Vaginal self-sampling without preservative for human papillomavirus testing shows good sensitivity

Equal prevalence of severe cervical dysplasia by HPV self-sampling and by midwife-collected samples for primary HPV screening: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

HPV self-sampling is an option for cervical screening. The aim of this randomised study was to investigate the compliance, prevalence of HPV, and prevalence of severe dysplasia in a vaginal self-sampling group in comparison to cervical samples collected by midwives (control arm). The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between vaginal self-sampling and cervical sampling to find high-grade cervical dysplasia or cancer.

METHODS

Vaginal HPV self-sampling kits were sent by regular mail to 14 765 randomly selected women aged 30-64 years old in the screening programme. HPV-positive women were invited for a follow-up examination by their midwife in which they provided a cervical sample for cytological and HPV co-testing. The control arm consisted of 14 839 women who met the same inclusion criteria and were invited to have cervical sampling by midwives for primary HPV screening. All HPV samples were analysed by the Aptima HPV assay (Hologic Inc.).

MAIN RESULTS

The participation rate was 33.5% in the self-sampling arm and 47.5% in the cervical sampling arm, (P < 0.0001). HPV was detected in 17.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 16.1-18.23%) in the self-sampling arm and 4.5% (95% CI, 4.0-5.0%) in the cervical sampling arm. Histological, severe dysplasia was observed among 0.48% (95% CI, 0.3-0.72%) and 0.47% (95% CI, 0.3-0.66%) of the self-sampling and the cervical sampling groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The self-sampling approach detects a similar proportion of severe dysplasia as regular screening. Thus, our study indicates that self-sampling could replace primary HPV screening of cervical samples.

High-risk Human Papillomavirus Messenger RNA Testing in Wet and Dry Self-collected Specimens for High-grade Cervical Lesion Detection in Mombasa, Kenya

BACKGROUND

Self-collection for high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) messenger RNA (mRNA) testing may improve cervical cancer screening. High-risk HPV mRNA with self-collected specimens stored dry could enhance feasibility and acceptance of specimen collection and storage; however, its performance is unknown. We compared the performance of hr-HPV mRNA testing with dry- as compared with wet-stored self-collected specimens for detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or more severe (≥HSIL).

METHODS

A total of 400 female sex workers in Kenya participated (2013-2018), of which 50% were HIV positive based on enrollment procedures. Participants provided 2 self-collected specimens: one stored dry (sc-DRY) using a Viba brush (Rovers) and one stored wet (sc-WET) with Aptima media (Hologic) using an Evalyn brush (Rovers). Physician-collected specimens were collected for HPV mRNA testing (Aptima) and conventional cytology. We estimated test characteristics for each hr-HPV screening method using conventional cytology as the reference standard (≥HSIL detection). We also examined participant preference for sc-DRY and sc-WET collection.

RESULTS

High-risk HPV mRNA positivity was higher in sc-WET (36.8%) than sc-DRY samples (31.8%). Prevalence of ≥HSIL was 6.9% (10.3% HIV positive, 4.0% HIV negative). Sensitivity of hr-HPV mRNA for detecting ≥HSIL was similar in sc-WET (85%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 66%-96%), sc-DRY specimens (78%; 95% CI, 58%-91%), and physician-collected specimens (93%; 95% CI, 76%-99%). Overall, the specificity of hr-HPV mRNA for ≥HSIL detection was similar when comparing sc-WET with physician collection. However, specificity was lower for sc-WET (66% [61%-71%]) than sc-DRY (71% [66%-76%]). Women preferred sc-DRY specimen collection (46.1%) compared with sc-WET (31.1%). However, more women preferred physician collection (63.9%) compared with self-collection (36.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-collected stored-dry specimens seemed to perform similarly to sc-WET for the detection of ≥HSIL.

Long term results of follow-up after HPV self-sampling with devices Qvintip and HerSwab in women non-attending cervical screening programme

Background

We are presenting the results of the Slovenian human papillomaviruses (HPV) self-sampling pilot study in colposcopy population of National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme ZORA for the first time. One-year and four-year follow-up results are presented for two different self-sampling devices.

Participants and methods

A total of 209 women were enrolled in the study at colposcopy clinic. Prior to the gynaecological examination, all women performed self-collected vaginal swab at the clinic; 111 using Qvintip and 98 using HerSwab self-sampling device. After self-sampling, two cervical smears were taken by a clinician; first for conventional cytology and second for HPV test. After that, all women underwent colposcopy and a cervical biopsy if needed. We compared sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of cytology (at the cut-off atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more [ASC-US+]) and HPV test (on self- and clinician-taken samples) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) after one and four years of follow-up. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay was used for all HPV testing.

