity educational intervention compared with control without promotora-led intervention on cervical cancer screening preference (Pap smear vs self-sampling) and to determine the effect of this preference on subsequent screening completion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial compared the effect of educational intervention on women's preferences for self-sampling for human papillomavirus. Inclusion criteria were women aged 30 to 65 years and no cervical cancer screening in 3 years or more. Community-based study with intervention group receiving culturally tailored education by promotora vs control group who received written education pamphlet. We evaluated participants' test preference, knowledge, and Pap completion at 12-months postintervention.

RESULTS

Two hundred one predominantly Hispanic women were randomly assigned to high-intensity (n = 100) education vs low-intensity education (n = 101). The mean age was 46.4 years (SD = 8.2 years). There was no difference in test preference between high- and low-intensity groups (49% vs 41%, both tests equally; 28.6% vs 35.1%, self-sampling; and 22% vs 23%, Pap, p = .536). High-intensity intervention resulted in a significantly higher self-sampling acceptability score (25.02 vs 24.06, p = .039).Testing preference did not significantly affect Pap completion (Pap vs self-sampling vs unsure/both equally, 60.0% vs 43.6% vs 48.9%, p = 0.24). Human papillomavirus knowledge was found to be significantly associated with completion of Pap at 12 months. Human papillomavirus-positive result on self-sampling trended toward increased likelihood of screening completion (16.3% vs 7.8%, p = .058).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a high level of acceptability of self-sampling regardless of intensity of education in a largely Hispanic female population living on the US-Mexico border and a trend toward increased Pap smear follow-up in participants who tested positive.

Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To 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.

DESIGN

Updated meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (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 METHODS

Accuracy 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.

RESULTS

56 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%).

CONCLUSIONS

When 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.

Self-sampling with HPV mRNA analyses from vagina and urine compared with cervical samples

BACKGROUND

In order to increase coverage in the organized cervical screening program, self-sampling with HPV analyses has been suggested.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to compare human papillomavirus (HPV) mRNA detection in vaginal and urine self-collected samples with clinician-taken cervical samples and the corresponding clinician-taken histological specimens.

STUDY DESIGN

Self-collected vaginal, urine and clinician-taken cervical samples were analyzed from 209 women with the Aptima mRNA assay (Hologic Inc, MA, USA). Cervical cytology, colposcopy, biopsy and/or the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) were performed in every examination.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of the HPV mRNA test in detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL)/adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)/cancer cases was as follows: for the vaginal self-samples 85.5% (95% CI; 75.0-92.8), the urinary samples 44.8% (95% CI; 32.6-57.4), and for routine cytology 81.7% (95% CI; 70.7-89.9). For the clinician-taken cervical HPV samples the sensitivity of the HPV mRNA test in detecting HSIL/AIS/cancer was 100.0% (95% CI; 94.9-100.0). The specificity of the HPV mRNA was similar for the clinician-taken cervical HPV samples and the self-samples: 49.0% vs. 48.1%. The urinary HPV samples had a specificity of 61.9% and cytology had a specificity of 93.3%.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity of the Aptima HPV mRNA test in detecting HSIL/AIS/cancer from vaginal self-samples was similar to that of routine cytology. The Aptima HPV mRNA vaginal self-sampling analysis may serve as a complement in screening programs.

Safety and acceptability of human papillomavirus testing of self-collected specimens: A methodologic study of the impact of collection devices and HPV assays on sensitivity for cervical cancer and high-grade lesions

BACKGROUND

Comparative data on different self-collection methods is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of hrHPV testing of two self-collection devices for detection of cervical carcinoma and high-grade lesions.

STUDY DESIGN

Three hundred ten patients collected two cervicovaginal specimens using a brush (Evalyn^®Brush) and a swab (FLOQSwabs™), and filled a questionnaire at home. Then, a physician at the clinic took a cervical specimen into PreservCyt^® buffer for hrHPV testing and cytology. All specimens were tested using Anyplex™ II HPV28, Cobas^® 4800 HPV Test and Xpert^®HPV.

