Evaluation of ILEX SelfCerv for Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection in Gynecology Clinic Attendees at a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa

Self-sampling for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening: A scoping review

Cervical cancer is the third most common gynecological cancer worldwide. Its origin is linked to intraepithelial lesions caused by high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) types, detected in 99.7% of cases. Early screening is essential to prevent cancer development from these lesions. Molecular methods are more specific and offer the possibility of being performed through a self-collected sample by the patient, thus contributing to increasing screening coverage for this pathology. This study aim was to map the medical-scientific literature on existing protocols for self-sampling for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening. A search strategy was developed using the following keywords and their synonyms: "self-sampling," "professional sampling," and "HPV", on the databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library - BVS, Scopus, National Institute for Health Research NHS EED, Web of Science, and EMBASE. The search strategy was formulated to identify relevant studies and describe their main characteristics, such as patient acceptance of self-sampling, cost differences between the tests used, and the accuracy of self-sampling compared to the gold standard test. A total of 876 studies were found, and 33 of those studies were included in this review. Out of these, 10 studies were domized clinical trials involving 46,751 patients, and 23 observational studies included 142,795 patients. Regarding acceptance, most studies reported a preference for self-sampling. Sensitivity analyses from various studies also showed that the low cost of self-sampling kits generally increased cost-effectiveness. The study concluded that using HPV testing on self-collected samples is a viable strategy for monitoring women with HPV.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of self-sampling devices for human Papillomavirus detection: A systematic review

Objective

Cervical cancer screening coverage remains low in many countries worldwide. Self-sampling approach for cervical cancer screening has a good potential to improve the screening coverage. This study aims to compare different types of HPV self-sampling devices for cervical cancer screening to identify the most accurate and acceptable device(s).

Methods

A systematic review was performed on data extracted from all studies specific to HPV self-sampling devices by searching relevant articles in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO published from 2013 to October 2023. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022375682).

Results

Overall, 70 papers met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review and were included in the analysis: 22 studies reported self-sampling devices diagnostic accuracy, 32 studies reported self-sampling devices acceptability and 16 studies reported both (accuracy and acceptability). The most popular self-sampling devices were Evalyn Brush, FLOQ Swab, Cervex-Brush, and Delphi Screener. Out of overall 38 studies analyzing self-sampling devices' diagnostic accuracy, 94.7% of studies reported that self-collected specimens provided sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples; acceptability of Evalyn Brush, FLOQ Swab, Delphi Screener, and Colli-Pee, varied between 84.2% and 100%.

Conclusion

The self-sampling approach has a good potential to increase cervical cancer screening coverage. Evalyn Brush, Cervex-Brush, FLOQ Swab, and Delphi Screener self-sampling devices for HPV detection were the most commonly utilized and found to be the most accurate, and patient-acceptable. HPV detection accuracy using these self-sampling devices had no significant difference compared to the sampling performed by healthcare providers.

Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials

Objectives

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling proposal on cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake when compared with an invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. Secondary outcomes were acceptability and preference of self-sampling compared to clinician-collected samples.

Methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies examining the CCS uptake comparing self-sampling over invitation to be sampled by an healthcare professional and examining the proportion of women accepting or preferring self-sampling vs. clinician-collected sampling were included. The CCS uptake was also explored according to strategy of self-samplers' distribution, collection device type and screening status. Peters' test and Funnel Plot inspection were used to assess the publication bias. Quality of the studies was assessed through Cochrane Risk of Bias and NIH Quality Assessment tools.

Results

One hundred fifty-four studies were globally identified, and 482,271 women were involved. Self-sampling procedures nearly doubled the probability (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.7-2.0) of CCS uptake when compared with clinician-collected samples. The opt-out (RR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.9-2.4) and the door-to-door (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.6-2.0) did not statistically significant differ (p = 1.177) in improving the CCS uptake. A higher relative uptake was shown for brushes (RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5-1.7) and swabs (RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9-3.1) over clinician-collected samples. A high between-studies variability in characteristics of sampled women was shown. In all meta-analyses the level of heterogeneity was consistently high (I 2 > 95%). Publication bias was unlikely.

Conclusions

Self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of under-screened women in the CCS, in addition to the standard invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. For small communities door-to-door distribution could be preferred to distribute the self-sampler while; for large communities opt-out strategies should be preferred over opt-in. Since no significant difference in acceptability and preference of device type was demonstrated among women, and swabs and brushes exhibited a potential stronger effect in improving CCS, these devices could be adopted.

Accuracy of HPV testing on self-collected and clinician-collected samples for different screening strategies in African settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Cervical cancer still poses a considerable threat to women in low- and middle-income countries, particularly on the African continent. Self-collection of a vaginal sample promises advantages over the established sampling by clinicians. We aimed to assess the accuracy of self-sampling compared to clinician sampling in order to inform its application in primary care in the African context.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Livivo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and African Index Medicus on the 07th of February 2022. The eligibility criteria were: reporting (i) self-sampling against clinician-sampling, (ii) study location in Africa, (iii) relevant outcome-measures: (a) Cohen's kappa (b) sensitivity and specificity of self-sampling tests. We combined Cohen's kappa effects, additionally sensitivity and specificity estimates using random-effects models. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020218081).

RESULTS

We included 28 studies in the systematic review and 21 studies in the meta-analysis. Self-sampling was used to test for high-risk HPV infections. Two studies additionally tested for low-risk HPV infections. The pooled Cohen's kappa was 0.66 (95%CI: 0.61-0.71). Populations at risk yielded 0.63 (95%CI: 0.56-0.71). Target amplification tests based on PCR performed best with a kappa of 0.68 (95%CI: 0.63-0.73) compared to isothermal mRNA tests, 0.61 (95%CI: 0.51-0.71). Point of care tests performed exceptionally well, 0.73 (95%CI: 0.67-0.80). Sensitivities are close to 80% and specificities close to 90% of self-sampling to detect high-risk HPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling agrees moderately to substantially with clinician sampling in the African context. Point of care tests might be particularly suited for application in cervical cancer primary screening in low- and middle-income countries. Populations at risk should get special attention while using self-sampling. Screening protocols should be established.

Knowledge of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer among Women Attending Gynecology Clinics in Pretoria, South Africa

Background: Cervical cancer is mainly caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Worldwide, knowledge of HPV and cervical cancer among women is reported to be inadequate. The study aimed to assess the knowledge and awareness of HPV and cervical cancer among women attending gynecology clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa. The study also intended to identify socio-demographic factors influencing women’s knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer risk factors. Methods: This was a clinic-based analytic cross-sectional study conducted among women aged 18 years and older. Participants were enrolled in the clinic waiting rooms while waiting to be attended to by the clinician. A self-administered questionnaire to assess knowledge of HPV, cervical cancer, and risk factors for developing cervical cancer was distributed to the participants. Results: A total of 527 women aged ≥18 years and older were randomly enrolled with a 99.8% response rate. Less than half (47.1%) of the participants had been previously screened for cervical cancer using a Papanicolaou (Pap) test. Few (18.8%) women correctly mentioned cervical cancer risk factors. Unemployed women were less likely to have correct knowledge of cervical cancer causes/risk factors (OR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.40–0.97) compared to employed women. Divorced/separated/widowed women were more likely to have good HPV knowledge compared to single participants (OR: 2.74; 95% CI 1.46–5.15). Conclusion: From this study, it is evident that cervical cancer screening is very low, and women lack knowledge of HPV and cervical cancer disease symptoms and its risk factors. There is a need for policies to prioritize providing accurate information to the public to reduce cervical cancer morbidity and mortality.