Andrea C Des Marais1, Yuqian Zhao, Marcia M Hobbs, Vijay Sivaraman, Lynn Barclay, Noel T Brewer, Jennifer S Smith. 1. Departments of Epidemiology and Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, the School of Medicine, and the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China; the Department of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, College of Arts and Science, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina; and the American Sexual Health Association, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and acceptability of at-home self-collection to test for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and sexually transmitted infections among women overdue for cervical cancer screening by national guidelines. METHODS: Low-income, infrequently screened women were recruited from the general population in North Carolina to participate in an observational study. Participants provided two self-collected cervicovaginal samples (one at home and one in the clinic) and a clinician-collected cervical sample. Samples were tested for high-risk HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Mycoplasma genitalium. Cervical samples were also tested by liquid-based cytology. RESULTS: Overall, 193 women had conclusive high-risk HPV results for all three samples and cytology results. Prevalence of high-risk HPV within self-home samples (12.4%) was not different from that within clinician samples (11.4%; P=.79) and from that within self clinic samples (15.5%; P=.21). Positivity for high-risk HPV in all sample types increased with increasing grades of cervical abnormality (P<.001). Self-home samples detected high-risk HPV in all identified cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse. Detection was comparable across sample types for T vaginalis (range 10.2-10.8%), M genitalium (3.3-5.5%), C trachomatis (1.1-2.1%), and N gonorrhoeae (0-0.5%). Kappa values between sample types ranged from 0.56 to 0.66 for high-risk HPV, 0.86-0.91 for T vaginalis, and 0.65-0.83 for M genitalium. Most participants reported no difficulty understanding self-collection instructions (93.6%) and were willing to use self-collection in the future (96.3%). CONCLUSION: Mail-based, at-home self-collection for high-risk HPV and sexually transmitted infection detection was valid and well accepted among infrequently screened women in our study. These findings support the future use of high-risk HPV self-collection to increase cervical cancer screening rates among higher risk women in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and acceptability of at-home self-collection to test for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and sexually transmitted infections among women overdue for cervical cancer screening by national guidelines. METHODS: Low-income, infrequently screened women were recruited from the general population in North Carolina to participate in an observational study. Participants provided two self-collected cervicovaginal samples (one at home and one in the clinic) and a clinician-collected cervical sample. Samples were tested for high-risk HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Mycoplasma genitalium. Cervical samples were also tested by liquid-based cytology. RESULTS: Overall, 193 women had conclusive high-risk HPV results for all three samples and cytology results. Prevalence of high-risk HPV within self-home samples (12.4%) was not different from that within clinician samples (11.4%; P=.79) and from that within self clinic samples (15.5%; P=.21). Positivity for high-risk HPV in all sample types increased with increasing grades of cervical abnormality (P<.001). Self-home samples detected high-risk HPV in all identified cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse. Detection was comparable across sample types for T vaginalis (range 10.2-10.8%), M genitalium (3.3-5.5%), C trachomatis (1.1-2.1%), and N gonorrhoeae (0-0.5%). Kappa values between sample types ranged from 0.56 to 0.66 for high-risk HPV, 0.86-0.91 for T vaginalis, and 0.65-0.83 for M genitalium. Most participants reported no difficulty understanding self-collection instructions (93.6%) and were willing to use self-collection in the future (96.3%). CONCLUSION: Mail-based, at-home self-collection for high-risk HPV and sexually transmitted infection detection was valid and well accepted among infrequently screened women in our study. These findings support the future use of high-risk HPV self-collection to increase cervical cancer screening rates among higher risk women in the United States.
Authors: Aagje G Bais; Folkert J van Kemenade; Johannes Berkhof; René H M Verheijen; Peter J F Snijders; Feja Voorhorst; Milena Babović; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Theo J M Helmerhorst; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jennifer S Smith; Lisa Lindsay; Brooke Hoots; Jessica Keys; Silvia Franceschi; Rachel Winer; Gary M Clifford Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jennifer S Smith; Noel T Brewer; Debbie Saslow; Kenneth Alexander; Mildred R Chernofsky; Richard Crosby; Libby Derting; Leah Devlin; Charles J Dunton; Jeffrey Engle; Maria Fernandez; Mona Fouad; Warner Huh; Walter Kinney; Jennifer Pierce; Elena Rios; Mitchel C Rothholz; Judith C Shlay; Rivienne Shedd-Steele; Sally W Vernon; Joan Walker; Theresa Wynn; Gregory D Zimet; Baretta R Casey Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Max Chernesky; Dan Jang; Jodi Gilchrist; Joan Randazzo; Laurie Elit; Alice Lytwyn; Marek Smieja; Jennifer Reid; Craig Hill Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Fan Lee; Alexandra Bukowski; Lisa P Spees; Stephanie B Wheeler; Noel T Brewer; Busola Sanusi; Michael G Hudgens; Sarah Jackson; Lynn Barclay; Alicia Carter; Jennifer H Tang; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Celine Audiger; Thomas Bovagnet; Julia Bardes; Gaelle Abihsera; Jerome Nicolet; Michel Deghaye; Audrey Bochaton; Gwenn Menvielle Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Eneyi E Kpokiri; Gifty Marley; Weiming Tang; Noah Fongwen; Dan Wu; Sima Berendes; Bhavana Ambil; Sarah-Jane Loveday; Ranga Sampath; Jennifer S Walker; Joseph K B Matovu; Catharina Boehme; Nitika Pant Pai; Joseph D Tucker Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Eliane Rohner; F Hunter McGuire; Yutong Liu; Quefeng Li; Kate Miele; Samveg A Desai; John W Schmitt; Andrea Knittel; Julie A E Nelson; Claire Edelman; Vijay Sivaraman; Anna Baker; LaHoma S Romocki; Lisa Rahangdale; Jennifer S Smith Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 2.681
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: Caitlin B Biddell; Lisa P Spees; Jennifer S Smith; Noel T Brewer; Andrea C Des Marais; Busola O Sanusi; Michael G Hudgens; Lynn Barclay; Sarah Jackson; Erin E Kent; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Lisa P Spees; Andrea C Des Marais; Stephanie B Wheeler; Michael G Hudgens; Sarah Doughty; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Trials Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 2.279