RESULTS

Performance comparison included 45 cervical carcinomas and 187 patients with premalignant lesions. Compared to the physician-specimen, hrHPV testing of Evalyn^®Brush showed non-inferior sensitivity for CIN3+ (relative sensitivity of Anyplex™ 0.99; Cobas^® 0.96; Xpert^®HPV 0.97) while hrHPV testing of FLOQSwabs™ showed inferior sensitivity (relative sensitivity of Anyplex™ 0.91; Cobas^® 0.92; Xpert^®HPV 0.93). Similar results were observed for invasive carcinomas albeit that FLOQSwabs™ was statistically non-inferior to the physician-specimen. Self-collection by either Evalyn^®Brush or FLOQSwabs™ was more sensitive for CIN3+ than LSIL or worse cytology. Significant decrease in sensitivity for CIN3+ were observed for FLOQSwabs™ when specimens were preprocessed for hrHPV testing after 28 days. Both devices were well accepted, but patients considered Evalyn^®Brush easier and more comfortable than FLOQSwabs™.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-collection is comparable to current screening practice for detecting cervical carcinoma and CIN3+ but device and specimen processing effects exist. Only validated procedure including collection device, hrHPV assay and specimen preparation should be used.

Candidate biomarkers in the cervical vaginal fluid for the (self-)diagnosis of cervical precancer

Purpose

Despite improvement in vaccines against human papilloma virus (HPV), the causative agent of cervical cancer, screening women for cervical precancer will remain indispensable in the coming 30–40 years. A simple test that could be performed at home or at a doctor’s practice and that informs the woman whether she is at risk would significantly help make a broader group of patients who aware that they need medical treatment. Cervical vaginal fluid (CVF) is a body fluid that is very well suited for such a test.

Methods

Narrative review of cervical (pre)cancer candidate biomarkers from cervicovaginal fluid, is based on a detailed review of the literature. We will also discuss the possibilities that these biomarkers create for the development of a self-test or point-of-care test for cervical (pre)cancer.

Results

Several DNA, DNA methylation, miRNA, and protein biomarkers were identified in the cervical vaginal fluid; however, not all of these biomarkers are suited for development of a simple diagnostic assay.

Conclusions

Proteins, especially alpha-actinin-4, are most suited for development of a simple assay for cervical (pre)cancer. Accuracy of the test could further be improved by combination of several proteins or by combination with a new type of biomarker, e.g., originating from the cervicovaginal microbiome or metabolome.

Clinical significance of human papillomavirus genotyping

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide, and the human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main causative agent for its development. HPV is a heterogeneous virus, and a persistent infection with a high-risk HPV contributes to the development of cancer. In recent decades, great advances have been made in understanding the molecular biology of HPV, and HPV’s significance in cervical cancer prevention and management has received increased attention. In this review, we discuss the role of HPV genotyping in cervical cancer by addressing: clinically important issues in HPV virology; the current application of HPV genotyping in clinical medicine; and potential future uses for HPV genotyping.

Comparative Assessment of a Self-sampling Device and Gynecologist Sampling for Cytology and HPV DNA Detection in a Rural and Low Resource Setting: Malaysian Experience

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to assess the agreement and differences between cervical self-sampling with a Kato device (KSSD) and gynecologist sampling for Pap cytology and human papillomavirus DNA (HPV DNA) detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women underwent self-sampling followed by gynecologist sampling during screening at two primary health clinics. Pap cytology of cervical specimens was evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. Cervical specimens were also extracted and tested for HPV DNA detection. Positive HPV smears underwent gene sequencing and HPV genotyping by referring to the online NCBI gene bank. Results were compared between samplings by Kappa agreement and McNemar test.

RESULTS

For Pap specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling but had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. Both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favouring CIN2 for cytology result. HPV DNA detection showed 86.2%agreement (K=0.64, 95% CI 0.524-0.756, p=0.001) between samplings. KSSD and gynaecologist sampling identified high risk HPV in 17.3% and 23.9% respectively (p= 0.014).

CONCLUSION

The self-sampling using Kato device can serve as a tool in Pap cytology and HPV DNA detection in low resource settings in Malaysia. Self-sampling devices such as KSSD can be used as an alternative technique to gynaecologist sampling for cervical cancer screening among rural populations in Malaysia.

Women's Attitudes Toward Cervicovaginal Self-Sampling for High-Risk HPV Infection on the US-Mexico Border

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the acceptability and intention to use cervicovaginal self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus infection after receiving an educational intervention among the predominantly Hispanic population residing along the US-Mexico border.

