Joel C Boggan1, David K Walmer, Gregory Henderson, Nahida Chakhtoura, Schatzi H McCarthy, Harry J Beauvais, Jennifer S Smith. 1. From the *Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC; †Department of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC; ‡Family Health Ministries, Durham, NC; §PathForceDx, Seattle, WA; ¶University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL; ∥University of Notre Dame-Haiti School of Medicine, Port-au-Prince, Haiti; and **Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as primary cervical cancer screening has not been studied in Caribbean women. We tested vaginal self-collection versus physician cervical sampling in a population of Haitian women. METHODS: Participants were screened for high-risk HPV with self-performed vaginal and clinician-collected cervical samples using Hybrid Capture 2 assays (Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD). Women positive by either method then underwent colposcopy with biopsy of all visible lesions. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were calculated for each sample method compared with biopsy results, with κ statistics performed for agreement. McNemar tests were performed for differences in sensitivity at ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)-I and ≥CIN-II. RESULTS: Of 1845 women screened, 446 (24.3%) were HPV positive by either method, including 105 (5.7%) only by vaginal swab and 53 (2.9%) only by cervical swab. Vaginal and cervical samples were 91.4% concordant (κ = 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.77], P < 0.001). Overall, 133 HPV-positive women (29.9%) had CIN-I, whereas 32 (7.2%) had ≥CIN-II. The sensitivity of vaginal swabs was similar to cervical swabs for detecting ≥CIN-I (89.1% vs. 87.9%, respectively; P = 0.75) lesions and ≥CIN-II disease (87.5% vs. 96.9%, P = 0.18). Eighteen of 19 cases of CIN-III and invasive cancer were found by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus screening via self-collected vaginal swabs or physician-collected cervical swabs are feasible options in this Haitian population. The agreement between cervical and vaginal samples was high, suggesting that vaginal sample-only algorithms for screening could be effective for improving screening rates in this underscreened population.
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as primary cervical cancer screening has not been studied in Caribbean women. We tested vaginal self-collection versus physician cervical sampling in a population of Haitian women. METHODS:Participants were screened for high-risk HPV with self-performed vaginal and clinician-collected cervical samples using Hybrid Capture 2 assays (Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD). Women positive by either method then underwent colposcopy with biopsy of all visible lesions. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were calculated for each sample method compared with biopsy results, with κ statistics performed for agreement. McNemar tests were performed for differences in sensitivity at ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)-I and ≥CIN-II. RESULTS: Of 1845 women screened, 446 (24.3%) were HPV positive by either method, including 105 (5.7%) only by vaginal swab and 53 (2.9%) only by cervical swab. Vaginal and cervical samples were 91.4% concordant (κ = 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.77], P < 0.001). Overall, 133 HPV-positive women (29.9%) had CIN-I, whereas 32 (7.2%) had ≥CIN-II. The sensitivity of vaginal swabs was similar to cervical swabs for detecting ≥CIN-I (89.1% vs. 87.9%, respectively; P = 0.75) lesions and ≥CIN-II disease (87.5% vs. 96.9%, P = 0.18). Eighteen of 19 cases of CIN-III and invasive cancer were found by both methods. CONCLUSIONS:Human papillomavirus screening via self-collected vaginal swabs or physician-collected cervical swabs are feasible options in this Haitian population. The agreement between cervical and vaginal samples was high, suggesting that vaginal sample-only algorithms for screening could be effective for improving screening rates in this underscreened population.
Authors: Teresa M Darragh; Terence J Colgan; J Thomas Cox; Debra S Heller; Michael R Henry; Ronald D Luff; Timothy McCalmont; Ritu Nayar; Joel M Palefsky; Mark H Stoler; Edward J Wilkinson; Richard J Zaino; David C Wilbur Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 5.534
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: F Holanda; A Castelo; T M C W Veras; F M L de Almeida; M Z Lins; G B Dores Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 3.561
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: Patrick F Elliott; Suzanne E Belinson; Emma Ottolenghi; Kathleen Smyth; Jerome L Belinson Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2013-11
Authors: Mulindi H Mwanahamuntu; Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Meridith Blevins; Sharon Kapambwe; Bryan E Shepherd; Carla Chibwesha; Krista S Pfaendler; Gracilia Mkumba; Belington Vwalika; Michael L Hicks; Sten H Vermund; Jeffrey Sa Stringer; Groesbeck P Parham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 3.240
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: 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: Sarah Gupta; Christina Palmer; Elisabeth M Bik; Juan P Cardenas; Harold Nuñez; Laurens Kraal; Sara W Bird; Jennie Bowers; Alison Smith; Nathaniel A Walton; Audrey D Goddard; Daniel E Almonacid; Susan Zneimer; Jessica Richman; Zachary S Apte Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-04-09
Authors: Anna Gottschlich; Alvaro Rivera-Andrade; Edwin Grajeda; Christian Alvarez; Carlos Mendoza Montano; Rafael Meza Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2017-01-18