BACKGROUND: Most of women diagnosed as having cervical cancer have not participated in organized cytological screening. Aim. A study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of human papilloma virus testing by self-collected vaginal samples in comparison to regular cytological screening. The agreement of hybrid capture 2 assay and polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of human papilloma virus DNA in self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-obtained cervical smears was investigated. METHOD: Forty-three women aged 23-58 years admitted for further examination due to previous positive cytology in the organized screening participated in self-collecting of vaginal samples with a novel self-sampling device. During the visit a clinician also collected a cervical smear using a cytobrush. The vaginal samples collected with the self-sampling device were analyzed for high-risk human papilloma virus with the hybrid capture 2 assay technique and the cervical smears were Pap-stained, examined cytologically and after that reanalyzed for human papilloma virus DNA using a polymerase chain reaction assay. RESULT: The vaginal samples were positive for high-risk human papilloma virus in 37% of the cases using hybrid capture 2 assay. Twelve of the 43 Pap smears showed positive cytology (ASCUS-CIN 3), of which 4 showed CIN 2-3. When polymerase chain reaction assay was performed, human papilloma virus DNA was detected in 40% of the glass slides. The agreement between cytology and the two human papilloma virus testing techniques was 67-74% (kappa 0.27-0.45) and the agreement between the two human papilloma virus tests was 70% (kappa 0.36). CONCLUSION: Testing for high-risk human papilloma virus can identify more women at risk of developing cervical cancer than cytology irrespective of the sampling method. Furthermore, offering a self-sampling device for collection of vaginal smear seems to be a useful screening tool for cervical cancer among women not responding to an invitation for smear sampling.
BACKGROUND: Most of women diagnosed as having cervical cancer have not participated in organized cytological screening. Aim. A study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of human papilloma virus testing by self-collected vaginal samples in comparison to regular cytological screening. The agreement of hybrid capture 2 assay and polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of human papilloma virus DNA in self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-obtained cervical smears was investigated. METHOD: Forty-three women aged 23-58 years admitted for further examination due to previous positive cytology in the organized screening participated in self-collecting of vaginal samples with a novel self-sampling device. During the visit a clinician also collected a cervical smear using a cytobrush. The vaginal samples collected with the self-sampling device were analyzed for high-risk human papilloma virus with the hybrid capture 2 assay technique and the cervical smears were Pap-stained, examined cytologically and after that reanalyzed for human papilloma virus DNA using a polymerase chain reaction assay. RESULT: The vaginal samples were positive for high-risk human papilloma virus in 37% of the cases using hybrid capture 2 assay. Twelve of the 43 Pap smears showed positive cytology (ASCUS-CIN 3), of which 4 showed CIN 2-3. When polymerase chain reaction assay was performed, human papilloma virus DNA was detected in 40% of the glass slides. The agreement between cytology and the two human papilloma virus testing techniques was 67-74% (kappa 0.27-0.45) and the agreement between the two human papilloma virus tests was 70% (kappa 0.36). CONCLUSION: Testing for high-risk human papilloma virus can identify more women at risk of developing cervical cancer than cytology irrespective of the sampling method. Furthermore, offering a self-sampling device for collection of vaginal smear seems to be a useful screening tool for cervical cancer among women not responding to an invitation for smear sampling.
Authors: Romy van Baars; Remko P Bosgraaf; Bram W A ter Harmsel; Willem J G Melchers; Wim G V Quint; Ruud L M Bekkers Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Maria T Montalvo; Ismelda Lobato; Hilda Villanueva; Celia Borquez; Daniela Navarrete; Juan Abarca; Gloria M Calaf Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Hung N Luu; Kristina R Dahlstrom; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Helena M VonVille; Michael E Scheurer Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2013-04-21 Impact factor: 4.452