OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of self-collected cervicovaginal samples and provider-collected cervical samples for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA among Inuit women in Nunavik, Quebec, avoiding the use of liquid-based storage and transport of the self-collected samples. METHODS: Ninety-three women aged 18-69 years were recruited from a previously formed cohort on the natural history of HPV to this cross-sectional measurement study. This study utilized HPV DNA test results from 89 paired specimens collected by study participant and health provider with Dacron swabs. Samples were tested for 36 HPV types with the PGMY-primer PCR protocol and genotyping with the linear array method. Unweighted kappa statistics and McNemar tests were used to measure the agreement between sampling techniques. RESULTS: In the self-collected samples, 30 different HPV types were found, compared with 29 types found in the provider-collected samples. The prevalence of high-risk (HR) HPV was 38.2% in the self-collected samples and 28.1% in the provider-collected samples. The agreement between collection methods for the detection of HR-HPV DNA (85.4%) was good. HR-HPV and type-specific HPV 16/18 were as likely to be detected in the self-collected samples compared with the provider-obtained samples. CONCLUSIONS: Women in this population were easily able to collect adequate cervicovaginal specimens for HPV testing. As self-sampling has a high recovery of HR-HPV and is comparable with provider-sampling, we conclude that self-sampling with dry storage and transport could be a good cervical cancer screening alternative for Inuit women in Nunavik who have traditionally avoided speculum examination.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of self-collected cervicovaginal samples and provider-collected cervical samples for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA among Inuit women in Nunavik, Quebec, avoiding the use of liquid-based storage and transport of the self-collected samples. METHODS: Ninety-three women aged 18-69 years were recruited from a previously formed cohort on the natural history of HPV to this cross-sectional measurement study. This study utilized HPV DNA test results from 89 paired specimens collected by study participant and health provider with Dacron swabs. Samples were tested for 36 HPV types with the PGMY-primer PCR protocol and genotyping with the linear array method. Unweighted kappa statistics and McNemar tests were used to measure the agreement between sampling techniques. RESULTS: In the self-collected samples, 30 different HPV types were found, compared with 29 types found in the provider-collected samples. The prevalence of high-risk (HR) HPV was 38.2% in the self-collected samples and 28.1% in the provider-collected samples. The agreement between collection methods for the detection of HR-HPV DNA (85.4%) was good. HR-HPV and type-specific HPV 16/18 were as likely to be detected in the self-collected samples compared with the provider-obtained samples. CONCLUSIONS:Women in this population were easily able to collect adequate cervicovaginal specimens for HPV testing. As self-sampling has a high recovery of HR-HPV and is comparable with provider-sampling, we conclude that self-sampling with dry storage and transport could be a good cervical cancer screening alternative for Inuit women in Nunavik who have traditionally avoided speculum examination.
Authors: Michel D Wissing; Ann N Burchell; Mariam El-Zein; Pierre-Paul Tellier; François Coutlée; Eduardo L Franco Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Brianne Wood; Ann N Burchell; Nicholas Escott; Julian Little; Marion Maar; Gina Ogilvie; Alberto Severini; Lisa Bishop; Kyla Morrisseau; Ingeborg Zehbe Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Natalia Serrano Doratioto Faria Braz; Noely Paula Cristina Lorenzi; Isabel Cristina Esposito Sorpreso; Lana Maria de Aguiar; Edmund Chada Baracat; José Maria Soares-Júnior Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: K Haguenoer; S Sengchanh; C Gaudy-Graffin; J Boyard; R Fontenay; H Marret; A Goudeau; N Pigneaux de Laroche; E Rusch; B Giraudeau Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Geert A A Van Raemdonck; Wiebren A A Tjalma; Edmond P Coen; Christophe E Depuydt; Xaveer W M Van Ostade Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240