Literature DB >> 29458440

Agreement of self- and physician-collected samples for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus infections in women attending a colposcopy clinic in Thailand.

Natacha Phoolcharoen1,2, Nuttavut Kantathavorn3, Wasanai Krisorakun3, Thaniya Sricharunrat3, Narongchai Teerayathanakul3, Chantanee Taepisitpong3, Gaidganok Sornsamdang3, Waraphorn Krongthong4, Siriporn Saeloo4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the concordance between vaginal self- and endocervical physician-collected high-risk (hr) HPV testing in Thai women who attended a colposcopy clinic. Vaginal samples were obtained by self-sampling with a dry brush before endocervical samples were obtained by physicians. Both specimens were analyzed for hrHPV by Cobas4800 HPV test.
RESULTS: Of the 247 pairs of samples, overall hrHPV prevalence from self- and physician-collected samples was 41.3 and 36.0%, respectively. The overall agreement between the methods was 74.5% with κ 0.46 (P < 0.001). Our study revealed moderate agreement between self- and physician-collected methods for hrHPV testing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer screening; Colposcopy; HPV testing; Self-sampling; Thailand

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29458440      PMCID: PMC5819229          DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3241-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Res Notes        ISSN: 1756-0500


Introduction

Worldwide trends in incidence and mortality rate of cervical cancer have decreased as a result of effective organized screening programs, however, cervical cancer remains an important health problem in less-developed countries. In Thailand, it is the second most common cancer in women, with an age-standardized incidence rate of 17.8 per 100,000 [1, 2]. The Ministry of Public Health in Thailand launched a national screening program for women aged 30–60 years since 2002 but the coverage rate was 46–67%, which was lower than the target of 75% [3-5]. The main reasons for avoiding cervical cancer screening in Thai women were embarrassment and fear of pain or fear of vaginal examination [6, 7]. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing was approved for primary screening because of its satisfactory sensitivity for detecting high-grade precancerous cervical lesions [8-10]. Self-sampling HPV testing has been increasingly adopted for cervical cancer screening [11, 12]. Many studies have shown the advantage of self-sampling in increasing screening attendance and coverage [13-18]. Most studies have revealed high agreement between HPV screening results from self- and physician-collected specimens [19-25] and positive acceptability and preferences among women [26, 27]. Due to the uncommon use of tampon among Thai women, most of them are unfamiliar with inserting the device into their vagina. From our previous study, there was a concern that some women might not use the self-sample device properly [28]. There have been no previous studies compared self-sampling with standard methods for HPV screening in Thailand. We conducted this study to evaluate the agreement between self-sampling vaginal and physician-collected cervical HPV testing in Thai women.

Main text

Study populations

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chulabhorn Hospital (No. 10/2013). We recruited women aged 30–70 years who visited a colposcopy clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand during March 1 to June 30, 2015. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were attending the colposcopy clinic, aged 30–70 years, had no history of cervical cancer, had not undergone a hysterectomy, and were currently not pregnant.

Sample collection

After the participants had given written informed consent to participate in the study, they received instructions by video made by research project’s staffs to explain how to use the vaginal self-sampling brush, verbal and illustrations for vaginal self-sampling. The vaginal specimens were first obtained by self-sampling with the Evalyn Brush (Rovers Medical Devices B.V., Oss, The Netherlands), which is a dry brush. Then, the participants were examined by a gynecological oncologist who obtained an endocervical sample with a Cervex-Brush (Rovers Medical Devices).

Specimen preparation

The self- and physician-collected specimens were both suspended in 10 ml transport medium, SurePath Preservative Fluid (Becton, Dickinson and Company, USA).

High-risk (hr)HPV testing

All self-sampled and physician-collected specimens were sent to the central laboratory of Chulabhorn Hospital for hrHPV testing. All samples were analyzed by Cobas4800 HPV test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA) within 1 week after collection.

Statistical analysis

Frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation (SD) were used to calculate the general characteristics. The agreement levels were analyzed by Cohen’s kappa statistics. The statistical significance level was at 0.05. All data were analyzed by STATA/SE version 12.1.