METHODS

Women received an educational intervention about cervical cancer prevention through screening with conventional cytology and with self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus. After the educational intervention, women performed the self-sampling test. Women's attitudes toward the self-sampling test and cervical cytology were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 110 women aged 30 to 65 years completed the study. The mean (SD) age of the population was 48 (9.3) years. Most (87%) self-identified as being Hispanic and half were born in Mexico; 16% had not had cervical cytology done in 3 years. Self-sampling was more acceptable than cervical cytology; mean (SD) acceptability scores were 25.0 (2.9) and 22.7 (3.0), respectively, with the maximum possible score being 28 (p < .001). A large proportion (42.7%) of women preferred both tests equally. We found high intention to use and recommend self-sampling. Contrary to previous studies, there were no differences between cervical cytology and self-sampling regarding women's concerns about performing the test well and the accuracy of the test, which we attribute to the educational intervention.

CONCLUSION

The high acceptability of self-sampling after participants received education about the test and the reported intention to use it if made available add to the evidence on the feasibility of integrating self-testing within cervical cancer screening guidelines.

HPV self-sampling in Japanese women: A feasibility study in a population with limited experience of tampon use

OBJECTIVES

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality is increasing in Japanese women under age 50. Screening uptake is low and proactive recommendations for human papillomavirus vaccination have been suspended. Other cervical cancer prevention initiatives are urgently needed. We assessed whether human papillomavirus self-sampling might be an acceptable alternative to physician-led screening, particularly in women with limited experience of tampon use. We also sought to identify any practical, logistical, or safety issues in women already attending for screening, before carrying out further large-scale studies in non-responders.

METHODS

In total, 203 women aged 20-49 attending their annual workplace healthcheck in Sapporo, northern Japan, performed unsupervised human papillomavirus self-sampling before undergoing a physician-led cervical smear and human papillomavirus test, and completing a measure of acceptability for both tests.

RESULTS

Ninety per cent of participants stated they would use self-sampling again. They found instructions easy to follow and reported no issues with the usability of the self-sampling device. Compared with physician-led testing, women found self-sampling significantly less painful, less embarrassing and could relax more (p < 0.001), regardless of history of tampon use, which was associated with negative experiences in physician sampling (p = 0.034). Women lacked confidence the test had been performed correctly, despite no unsatisfactory samples. No safety issues were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling was highly acceptable in this population of women. They could perform the test safely unsupervised, but lacked confidence the test has been carried out correctly. Japanese women need to be educated about the accuracy of human papillomavirus self-sampling and further large-scale studies are necessary in non-responders.

Feasibility of at-home self-sampling for HPV testing as an appropriate screening strategy for nonparticipants in Switzerland: preliminary results of the DEPIST study

OBJECTIVE

Nonattendees to cervical cancer screening are at a higher risk of developing cervical cancer. This study assessed women's willingness to perform a home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing (Self-HPV) and explored the feasibility of establishing a home-based Self-HPV screening strategy in Switzerland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Underscreened women (n = 158) who had not underwent a Pap test in the preceding 3 years were recruited between September 2011 and September 2013. Participants completed 2 questionnaires evaluating reasons for non-attendance at a screening program, sociodemographic issues, and satisfaction with and acceptability of the Self-HPV. Descriptive data and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify variables associated with women's willingness to perform at-home self-sampling for HPV testing.

RESULTS

Lack of time because of work or childcare was the most common reason for nonattendance at a screening program. One hundred six women (82%) preferred the Self-HPV because it is easy to perform, convenient, comfortable, and private. Women were more likely to accept the Self-HPV as a future screening strategy if they had missed cervical cancer screening in the past because of lack of time (odds ratio [OR] = 6.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.6-23.6; p < .01). Twenty-six women felt pain during self-sampling. Previous negative experiences with screening and stress during sampling were associated with higher risk for pain (OR = 7.14, 95% CI = 2.0-25.3, p < .01 and OR = 4.73, 95% CI = 1.5-14.5, p < .01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The Self-HPV was accepted by nonattendees of cervical cancer screening programs. Self-sampling may promote screening among the unscreened and underscreened population of women in Switzerland while overcoming some practical barriers.

