OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance and acceptability of unsupervised self-sampling with clinician sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types for the first time in a UK screening setting. SETTING: Nine hundred and twenty women, from two demographically different centres, attending for routine cervical smear testing. METHODS: Women performed an unsupervised HPV self-test. Immediately afterwards, a doctor or nurse took an HPV test and cervical smear. Women with an abnormality on any test were offered colposcopy. RESULTS:Twenty-one high-grade and 39 low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) were detected. The sensitivity for high-grade disease (CIN2+) for the self HPV test was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60-92), clinician HPV test 100% (95% CI 85-100), cytology 81% (95% CI 60-92). The sensitivity of both HPV tests to detect high- and low-grade cervical neoplasia was much higher than that of cytology (self-test 77% [95%CI 65-86], clinician test 80% [95% CI 68-88], cytology 48% [95% CI 36-61]). For both high-grade alone, and high and low grades together, the specificity was significantly higher for cytology (greater than 95%) than either HPV test (between 82% and 87%). The self-test proved highly acceptable to women and they reported that the instructions were easy to understand irrespective of educational level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it would be reasonable to offer HPV self-testing to women who are reluctant to attend for cervical smears. This approach should now be directly evaluated among women who have been non-attenders in a cervical screening programme.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance and acceptability of unsupervised self-sampling with clinician sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types for the first time in a UK screening setting. SETTING: Nine hundred and twenty women, from two demographically different centres, attending for routine cervical smear testing. METHODS:Women performed an unsupervised HPV self-test. Immediately afterwards, a doctor or nurse took an HPV test and cervical smear. Women with an abnormality on any test were offered colposcopy. RESULTS: Twenty-one high-grade and 39 low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) were detected. The sensitivity for high-grade disease (CIN2+) for the self HPV test was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60-92), clinician HPV test 100% (95% CI 85-100), cytology 81% (95% CI 60-92). The sensitivity of both HPV tests to detect high- and low-grade cervical neoplasia was much higher than that of cytology (self-test 77% [95%CI 65-86], clinician test 80% [95% CI 68-88], cytology 48% [95% CI 36-61]). For both high-grade alone, and high and low grades together, the specificity was significantly higher for cytology (greater than 95%) than either HPV test (between 82% and 87%). The self-test proved highly acceptable to women and they reported that the instructions were easy to understand irrespective of educational level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it would be reasonable to offer HPV self-testing to women who are reluctant to attend for cervical smears. This approach should now be directly evaluated among women who have been non-attenders in a cervical screening programme.
Authors: Akhila Balasubramanian; Shalini L Kulasingam; Atar Baer; James P Hughes; Evan R Myers; Constance Mao; Nancy B Kiviat; Laura A Koutsky Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Constance Mao; Shalini L Kulasingam; Hilary K Whitham; Stephen E Hawes; John Lin; Nancy B Kiviat Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 2.681
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: 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
Authors: Ana P Ortiz; Natalia Alejandro; Cynthia M Pérez; Yomayra Otero; Marievelisse Soto-Salgado; Joel M Palefsky; Guillermo Tortolero-Luna; Josefina Romaguera Journal: P R Health Sci J Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 0.705
Authors: Charlotte H Lenselink; Roosmarie P de Bie; Dennis van Hamont; Judith M J E Bakkers; Wim G V Quint; Leon F A G Massuger; Ruud L M Bekkers; Willem J G Melchers Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: P Giorgi Rossi; L M Marsili; L Camilloni; A Iossa; A Lattanzi; C Sani; C Di Pierro; G Grazzini; C Angeloni; P Capparucci; A Pellegrini; M L Schiboni; A Sperati; M Confortini; C Bellanova; A D'Addetta; E Mania; C B Visioli; E Sereno; F Carozzi Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 7.640