Results

The mean age of 209 women was 37.6 years and HPV positivity rate 67.0% (140/209), 36.9 years and 70.3% (78/111) in the Qvintip group and 38.4 years and 63.3% (62/98) in the HerSwab group, respectively. Overall, percent agreement between self and clinician-taken samples was 81.8% (kappa 0.534) in the Qvintip and 77.1% (kappa 0.456) in the HerSwab group. In the Qvintip group, the longitudinal sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 71.8%, 75.0%, 83.6%, 60.0% for cytology; 83.1%, 51.3%, 75.6% and 62.5% for HPV test of self-taken samples and 94.4%, 57.5%, 79.8% and 85.2% for HPV test on clinician-taken samples. In the HerSwab group, the corresponding results were 71.7%, 46.7%, 61.3%, 58.3% for cytology; 75.0%, 47.7%, 62.9% and 61.8% for HPV test on self-taken samples and 94.3%, 44.4%, 66.7% and 87.0% for clinician-taken samples, respectively.

Conclusions

The results confirm that HPV self-sampling is not as accurate as clinician sampling when HC2 is used. All HPV tests showed a higher sensitivity in detecting CIN2+ compared to cytology. Due to non-inferior longitudinal sensitivity of HPV self-sampling compared to cytology, HPV self-sampling might be an option for non-attenders to the National Cancer Screening Programme.

Comparison of detection rate of high risk HPV infection between self-collected HPV testing and clinician-collected HPV testing in cervical cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

to correlate the detection rate of high risk HPV (HR-HPV) DNA between self-collected and clinician-collected testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional analytic study was conducted in 400 women undergoing cervical cancer screening program during February and May 2015. The procedure began with self-collected method and then clinician-collected method. Then, the specimens were processed and interpreted with the same technique. If the results from either methods were positive for HPV genotype 16 or 18, colposcopy was performed. We also conducted cytology testing for the participants. If the results were abnormal (ASC-US+), colposcopy was also performed.

RESULTS

The detection rate of HR-HPV DNA was 10.0% and 7.5% by self-collected and clinician-collected specimen, respectively (kappa = 0.73). HR-HPV positive rate in cytology ASC-US+ was no significantly different between groups. HR-HPV DNAs were positive in every HSIL (100% detection rate). HPV DNA test positive for detection CIN+ was not significantly different between self-collected and clinician-collected testing.

CONCLUSION

self-collected HPV testing can be used as an alternative option for primary cervical screening program. Detection rate of high grade lesion is similar to clinician-collected test.

Genital self-sampling for HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study of preferences and barriers in rural Ethiopia

Background

In the context of WHO’s “task shifting” project and growing global consensus on primary HPV-based cervical cancer screening, self-sampling is a promising new tool to expand screening access, uptake and coverage for women worldwide. We aimed to explore perceptions and acceptability of HPV self-sampling-based cervical cancer screening among community members and health professionals in rural northwest Ethiopia and to identify preferences and socio-cultural barriers regarding self-sampling in order to design a suitable high-coverage screening intervention for a rural African setting.

Methods

Four community-based focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted in the rural district of Dabat, Northwest Ethiopia, each comprising 8 to 14 female participants, counting a total of 41 participants. The groups were homogenously composed in terms of their socio-economic status in the community. They included health centre attendees, community members, nurses and health development army leaders (HDAL). Two qualitative data collection experts conducted the interviews in the local language, using a FGD guide with several thematic areas. All participants granted written informed consent prior to the conduct of the interviews. As a concrete example of an existing self-sampling approach for cervical cancer screening we used the Evalyn® Brush.

Results

Emerging themes included (i) misconceptions and low awareness about cervical cancer among community residents and primary health care providers in rural northwest Ethiopia, (ii) stigmatization and social exclusion of affected women, (iii) delay in seeking of health care due to poor access and availability of services, and lacking of a concept of early cancer prevention, (iv) need of spousal permission, (v) fear of financial burden and (vi) fear of social marginalization. The self-sampling device was regarded to be acceptable and was judged to be easy to use for most women. The existing Ethiopian health care structure could facilitate a community approach.

Conclusion

Home-based self-sampling for cervical cancer screening is a socially acceptable and feasible “task shifting” method that will increase cervical cancer screening access and coverage in the Ethiopian study community. Education, awareness creation, community mobilization and family inclusion are identified as key activities to promote, implement and facilitate “task shifting” approaches like self-sampling.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7354-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

Final analysis of a study assessing genital human papillomavirus genoprevalence in young Australian women, following eight years of a national vaccination program

OBJECTIVES

The VACCINE [Vaccine Against Cervical Cancer Impact and Effectiveness] study evaluated the prevalence of quadrivalent vaccine-targeted human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes (HPV 6, 11, 16, 18) amongst young women of vaccine-eligible age.

