OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine if (1) Hybrid Capture 2 and a PCR-based method were comparable for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) clinician-collected and self-collected samples were equally efficient to detect HPV and cervical cancer precursor lesions, and (3) if participation rates improved with home-based versus clinic-based self collection. METHODS: Samples were selected from women participating in a cervical cancer screening study according to HPV, visual inspection with acetic acid, or Pap smear screening results. From 432 of 892 selected women, split sample aliquots were tested for HPV DNA using both the Hybrid Capture 2 assay and the Roche prototype line blot assay. Women from a subset of villages were recruited at two separate time points for clinic-based self-collection and home-based self-collection, and participation rates were compared. RESULTS: Pairwise agreement between self- and clinician-collected samples was high by both Hybrid Capture 2 (90.8% agreement, kappa = 0.7) and PCR (92.6% agreement, kappa = 0.8), with significantly increased high-risk HPV detection in clinician-collected specimens (McNemar's P < 0.01). Ability to detect precursor lesions was highest by PCR testing of clinician-collected samples and lowest by Hybrid Capture 2 testing of self-collected samples (11 of 11 and 9 of 11 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 and cancer detected, respectively). Participation in home-based screening was significantly higher than clinic-based screening (71.5% and 53.8%, respectively; P < 0.001) among women ages 30 to 45 years. CONCLUSION: The combination of improved screening coverage and a high single test sensitivity afforded by HPV DNA testing of home-based self-collected swabs may have a greater programmatic effect on cervical cancer mortality reduction compared with programs requiring a pelvic exam.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine if (1) Hybrid Capture 2 and a PCR-based method were comparable for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) clinician-collected and self-collected samples were equally efficient to detect HPV and cervical cancer precursor lesions, and (3) if participation rates improved with home-based versus clinic-based self collection. METHODS: Samples were selected from women participating in a cervical cancer screening study according to HPV, visual inspection with acetic acid, or Pap smear screening results. From 432 of 892 selected women, split sample aliquots were tested for HPV DNA using both the Hybrid Capture 2 assay and the Roche prototype line blot assay. Women from a subset of villages were recruited at two separate time points for clinic-based self-collection and home-based self-collection, and participation rates were compared. RESULTS: Pairwise agreement between self- and clinician-collected samples was high by both Hybrid Capture 2 (90.8% agreement, kappa = 0.7) and PCR (92.6% agreement, kappa = 0.8), with significantly increased high-risk HPV detection in clinician-collected specimens (McNemar's P < 0.01). Ability to detect precursor lesions was highest by PCR testing of clinician-collected samples and lowest by Hybrid Capture 2 testing of self-collected samples (11 of 11 and 9 of 11 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 and cancer detected, respectively). Participation in home-based screening was significantly higher than clinic-based screening (71.5% and 53.8%, respectively; P < 0.001) among women ages 30 to 45 years. CONCLUSION: The combination of improved screening coverage and a high single test sensitivity afforded by HPV DNA testing of home-based self-collected swabs may have a greater programmatic effect on cervical cancer mortality reduction compared with programs requiring a pelvic exam.
Authors: P E Gravitt; C L Peyton; T Q Alessi; C M Wheeler; F Coutlée; A Hildesheim; M H Schiffman; D R Scott; R J Apple Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: You-Lin Qiao; John W Sellors; Paul S Eder; Yan-Ping Bao; Jeanette M Lim; Fang-Hui Zhao; Bernhard Weigl; Wen-Hua Zhang; Roger B Peck; Ling Li; Feng Chen; Qing-Jing Pan; Attila T Lorincz Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: G S Ogilvie; D M Patrick; M Schulzer; J W Sellors; M Petric; K Chambers; R White; J M FitzGerald Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Heidi E Jones; Bruce R Allan; Janneke H H M van de Wijgert; Lydia Altini; Sylvia M Taylor; Alana de Kock; Nicol Coetzee; Anna-Lise Williamson Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Patrick Petignat; Daniel L Faltin; Ilan Bruchim; Martin R Tramèr; Eduardo L Franco; François Coutlée Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mahboobeh Safaeian; Mohammed Kiddugavu; Patti E Gravitt; Joseph Ssekasanvu; Dan Murokora; Marc Sklar; David Serwadda; Maria J Wawer; Keerti V Shah; Ron Gray Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Philip E Castle; Diane Solomon; Cosette M Wheeler; Patti E Gravitt; Sholom Wacholder; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Marc Arbyn; Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan; Vivien Tsu; Guglielmo Ronco; Marie-Helene Mayrand; Joakim Dillner; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Vaccine Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Haripriya Vedantham; Michelle I Silver; B Kalpana; C Rekha; B P Karuna; K Vidyadhari; S Mrudula; Brigitte M Ronnett; K Vijayaraghavan; Gayatri Ramakrishna; Pavani Sowjanya; Shantha Laxmi; Keerti V Shah; Patti E Gravitt Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Philip E Castle; Alfio Rausa; Tameka Walls; Patti E Gravitt; Edward E Partridge; Vanessa Olivo; Shelley Niwa; Kerry Grace Morrissey; Laura Tucker; Hormuzd Katki; Isabel Scarinci Journal: Prev Med Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Patti E Gravitt; Proma Paul; Hormuzd A Katki; Haripriya Vendantham; Gayatri Ramakrishna; Mrudula Sudula; Basany Kalpana; Brigitte M Ronnett; K Vijayaraghavan; Keerti V Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pooja Bansil; Scott Wittet; Jeanette L Lim; Jennifer L Winkler; Proma Paul; Jose Jeronimo Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 3.295