Literature DB >> 17205514

Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs.

Aagje G Bais1, Folkert J van Kemenade, Johannes Berkhof, René H M Verheijen, Peter J F Snijders, Feja Voorhorst, Milena Babović, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Theo J M Helmerhorst, Chris J L M Meijer.   

Abstract

Women not attending cervical screening programs are at increased risk of cervical cancer. We investigated in these nonresponders to what extent offering self-sampling devices for cervicovaginal brushes for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing would induce participation and, if so, what the yield of precursor (i.e. CIN2 or worse) lesions following self-sampling would be. In addition, we assessed screening history of participants and costs per detected high-grade CIN2 or worse ("CIN2+") lesion in comparison to the regular program in the Netherlands. Nonresponders received a device for hrHPV testing (self-sampling group, n=2,546) or an extra recall for conventional cytology (control group, n=284). The percentage of self-sampling responders were compared with responders in the recall group. hrHPV positive self-sampling responders were invited for cytology and colposcopy. CIN2+ yield and costs per detected CIN2+ were evaluated. Active response was higher in the self-sampling than in the control group (34.2 vs. 17.6%; p<0.001). hrHPV positive self-sampling responders were less likely to have a prior screening history than screening participants (p<0.001), indicating that they are regular nonresponders. hrHPV prevalence was similar (8.0 vs. 6.8%; p=0.11), but CIN2+ yield was higher in self-sampling responders compared to screening participants (1.67 vs. 0.97%; OR=2.93, 95% CI 1.48-5.80; p=0.0013). Costs per CIN2+ lesion detected via self-sampling were in the same range as those calculated for conventional cytological screening (euro 8,836 vs. euro 7,599). Offering self-sampling for hrHPV testing in nonresponders is an attractive adjunct to effectively increase population coverage of screening without the adverse effect of markedly increased costs per detected CIN2+ lesion. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17205514     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  52 in total

1.  Home Self-Collection by Mail to Test for Human Papillomavirus and Sexually Transmitted Infections.

Authors:  Andrea C Des Marais; Yuqian Zhao; Marcia M Hobbs; Vijay Sivaraman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Feasibility of collecting self-sampled vaginal swabs by mail: quantity and quality of genomic DNA.

Authors:  M F D Baay; V Verhoeven; H A J Lambrechts; G G O Pattyn; F Lardon; P Van Royen; J B Vermorken
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  The indicating FTA elute cartridge a solid sample carrier to detect high-risk HPV and high-grade cervical lesions.

Authors:  Roosmarie P de Bie; Channa E Schmeink; Judith M J E Bakkers; Peter J F Snijders; Wim G V Quint; Leon F A G Massuger; Ruud L M Bekkers; Willem J G Melchers
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 4.  Emerging role of HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening for hard-to-reach women: Focused literature review.

Authors:  Tina R Madzima; Mandana Vahabi; Aisha Lofters
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection With Papanicolaou Test Referral for Infrequently Screened Women in the United States.

Authors:  Jennifer S Smith; Andrea C Des Marais; Allison M Deal; Alice R Richman; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Belinda Yen-Lieberman; Lynn Barclay; Jerome Belinson; Allen Rinas; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.830

6.  Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Ruanne V Barnabas; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin A Tiro; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Acceptability and ease of use of mailed HPV self-collection among infrequently screened women in North Carolina.

Authors:  Chelsea Anderson; Lindsay Breithaupt; Andrea Des Marais; Charlotte Rastas; Alice Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2017-09-02       Impact factor: 3.519

8.  Improving behaviour in self-testing (IBIS): Study on frequency of use, consequences, information needs and use, and quality of currently available consumer information (protocol).

Authors:  Janaica E J Grispen; Martine H P Ickenroth; Nanne K de Vries; Geert-Jan Dinant; Gaby Ronda; Trudy van der Weijden
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Rationale and design of the HOME trial: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in a U.S. healthcare system.

Authors:  Rachel L Winer; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Thayer; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 10.  Cervical cancer prevention--cervical screening: science in evolution.

Authors:  Mahboobeh Safaeian; Diane Solomon; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.844

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.