BACKGROUND: To determine human papillomavirus (HPV) types by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-reverse line blot assay and examine the concordance between HPV by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and PCR on self-collected vaginal and physician-collected cervical samples and cytology. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 546 sexually active women aged > or =30 years with persistent vaginal discharge, intermenstrual or postcoital bleeding or an unhealthy cervix. Participants self-collected vaginal samples (HPV-S) and physicians collected cervical samples for conventional Pap smear and HPV DNA (HPV-P) testing and performed colposcopy, with directed biopsy, if indicated. HPV testing and genotyping was done by HC2 and PCR reverse line blot assay. Concordance between HC2 and PCR results of self- and physician-collected samples was determined using a Kappa statistic (kappa) and Chi-square test. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 512 sets with 98% of women providing a satisfactory self-sample. PCR detected oncogenic HPV in 12.3% of self- and 13.0% of physician-collected samples. Overall, there was 93.8% agreement between physician-collected and self-samples (kappa=76.31%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.97-82.29%, p=0.04)-complete concordance in 473 cases (57 positive, 416 negative), partial concordance in seven pairs and discordance in 32 pairs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of self-sampling for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ disease were 82.5%, 93.6%, 52.4% and 98.4%, respectively; for physician-sampling they were 87.5%, 93.2%, 52.2% and 98.9%, respectively; and for cytology they were 77.5%, 87.3%, 34.1% and 97.9%, respectively. Concordance between HC2 and PCR was 90.9% for self-samples (kappa=63.7%, 95% CI: 55.2-72.2%) and 95.3% for physician-collected samples (kappa=80.4%, 95% CI: 71.8-89.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-HPV sampling compares favourably with physician-sampling and cytology. A rapid, affordable, HPV self-test kit can be used as the primary method of cervical cancer screening in low-resource situations.
BACKGROUND: To determine human papillomavirus (HPV) types by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-reverse line blot assay and examine the concordance between HPV by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and PCR on self-collected vaginal and physician-collected cervical samples and cytology. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 546 sexually active women aged > or =30 years with persistent vaginal discharge, intermenstrual or postcoital bleeding or an unhealthy cervix. Participants self-collected vaginal samples (HPV-S) and physicians collected cervical samples for conventional Pap smear and HPV DNA (HPV-P) testing and performed colposcopy, with directed biopsy, if indicated. HPV testing and genotyping was done by HC2 and PCR reverse line blot assay. Concordance between HC2 and PCR results of self- and physician-collected samples was determined using a Kappa statistic (kappa) and Chi-square test. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 512 sets with 98% of women providing a satisfactory self-sample. PCR detected oncogenic HPV in 12.3% of self- and 13.0% of physician-collected samples. Overall, there was 93.8% agreement between physician-collected and self-samples (kappa=76.31%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.97-82.29%, p=0.04)-complete concordance in 473 cases (57 positive, 416 negative), partial concordance in seven pairs and discordance in 32 pairs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of self-sampling for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ disease were 82.5%, 93.6%, 52.4% and 98.4%, respectively; for physician-sampling they were 87.5%, 93.2%, 52.2% and 98.9%, respectively; and for cytology they were 77.5%, 87.3%, 34.1% and 97.9%, respectively. Concordance between HC2 and PCR was 90.9% for self-samples (kappa=63.7%, 95% CI: 55.2-72.2%) and 95.3% for physician-collected samples (kappa=80.4%, 95% CI: 71.8-89.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-HPV sampling compares favourably with physician-sampling and cytology. A rapid, affordable, HPV self-test kit can be used as the primary method of cervical cancer screening in low-resource situations.
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: 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: Jack Cuzick; Christine Clavel; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Chris J L M Meijer; Heike Hoyer; Samuel Ratnam; Anne Szarewski; Philippe Birembaut; Shalini Kulasingam; Peter Sasieni; Thomas Iftner Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Israel De Alba; Hoda Anton-Culver; F Allan Hubbell; Argyrios Ziogas; James R Hess; America Bracho; Caleb Arias; Alberto Manetta Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jorge Salmerón; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Attila Lorincz; Mauricio Hernández; Pilar Hernández; Ahideé Leyva; Mario Uribe; Horacio Manzanares; Alfredo Antunez; Enrique Carmona; Brigitte M Ronnett; Mark E Sherman; David Bishai; Daron Ferris; Yvonne Flores; Elsa Yunes; Keerti V Shah Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: A Longatto-Filho; C Roteli-Martins; L Hammes; D Etlinger; S M Miranda Pereira; M Erzen; M Branca; P Naud; S F M Derchain; L O Sarian; J Matos; R Gontijo; T Lima; M Y S Maeda; S Tatti; S Syrjänen; K Syrjänen Journal: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol Date: 2008 Impact factor: 0.196
Authors: Joel C Boggan; David K Walmer; Gregory Henderson; Nahida Chakhtoura; Schatzi H McCarthy; Harry J Beauvais; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Schatzi H McCarthy; Kathy A Walmer; Joel C Boggan; Margaret W Gichane; William A Calo; Harry A Beauvais; Noel T Brewer Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.925
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: Eliane Rohner; Claire Edelman; Busola Sanusi; John W Schmitt; Anna Baker; Kirsty Chesko; Brian Faherty; Sean M Gregory; LaHoma S Romocki; Vijay Sivaraman; Julie A E Nelson; Siobhan O'Connor; Michael G Hudgens; Andrea K Knittel; Lisa Rahangdale; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.254
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