Self-collection tools for routine cervical cancer screening: a review

Sub-optimal participation is a major problem with cervical cancer screening in developing countries which have no organized national screening program. There are various notable factors such as 'embarrassment', 'discomfort' and 'no time' cited by women as they are often also the bread winners for the family. Implementation of self-sampling methods may increase their participation. The aim of this article was to provide a survey of various types of self-sampling tools which are commonly used in collection of cervical cells. We reviewed currently available self-sampling devices and collated the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of its acceptance and its accuracy in giving desired results. In general, regardless of which device is used, self-sampling for cervical scrapings is highly acceptable to women in most of the studies cited.

Acceptability of self-sampling HPV testing among Thai women for cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Acceptability of self-sampling HPV testing is confirmed worldwide. However, some cultural differences may affect this question. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability of self- sampling HPV testing in Thai women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred women aged 30-65 years with an intact cervix were included in this study. The participants were asked to do the Pap test by physicians and then brush type self-sampling instruments were assigned for self-collection and finally completed a questionnaire for acceptability evaluation. The questionnaire contains 2 parts. Part one covered general information of the participants and part two is the acceptability questions.

RESULTS

Mean age was 40.6 years. The incidence of high risk HPV detection in this study was 16%. The most common reason for doing Pap smear was for annual checkup. On the topic of ease of use, 85 % of the subjects agreed. Most of the participants (82%) reported that they felt less pain. However, reliability of the result was not satisfactory because 37% of the participants hesitated to rely on the results of the test. According to the price, if the price is less than 1,000 Baht (32.59 Baht = 1USD), 82% of the subjects would use it for their next screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The acceptability of self-sampling device in this study is quite good but the reliability of the test was questioned by some of the participants. Moreover, the price of the test in Thailand may also influence the acceptability of the test.

Assessment of the reliability of a novel self-sampling device for performing cervical sampling in Malaysia

BACKGROUND

The participation of women in cervical cancer screening in Malaysia is low. Self-sampling might be able to overcome this problem.The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of self-sampling for cervical smear in our country.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 258 community dwelling women from urban and rural settings who participated in health campaigns. In order to reduce the sampling bias, half of the study population performed the self-sampling prior to the physician sampling while the other half performed the self-sampling after the physician sampling, randomly. Acquired samples were assessed for cytological changes as well as HPV DNA detection.

RESULTS

The mean age of the subjects was 40.4±11.3 years. The prevalence of abnormal cervical changes was 2.7%. High risk and low risk HPV genotypes were found in 4.0% and 2.7% of the subjects, respectively. A substantial agreement was observed between self-sampling and the physician obtained sampling in cytological diagnosis (k=0.62, 95%CI=0.50, 0.74), micro-organism detection (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.66, 0.88) and detection of hormonal status (k=0.75, 95%CI=0.65, 0.85) as well as detection of high risk (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.4, 0.98) and low risk (K=0.77, 95%CI=0.50, 0.92) HPV. Menopausal state was found to be related with 8.39 times more adequate cell specimens for cytology but 0.13 times less adequate cell specimens for virological assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that self-sampling has a good agreement with physician sampling in detecting HPV genotypes. Self-sampling can serve as a tool in HPV screening while it may be useful in detecting cytological abnormalities in Malaysia.

Acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus specimens in cervical cancer screening: A review

Cervical cancer morbidity and mortality is an important public health problem around the world. Some of the barriers to cervical cancer screening include the embarrassment, discomfort, lack of privacy and time and cost associated with clinician-collected, clinic-based screening with cytology or human papillomavirus tests. Self-collection of a human papillomavirus (HPV) test has been found to be generally more acceptable, less embarrassing, more comfortable, more private and easy to do and preferred to pelvic examination for cervical cytology by many women worldwide. The most commonly reported limitation to self-collection is a woman’s lack of confidence in her ability to perform it correctly. Self-collected human papillomavirus tests have been shown to be as or more sensitive than cytology or clinician-collected HPV tests. With confidence-building education about self-collection, it is likely a viable method to extend the reach of screening in high and low-resource areas around the world.

Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage-based one for testing for hrHPV (high-risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non-responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33-63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n = 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush-based or a lavage-based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self-sampling responders testing hrHPV-positive were invited for a physician-taken sample for cytology; triage-positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush-based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage-based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8-4.2). The hrHPV-positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87-1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83-1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92-1.70 for CIN3+. The two self-sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush-based device to non-responders is noninferior to offering a lavage-based device in terms of participation. The two self-sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted.