METHODS

Between October 2011 - June 2015, women aged 18-25 years from Victoria, Australia, were recruited through targeted advertising on the social networking website Facebook. Participants completed an online questionnaire and provided a self-collected vaginal swab for HPV DNA detection and genotyping (Linear Array HPV genotyping assay). Self-reported HPV vaccination details were verified with the National HPV Vaccination Program Register (NHVPR).

RESULTS

Of 1223 who agreed to participate, 916 (74.9%) completed the survey and, for 1007 (82.3%) sexually-active participants, 744 (73.9%) returned the self-collected swab, of which 737 contained detectable DNA. 184/737 (25.0%) were positive for HPV. Vaccine-targeted HPV genotypes were detected in only 13 (1.7%) women: 11 HPV 16 (six vaccinated after sexual debut, five unvaccinated) and two HPV 6. Prevalence of any of HPV 31/33/45 collectively was 2.9%, varying significantly by vaccination status (fully 2.0%, unvaccinated 6.8%; p = 0.01). Vaccination rates among the sexually-active cohort were high, with 65.6%, 71.6% and 74.2% of participants having received three, at least two or at least one dose of vaccine, respectively. Of women self-reporting HPV vaccination, the NHVPR confirmed one or more doses were received in 90%. Strong associations were observed between vaccination status, age, language spoken at home and country of birth, as well as between HPV detection and the number of male sexual partners.

CONCLUSION

Surveillance five to eight years' post-initiation of a national HPV vaccination program demonstrated a consistent and very low prevalence of vaccine-related HPV genotypes and some evidence of cross protection against related types amongst vaccine-eligible women from Victoria, Australia.

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus DNA detection: a preliminary study of compliance and feasibility in BOLIVIA

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates in Bolivia are among the highest in Latin America. This investigation aims to evaluate the possibility of using simple devices, e.g. a cotton swab and a glass slide, for self-sampling in order to detect human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA by PCR in cervico-vaginal cells.

METHODS

In the first phase of our study we evaluated the use of a glass slide as a transport medium for cervical cells. A physician took paired-cervical samples from 235 women. One sample was transported in Easyfix® solution and the other sample was smeared over a glass slide. Both were further analyzed and compared for human DNA recovery and HPV detection. A kappa value was determined to evaluate the agreement between the HPV DNA detection rates. In the second phase of the study, 222 women from the urban, peri-urban and rural regions of Cochabamba were requested to perform self-sampling using the following devices: a cotton swab combined with a glass slide, and a vaginal tampon. Women gave their opinion about the self-sampling technique. Finally, the agreement for high risk-HPV detection between self- and physician-collected samples was performed in 201 samples in order to evaluate the self-sampling technique.

RESULTS

Firstly, the comparison between Easyfix® solution and the glass slide to transport clinical samples gave a good agreement for HPV DNA detection (κ = 0.71, 95% CI 0.60-0.81). Secondly, self-sampling, especially with cotton swab combined with glass slide, would generally be preferred over clinician sampling for a screening program based on HPV detection. Finally, we showed a good agreement between self- and physician collected samples for high risk-HPV detection (κ = 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Simple devices such as a cotton swab and a glass slide can be used to perform self-sampling and HPV DNA detection. Furthermore, most Bolivian women preferred self-sampling over clinician-sampling for cervical cancer screening.

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.

Cervical carcinoma in the European Union: an update on disease burden, screening program state of activation, and coverage as of March 2014

OBJECTIVE

Cervical cancer (CC) is defined as a disease of disparity. This is due to marked differences in CC incidence and mortality between developed and developing countries. As a continent, Europe is no exception. This study examines the state of activation of CC screening in the European Union as of March 2014, reviews CC incidence and mortality data, and highlights the initiatives adopted to extend program coverage to nonresponders.

METHODS

The present study is based on the most recent data available from PubMed-indexed journals, the Web sites of the health ministries of each member state, and the Web sites of national cancer observatories; failing these sources, information was sought in scientific journals published in the local language.

RESULTS

In 2003, the European Council recommended that priority be given to organized screening program activation. Nonetheless, a number of European Union member states still lack population-based organized screening programs, and few have implemented programs directed at disadvantaged populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Several investigations have demonstrated that the women at higher CC risk are unscreened and underscreened ones. Since then, several member states have made significant efforts to set up effective prevention programs by adopting international quality standards and centralizing screening organization and result evaluation. Several developed countries and some new central-eastern European member states have poorly organized prevention programs that result in poor women's health. Diagnosis of CC is emotionally traumatic, but it is highly preventable. When CC is found early, it is highly treatable and associated with long survival and good quality of life.