Results

We enrolled 250 eligible women. Two participants were excluded because of a history of cervical cancer and previous hysterectomy. One pair of samples was excluded because of invalid test results. The mean and median ages of the remaining 247 participants were 47.2 and 47.0 years (range 30–70 years; SD 9.8 years), respectively. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the participants. Most participants were Thai (96.8%) and Buddhist (99.2%). Average age at first sexual intercourse was 22.5 years (range 14–47 years; SD 4.9 years).
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of 247 study participants

Characteristicsn (%)
Age (years)a
 30–3961 (24.7)
 40–4987 (35.2)
 50–5968 (27.5)
 60–7031 (12.6)
Race
 Thai239 (96.8)
 Chinese8 (3.2)
Religion
 Buddhist245 (99.2)
 Christian1 (0.4)
 Other1 (0.4)
Education level
 Less than high school69 (27.9)
 High school66 (26.7)
 Bachelor degree83 (33.6)
 Higher than bachelor degree29 (11.7)

aMean age 47.2 years, standard deviation 9.8 years; median age 47.0 years

Baseline characteristics of 247 study participants aMean age 47.2 years, standard deviation 9.8 years; median age 47.0 years Overall hrHPV prevalence was 41.3% (102/247) from self-collected specimens and 36.0% (89/247) from physician-collected specimens. The prevalence of hrHPV 16, 18 and non-16, 18 from self- and physician-collected specimens is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Prevalence of hrHPV from self- and physician-collected specimens

HPVPrevalence
Physician-collected (%)Self-collected (%)
hrHPV positive36.041.3
hrHPV non-16/1827.532.0
hrHPV 166.97.3
hrHPV 182.83.6

hrHPV high-risk human papillomavirus

Prevalence of hrHPV from self- and physician-collected specimens hrHPV high-risk human papillomavirus The concordance of hrHPV test results between self- and physician-collected specimens is shown in Table 3. The concordance was 74.5% with moderate agreement and κ 0.46 for overall hrHPV. For hrHPV 16, the concordance was 96.4% with substantial agreement and κ 0.72. For hrHPV 18, there was 96.8% concordance with moderate agreement and κ 0.48.
Table 3

Concordance between hrHPV detection by self- and physician-collected method

Self-collectedPhysician-collectedAgreement (%)κStrength of agreementa P
PositiveNegative
hrHPV
 Positive643874.490.46Moderate< 0.001
 Negative25120
hrHPV non-16, 18
 Positive453476.920.44Moderate< 0.001
 Negative23145
hrHPV 16
 Positive13596.360.72Good< 0.001
 Negative4225
hrHPV 18
 Positive4596.760.48Moderate< 0.001
 Negative3235

hrHPV high-risk human papillomavirus

aSee Ref. [37]

Concordance between hrHPV detection by self- and physician-collected method hrHPV high-risk human papillomavirus aSee Ref. [37]

Discussion

We found that the prevalence of hrHPV from self-collected specimens (41.3%) was higher than from physician-collected specimens (36.0%). To explain, the self-collected specimens are a combination of cervical and vaginal cells. Additionally, the sampling order first obtained from the self-collected specimens may then collect higher number of exfoliated cells. In particular, the higher prevalence of low-risk HPV in the lower vagina than in the cervix and scanty cross-reactivity of the hrHPV assay to low-risk genotypes can partially explain this finding [18, 29]. Our study revealed 74.5% concordance between self- and physician-collected specimens in detecting overall hrHPV with κ 0.46, which showed moderate agreement. The level of agreement in our study was not as high as that in most previous studies [19-25]. Most previous studies found 70.6–94.2% concordance with κ 0.6–0.9, which represented substantial agreement between these two methods. However, some studies revealed the same level of agreement as in our study [29-31]. One study showed that the agreement between these two methods was lower among older women, which supports our results [30]. The median age of our participants was 47.0 years, which was higher than that in other studies (26.4–41.0 years) [19, 21–25], and ~ 40% of the participants were older than 50 years. This might be the reason why our study showed lower concordance and agreement than the other studies showed. Additionally, some women in this study reported that they were not confident about using the device correctly [28]. Although the agreement level of overall hrHPV between self- and physician-collected samples was moderate, the agreement level of HPV 16 was substantial, with concordance of 93.36% and κ 0.72. This finding for HPV 16 was the same as in the other studies [21, 25]. As mentioned above, the prevalence of HPV from self-collected specimens was higher than from physician-collected specimens. It might be then as a consequence that the concordance levels of other hrHPV were moderate. Whereas, HPV 16 was described in one previous study as the most prevalent HPV type in the cervical specimens, and especially with higher prevalence than in vaginal specimens [32]. Hence, these findings can partially explain about the high agreement and concordance levels of HPV 16.

