PURPOSE: Cervical cancer rates in Latin America are higher than those in developed countries, likely because of the lower prevalence of screening. Specifically, less than 40% of women in Guatemala are regularly screened and even fewer women are screened in indigenous communities. Current screening strategies-Pap smears and visual inspection with acetic acid-might not be the most effective methods for controlling cancer in these settings. We thus investigated the potential of self-collection of cervical samples with testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) to help prevent cervical cancer in an indigenous community in Guatemala. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A community representative random sample of 202 indigenous women age 18 to 60 years residing in Santiago Atitlan, Guatemala, were surveyed to assess knowledge of and risk factors for HPV and cervical cancer. Women were then invited to self-collect a cervical sample using HerSwab collection kits to assess the prevalence of HPV and the acceptability of self-sampling. RESULTS: Of 202 women who completed the survey, 178 (89%) provided a self-sample. In all, 79% of these women found the test comfortable, 91% found the test easy to use, and 100% reported they were willing to perform the test periodically as a screening method. Thirty-one samples (17%) were positive for at least one of 13 high-risk HPV types, and eight (4.5%) were positive for HPV 16/18. CONCLUSION: HPV testing by using self-collected samples was well accepted, suggesting that it is a plausible modality for cervical cancer screening in indigenous communities. Further studies are needed to assess rates of follow-up after a positive test and to determine whether these findings extend to other indigenous and nonindigenous communities in Guatemala and Latin America.
PURPOSE: Cervical cancer rates in Latin America are higher than those in developed countries, likely because of the lower prevalence of screening. Specifically, less than 40% of women in Guatemala are regularly screened and even fewer women are screened in indigenous communities. Current screening strategies-Pap smears and visual inspection with acetic acid-might not be the most effective methods for controlling cancer in these settings. We thus investigated the potential of self-collection of cervical samples with testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) to help prevent cervical cancer in an indigenous community in Guatemala. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A community representative random sample of 202 indigenous women age 18 to 60 years residing in Santiago Atitlan, Guatemala, were surveyed to assess knowledge of and risk factors for HPV and cervical cancer. Women were then invited to self-collect a cervical sample using HerSwab collection kits to assess the prevalence of HPV and the acceptability of self-sampling. RESULTS: Of 202 women who completed the survey, 178 (89%) provided a self-sample. In all, 79% of these women found the test comfortable, 91% found the test easy to use, and 100% reported they were willing to perform the test periodically as a screening method. Thirty-one samples (17%) were positive for at least one of 13 high-risk HPV types, and eight (4.5%) were positive for HPV 16/18. CONCLUSION: HPV testing by using self-collected samples was well accepted, suggesting that it is a plausible modality for cervical cancer screening in indigenous communities. Further studies are needed to assess rates of follow-up after a positive test and to determine whether these findings extend to other indigenous and nonindigenous communities in Guatemala and Latin America.
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: J M Walboomers; M V Jacobs; M M Manos; F X Bosch; J A Kummer; K V Shah; P J Snijders; J Peto; C J Meijer; N Muñoz Journal: J Pathol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 7.996
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: Philip E Castle; Vânia R S Silva; Marcia E L Consolaro; Nádia Kienen; Lorna Bittencourt; Sandra M Pelloso; Edward E Partridge; Amanda Pierz; Camila B Dartibale; Nelson S Uchimura; Isabel C Scarinci Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-01-16
Authors: Rafael Meza; Yan Kwan Lau; Trey B Thomas; Thomas E Carey; Heather M Walline; Marisa C Eisenberg Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 7.396
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: Hong Lou; Eduardo Gharzouzi; Sarita Polo Guerra; Joël Fokom Domgue; Julie Sawitzke; Guillermo Villagran; Lisa Garland; Joseph F Boland; Sarah Wagner; Héctor Rosas; Jami Troxler; Heidi McMillen; Bailey Kessing; Enrique Alvirez; Miriam Castillo; Hesler Morales; Victor Argueta; Andert Rosingh; Femke J H B van Aerde-van Nunen; Griselda Lopez; Herbert M Pinedo; Mark Schiffman; Michael Dean; Roberto Orozco Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Anna Gottschlich; Alvaro Rivera-Andrade; Kristin Bevilacqua; Audrey R Murchland; Ergest Isak; Christian S Alvarez; Gina Ogilvie; Thomas E Carey; Mark Prince; Michael Dean; Carlos Mendoza-Montano; Rafael Meza Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Marisa C Eisenberg; Lora P Campredon; Andrew F Brouwer; Heather M Walline; Brittany M Marinelli; Yan Kwan Lau; Trey B Thomas; Rachel L Delinger; Taylor S Sullivan; Monica L Yost; Christine M Goudsmit; Thomas E Carey; Rafael Meza Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 2.692