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.

Vaginal self-sampling is a cost-effective way to increase participation in a cervical cancer screening programme: a randomised trial

Background:

Cervical cancer screening coverage remains insufficient in most countries. Our objective was to assess whether in-home vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing is effective and cost-effective in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

Methods:

In March 2012, 6000 unscreened women aged 30–65 years, living in a French region covered by a screening programme, who had not responded to an initial invitation to have a Pap smear were equally randomised to three groups: ‘no intervention' ‘recall', women received a letter to have a Pap smear; and ‘self-sampling', women received a self-sampling kit to return to a centralised virology laboratory for PCR-based HPV testing.

Results:

Participation was higher in the ‘self-sampling' than in the ‘no intervention' group (22.5% vs 9.9%, P<0.0001; OR 2.64) and ‘recall' group (11.7%, P<0.0001; OR 2.20). In the ‘self-sampling' group, 320 used the self-sampling kit; for 44 of these women with positive HR-HPV test results, 40 had the recommended triage Pap smear. The ICER per extra screened woman was 77.8€ and 63.2€ for the ‘recall' and ‘self-sampling' groups, respectively, relative to the ‘no intervention' group.

Conclusions:

Offering an in-home, return-mail kit for vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab is more effective and cost-effective than a recall letter in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

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.

A rapid DNA extraction method suitable for human papillomavirus detection

Infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes is necessary for the development of cervical cancer. Testing for HPV DNA from liquid based cervical samples can be used as an adjunct to traditional cytological screening. In addition there are ongoing viral load, genotyping, and prevalence studies. Therefore, a sensitive DNA extraction method is needed to maximize the efficiency of HPV DNA detection. The XytXtract Tissue kit is a DNA extraction kit that is rapid and so could be useful for HPV testing, particularly in screening protocols. This study was undertaken to determine the suitability of this method for HPV detection. DNA extraction from HeLa and Caski cell lines containing HPV 18 and 16 respectively together with DNA from five liquid based cervical samples were used in a HPV PCR assay. DNA was also extracted using the QIAamp DNA mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) as a comparison. DNA extracts were serially diluted and assayed. HPV DNA was successfully detected in cell lines and cervical samples using the XytXtract Tissue kit. In addition, the XytXtract method was found to be more sensitive than the QIAmp method as determined by a dilution series of the extracted DNA. While the XytXtract method is a closed, the QIAamp method uses a spin column with possible loss of DNA through DNA binding competition of the matrix, which could impact on the final extraction efficiency. The XytXtract is a cheap, rapid and efficient method for extracting HPV DNA from both cell lines and liquid based cervical samples.

Comparison of use of vaginal HPV self-sampling and offering flexible appointments as strategies to reach long-term non-attending women in organized cervical screening

BACKGROUND

Many cervical cancers occur among women who have not attended cervical screening. Strategies to reach non-attending women may improve the effectiveness of cervical screening programmes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the responses among long-term non-attending women to either (i) HPV-testing of a self-collected vaginal sample, or (ii) cytological screening with a flexible no-fee appointment for sampling at an outpatient clinic.

STUDY DESIGN

Among the 242,000 women aged 32-65 years in Southern Sweden, we identified 28,635 women who had not had any cervical smears taken for >9 years. We randomized 1000 women to invitation to HPV self-sampling, and 500 women to flexible outpatient clinic appointments. Responding women received a questionnaire about their reasons for previous non-attendance.

RESULTS

The response rate to HPV self-sampling was three times higher than the flexible outpatient clinic invitations (147/1000 women (14.7%) compared to 21/500 (4.2%) p<0.0001). High-risk (hr)-HPV was found in 10/147 self-sampled women (6.9%). 7/10 hr-HPV-positive women attended colposcopy, but no HSIL was found. Among the clinic-sampled women, 2/21 had hr-HPV and 1/21 had HSIL. Reasons for not attending were "uncomfortable with vaginal examination", "feel healthy", "lack of time" and "experience of unfriendly health workers".

CONCLUSIONS

Although the response rate was low for both interventions, the invitation to vaginal HPV self-sampling was more effective for increasing the coverage of the screening programme. The fact that "uncomfortable with vaginal examination" was the most common reason for non-attending suggests that self-sampling could be further explored as a strategy to increase the coverage of cervical screening programmes.