Limitations

All the participants in our study did the self-collection first then underwent pelvic examination to obtain physician-collected specimens later. This sampling order may have resulted in the self-collected specimens having more exfoliated cells than the physician-collected specimens had. Our participants were women who attended a colposcopy clinic for various reasons such as abnormal cytology or positive HPV testing, so the prevalence of HPV in this group was higher than in the normal population. The prevalence of hrHPV in our study was 41.3 and 36.0% from self- and physician-collected specimens, respectively. The prevalence of hrHPV in Thai women in previous studies was 3.3–14.0% [33-36]. Due to the level of agreement in our study was slightly lower than in most previous studies, more studies with larger populations are needed to explore the reliability and feasibility of self-sampling of HPV as a method for cervical cancer screening in Thai and other Asian women. The molecular and biomarker analyses may be combined to achieve greater accuracy of the test.
  36 in total

1.  Human papillomavirus infection in women in Puerto Rico: agreement between physician-collected and self-collected anogenital specimens.

Authors:  Ana Patricia Ortiz; Josefina Romaguera; Cynthia M Pérez; Yomayra Otero; Marievelisse Soto-Salgado; Keimari Méndez; Yari Valle; Maria Da Costa; Erick Suarez; Joel Palefsky; Guillermo Tortolero-Luna
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  Assessing Cervical Cancer Screening Coverage Using a Population-Based Behavioral Risk Factor Survey--Thailand, 2010.

Authors:  Rachael Joseph; Supawan Manosoontorn; Nawarat Petcharoen; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Virginia Senkomago; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Randomized Intervention of Self-Collected Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing in Under-Screened Rural Women: Uptake of Screening and Acceptability.

Authors:  C Sarai Racey; Dionne C Gesink; Ann N Burchell; Suzanne Trivers; Tom Wong; Anu Rebbapragada
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  High-risk human papillomavirus messenger RNA testing in physician- and self-collected specimens for cervical lesion detection in high-risk women, Kenya.

Authors:  Jie Ting; Nelly Mugo; Jessie Kwatampora; Craig Hill; Michael Chitwa; Suha Patel; Hannah Gakure; Joshua Kimani; Victor J Schoenbach; Charles Poole; Jennifer S Smith
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  HPV for cervical cancer screening (HPV FOCAL): Complete Round 1 results of a randomized trial comparing HPV-based primary screening to liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Gina S Ogilvie; Mel Krajden; Dirk van Niekerk; Laurie W Smith; Darrel Cook; Kathy Ceballos; Marette Lee; Laura Gentile; Lovedeep Gondara; Ruth Elwood-Martin; Stuart Peacock; Gavin Stuart; Eduardo L Franco; Andrew J Coldman
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior of Bangkok Metropolitan Women Regarding Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Woraphot Chaowawanit; Siriwan Tangjitgamol; Nuttavut Kantathavorn; Natacha Phoolcharoen; Thannaporn Kittisiam; Jakkapan Khunnarong; Busaba Supawattanabodee; Sunamchok Srijaipracharoen; Thaovalai Thavaramara; Kamol Pataradool
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2016

7.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.

Authors:  Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Prevalence and correlates of HPV among women attending family-planning clinics in Thailand.

Authors:  Morgan A Marks; Swati Gupta; Kai-Li Liaw; Amha Tadesse; Esther Kim; Chailert Phongnarisorn; Virach Wootipoom; Pissamai Yuenyao; Charoen Vipupinyo; Sungwal Rugpao; Somchai Sriplienchan; Patti E Gravitt; David D Celentano
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.090

9.  Self-sampling to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: an RCT comparing home mailing, distribution in pharmacies, and recall letter.

Authors:  P Giorgi Rossi; C Fortunato; P Barbarino; S Boveri; S Caroli; A Del Mistro; A Ferro; C Giammaria; M Manfredi; T Moretto; A Pasquini; M Sideri; M C Tufi; C Cogo; E Altobelli
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Assessment of high-risk human papillomavirus infections using clinician- and self-collected cervical sampling methods in rural women from far western Nepal.

Authors:  Derek C Johnson; Madhav P Bhatta; Jennifer S Smith; Mirjam-Colette Kempf; Thomas R Broker; Sten H Vermund; Eric Chamot; Shilu Aryal; Pema Lhaki; Sadeep Shrestha
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-collected vaginal samples compared with healthcare worker collected cervical samples among women attending gynecology clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa.

Authors:  Teboho Amelia Tiiti; Tebogo Loraine Mashishi; Varsetile Varster Nkwinika; Ina Benoy; Selokela Gloria Selabe; Johannes Bogers; Ramokone Lisbeth Lebelo
Journal:  Virol J       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 4.099

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.