BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be used as a primary test for cervical cancer screening. HPV self-sampling has the potential to replace physician/nurse sampling. Our objective was to compare the acceptability of two self-sampling methods among 205 women undergoing an excisional procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO). METHODS: One hundred eleven patients were given a Hybrid Capture (HC) Cervical Sampler™ (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and 94 received a self-lavaging device, the Delphi® Screener (Delphi Bioscience, Scherpenzeel, The Netherlands), both with written instructions. Self-sampling was performed just before the clinician-collected cervical sample. Women responded to questions using 5-point ordinal scales on the general acceptability of self-sampling and the physical comfort, embarrassment, pain, and difficulty experienced. Participants were also asked whether they prefer self-sampling or clinician sampling. RESULTS: Both self-sampling methods were generally accepted with a significantly high score (p = 0.005) and significantly lower embarrassment (p = 0.042) in favor of the Delphi Screener. Both self-sampling methods were physically well accepted, not painful, and easy to perform. Most women (n = 117, 68%) preferred the self-sampled compared to the clinician-sampled test, with a significantly higher proportion in the Delphi Screener group (n = 59, 77.6%) compared to those using the HC Sampler (n = 58, 60.4%) (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that self-sampling for HPV testing is favorably received by women. A sampling device specifically developed for self-sampling, such as the Delphi Screener, shows the highest degree of satisfaction. A well-accepted HPV sampling method could be especially useful for women who do not take part in cervical screening or in settings where organized screening is not fully implemented.
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be used as a primary test for cervical cancer screening. HPV self-sampling has the potential to replace physician/nurse sampling. Our objective was to compare the acceptability of two self-sampling methods among 205 women undergoing an excisional procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO). METHODS: One hundred eleven patients were given a Hybrid Capture (HC) Cervical Sampler™ (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and 94 received a self-lavaging device, the Delphi® Screener (Delphi Bioscience, Scherpenzeel, The Netherlands), both with written instructions. Self-sampling was performed just before the clinician-collected cervical sample. Women responded to questions using 5-point ordinal scales on the general acceptability of self-sampling and the physical comfort, embarrassment, pain, and difficulty experienced. Participants were also asked whether they prefer self-sampling or clinician sampling. RESULTS: Both self-sampling methods were generally accepted with a significantly high score (p = 0.005) and significantly lower embarrassment (p = 0.042) in favor of the Delphi Screener. Both self-sampling methods were physically well accepted, not painful, and easy to perform. Most women (n = 117, 68%) preferred the self-sampled compared to the clinician-sampled test, with a significantly higher proportion in the Delphi Screener group (n = 59, 77.6%) compared to those using the HC Sampler (n = 58, 60.4%) (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that self-sampling for HPV testing is favorably received by women. A sampling device specifically developed for self-sampling, such as the Delphi Screener, shows the highest degree of satisfaction. A well-accepted HPV sampling method could be especially useful for women who do not take part in cervical screening or in settings where organized screening is not fully implemented.
Authors: Jiafen Hu; Lynn R Budgeon; Nancy M Cladel; Karla Balogh; Roland Myers; Timothy K Cooper; Neil D Christensen Journal: J Gen Virol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.891
Authors: Richard A Crosby; Michael E Hagensee; Robin Vanderpool; Nia Nelson; Adam Parrish; Tom Collins; Nebraska Jones Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.830
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: Luana L S Rodrigues; Mariza G Morgado; Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Vanessa S De Paula; Nathália S Oliveira; Elena Chavez-Juan; Diane M Da Silva; W Martin Kast; Alcina F Nicol; José H Pilotto Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 5.482
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