Targeting human papillomavirus to reduce the burden of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancer and pre-invasive neoplasia: establishing the baseline for surveillance

BACKGROUND

Infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is causally related to cervical, vulvar and vaginal pre-invasive neoplasias and cancers. Highly effective vaccines against HPV types 16/18 have been available since 2006, and are currently used in many countries in combination with cervical cancer screening to control the burden of cervical cancer. We estimated the overall and age-specific incidence rate (IR) of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancer and pre-invasive neoplasia in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in 2004-2006, prior to the availability of HPV vaccines, in order to establish a baseline for surveillance. We also estimated the population attributable fraction to determine roughly the expected effect of HPV16/18 vaccination on the incidence of these diseases.

METHODS

Information on incident cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers and high-grade pre-invasive neoplasias was obtained from high-quality national population-based registries. A literature review was conducted to define the fraction of these lesions attributable to HPV16/18, i.e., those that could be prevented by HPV vaccination.

RESULTS

Among the four countries, the age-standardised IR/10⁵ of cervical, vaginal and vulvar cancer ranged from 8.4-13.8, 1.3-3.1 and 0.2-0.6, respectively. The risk for cervical cancer was highest in women aged 30-39, while vulvar and vaginal cancers were most common in women aged 70+. Age-standardised IR/10⁵ of cervical, vulvar and vaginal pre-invasive neoplasia ranged between 138.8-183.2, 2.5-8.8 and 0.5-1.3, respectively. Women aged 20-29 had the highest risk for cervical pre-invasive neoplasia, while vulvar and vaginal pre-invasive neoplasia peaked in women aged 40-49 and 60-69, respectively. Over 50% of the observed 47,820 incident invasive and pre-invasive cancer cases in 2004-2006 can be attributed to HPV16/18.

CONCLUSION

In the four countries, vaccination against HPV 16/18 could prevent approximately 8500 cases of gynecological cancer and pre-cancer annually. Population-based cancer and vaccination registries are essential to assess the predicted public health effects of HPV vaccination.

Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians.

METHODS

We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models.

FINDINGS

We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69-82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72-92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83-89) and 87% (84-90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85-0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83-0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95-0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93-0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples.

INTERPRETATION

In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs.

FUNDING

The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology.

Clinical validation of the HPV-risk assay, a novel real-time PCR assay for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA by targeting the E7 region

The HPV-Risk assay is a novel real-time PCR assay targeting the E7 region of 15 high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types (i.e., HPV16, -18, -31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -59, -66, -67, and -68), and provides additional genotype information for HPV16 and HPV18. This study evaluated the clinical performance and reproducibility of the HPV-Risk assay with cervical scraping specimens and its utility with self-collected (cervico)vaginal specimens. The clinical performance of the HPV-Risk assay for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) with cervical scraping specimens was evaluated by a noninferiority analysis, relative to high-risk HPV GP5+/6+ PCR, following international guidelines for HPV test requirements for cervical cancer screening. The HPV-Risk assay showed clinical sensitivity for CIN2+ of 97.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.1 to 99.3%; 67/69 samples) and a clinical specificity for CIN2+ of 94.3% (95% CI, 92.5 to 95.7%; 777/824 samples). The clinical sensitivity and specificity were noninferior to those of GP5+/6+ PCR (noninferiority score test, P=0.006 and 0.0003, respectively). Intralaboratory reproducibility over time (99.5% [95% CI, 98.6 to 99.8%]; 544/547 samples, kappa=0.99) and interlaboratory agreement (99.2% [95% CI, 98.6 to 99.8%]; 527/531 samples, kappa=0.98) for the HPV-Risk assay with cervical scraping specimens were high. The agreement of the HPV-Risk assay results for self-collected (cervico)vaginal specimens and clinician-obtained cervical scraping specimens was also high, i.e., 95.9% (95% CI, 85.1 to 99.0%; 47/49 samples, kappa=0.90) for self-collected lavage samples and 91.6% (95% CI, 84.6 to 95.6%; 98/107 samples, kappa=0.82) for self-collected brush samples. In conclusion, the HPV-Risk assay meets the cross-sectional clinical and reproducibility criteria of the international guidelines for HPV test requirements and can be considered clinically validated for cervical screening purposes. The compatibility of the HPV-Risk assay with self-collected specimens supports its utility for HPV self-sampling.

A second generation cervico-vaginal lavage device shows similar performance as its preceding version with respect to DNA yield and HPV DNA results

Background

Attendance rates of cervical screening programs can be increased by offering HPV self-sampling to non-attendees. Acceptability, DNA yield, lavage volumes and choice of hrHPV test can influence effectiveness of the self-sampling procedures and could therefore play a role in recruiting non-attendees. To increase user-friendliness, a frequently used lavage sampler was modified. In this study, we compared this second generation lavage device with the first generation device within similar birth cohorts.

Methods

Within a large self-sampling cohort-study among non-responders of the Dutch cervical screening program, a subset of 2,644 women received a second generation self-sampling lavage device, while 11,977 women, matched for age and ZIP-code, received the first generation model. The second generation device was different in shape, color, lavage volume, and packaging, in comparison to its first generation model. The Cochran’s test was used to compare both devices for hrHPV positivity rate and response rate. To correct for possible heterogeneity between age and ZIP codes in both groups the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity was used. A T-test was utilized to compare DNA yields of the obtained material in both groups.

Results

Median DNA yields were 90.4 μg/ml (95% CI 83.2-97.5) and 91.1 μg/ml (95% CI 77.8-104.4, p= 0.726) and hrHPV positivity rates were 8.2% and 6.9% (p= 0.419) per sample self-collected by the second - and the first generation of the device (p= 0.726), respectively. In addition, response rates were comparable for the two models (35.4% versus 34.4%, p= 0.654).

Conclusions

Replacing the first generation self-sampling device by an ergonomically improved, second generation device resulted in equal DNA yields, comparable hrHPV positivity rates and similar response rates. Therefore, it can be concluded that the clinical performance of the first and second generation models are similar. Moreover, participation of non-attendees in cervical cancer screening is probably not predominantly determined by the type of self-collection device.

HPV-based Tests for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Cervical Disease

Current cervical cancer screening programs are changing due to the development of tests that detect the presence of human papillomavirus (HPV), the cause of cervical cancer. These tests are more sensitive than cytology-based methods for detecting cervical precancer and a negative test offers long-term assurance that cervical cancer will not develop and therefore longer screening intervals can be achieved. In screening programs, HPV-based tests have been approved to triage women with equivocal cytology results and as a primary testing method in conjunction with cytology. HPV-based tests also have a role in determining risk of recurrence after treatment for cervical precancer as well as in surveillance for vaccine-related changes in HPV genotype prevalence.

Self-sampling is appropriate for detection of Staphylococcus aureus: a validation study

Background

Studies frequently use nasal swabs to determine Staphylococcus aureus carriage. Self-sampling would be extremely useful in an outhospital research situation, but has not been studied in a healthy population. We studied the similarity of self-samples and investigator-samples in nares and pharynxes of healthy study subjects (hospital staff) in the Netherlands.

Methods

One hundred and five nursing personnel members were sampled 4 times in random order after viewing an instruction paper: 1) nasal self-sample, 2) pharyngeal self-sample, 3) nasal investigator-sample, and 4) pharyngeal investigator-sample.

Results

For nasal samples, agreement is 93% with a kappa coefficient of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.96), indicating excellent agreement, for pharyngeal samples agreement is 83% and the kappa coefficient is 0.60 (95% CI 0.43-0.76), indicating good agreement. In both sampling sites self-samples even detected more S. aureus than investigator-samples.

Conclusions

This means that self-samples are appropriate for detection of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling, i.e., offering self-sampling of (cervico-)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician-taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self-sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self-samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician-obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self- and clinician-sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non-attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self-sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re-attracting original non-attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self-testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self-sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology-based call-recall programs.

Should human papillomavirus DNA testing be offered in combination with cytology or as a sole primary screening test in cervical cancer prevention?

Evaluation of: Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, van Kemenade FJ et al. HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications. Br. J. Cancer 106(5), 975–981 (2012). Previous studies have shown that the combination of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology increases sensitivity for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3, a surrogate end point for the reduction of cervical cancer. This paper addressed three questions regarding the implementation of high-risk HPV testing within a cervical screening program. The main question addressed was whether high-risk HPV testing should be provided as a standalone primary screen or in combination with cytology. Management of HPV-positive women and the optimum age for HPV testing were also examined. Results identified limited benefit from co-testing compared with HPV testing alone and emphasized the importance of repeat testing for HPV-positive women with negative cytology triage at baseline, in all women from 30 years of age onwards.