Literature DB >> 33514604

A Randomized Comparison of Different Vaginal Self-sampling Devices and Urine for Human Papillomavirus Testing-Predictors 5.1.

Louise Cadman1, Caroline Reuter1, Mark Jitlal1, Michelle Kleeman1,2, Janet Austin1, Tony Hollingworth1, Anna L Parberry3, Lesley Ashdown-Barr1, Deepali Patel1,2, Belinda Nedjai1, Attila T Lorincz1, Jack Cuzick4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening is rapidly replacing cytology as the cervical screening modality of choice. In addition to being more sensitive than cytology, it can be done on self-collected vaginal or urine samples. This study will compare the high-risk HPV positivity rates and sensitivity of self-collected vaginal samples using four different collection devices and a urine sample.
METHODS: A total of 620 women referred for colposcopy were invited to provide an initial stream urine sample collected with the Colli-Pee device and take two vaginal self-samples, using either a dry flocked swab (DF) and a wet dacron swab (WD), or a HerSwab (HS) and Qvintip (QT) device. HPV testing was performed by the BD Onclarity HPV Assay.
RESULTS: A total of 600 vaginal sample pairs were suitable for analysis, and 505 were accompanied by a urine sample. Similar positivity rates and sensitivities for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were seen for DF, WD, and urine, but lower values were seen for QT and HS. No clear user preferences were seen between devices, but women found urine easiest to collect, and were more confident they had taken the sample correctly. The lowest confidence in collection was reported for HS.
CONCLUSIONS: Urine, a DF swab, and WD swab all performed well and were well received by the women, whereas the Qvintip and HerSwab devices were less satisfactory. IMPACT: This is the first study to compare five self-sampling methods in the same women taken at the same time. It supports wider use of urine or vaginal self-sampling for cervical screening. ©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33514604      PMCID: PMC7611176          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  24 in total

1.  Comparison of seven tests for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears: the Predictors 2 study.

Authors:  Anne Szarewski; David Mesher; Louise Cadman; Janet Austin; Lesley Ashdown-Barr; Linda Ho; George Terry; Stuart Liddle; Martin Young; Mark Stoler; Julie McCarthy; Corrina Wright; Christine Bergeron; W P Soutter; Deirdre Lyons; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Acceptability of unsupervised HPV self-sampling using written instructions.

Authors:  J Waller; K McCaffery; S Forrest; A Szarewski; L Cadman; J Austin; J Wardle
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Comparison of predictors for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears.

Authors:  Anne Szarewski; Laurence Ambroisine; Louise Cadman; Janet Austin; Linda Ho; George Terry; Stuart Liddle; Roberto Dina; Julie McCarthy; Hilary Buckley; Christine Bergeron; Pat Soutter; Deirdre Lyons; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-10-28       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Comparison of use of vaginal HPV self-sampling and offering flexible appointments as strategies to reach long-term non-attending women in organized cervical screening.

Authors:  Lotten Darlin; Christer Borgfeldt; Ola Forslund; Emir Hénic; Maria Hortlund; Joakim Dillner; Päivi Kannisto
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 3.168

5.  Optimization of HPV DNA detection in urine by improving collection, storage, and extraction.

Authors:  A Vorsters; J Van den Bergh; I Micalessi; S Biesmans; J Bogers; A Hens; I De Coster; M Ieven; P Van Damme
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 3.267

6.  HPV testing in first-void urine provides sensitivity for CIN2+ detection comparable with a smear taken by a clinician or a brush-based self-sample: cross-sectional data from a triage population.

Authors:  A Leeman; M Del Pino; A Molijn; A Rodriguez; A Torné; M de Koning; J Ordi; F van Kemenade; D Jenkins; W Quint
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  A comparison of different human papillomavirus tests in PreservCyt versus SurePath in a referral population-PREDICTORS 4.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Amar S Ahmad; Janet Austin; Louise Cadman; Linda Ho; George Terry; Michelle Kleeman; Lesley Ashdown-Barr; Deirdre Lyons; Mark Stoler; Anne Szarewski
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.168

8.  Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses.

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Sara B Smith; Sarah Temin; Farhana Sultana; Philip Castle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-12-05

9.  Acceptability of non-speculum clinician sampling for cervical screening in older women: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Madeleine Freeman; Jo Waller; Peter Sasieni; Anita Ww Lim; Laura Av Marlow
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Vaginal self-sampling is a cost-effective way to increase participation in a cervical cancer screening programme: a randomised trial.

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

View more
  3 in total

1.  Clinical performance of methylation as a biomarker for cervical carcinoma in situ and cancer diagnosis: A worldwide study.

Authors:  Cristiana Banila; Attila T Lorincz; Dorota Scibior-Bentkowska; Gary M Clifford; Birhanu Kumbi; Dereje Beyene; Cosette M Wheeler; Kate Cuschieri; Jack Cuzick; Belinda Nedjai
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  Study Protocol: Randomised Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy of Strategies Involving Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Caroline Lefeuvre; Hélène De Pauw; Anne-Sophie Le Duc Banaszuk; Adeline Pivert; Alexandra Ducancelle; Franck Rexand-Galais; Marc Arbyn
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  HPV testing of self-samples: Influence of collection and sample handling procedures on clinical accuracy to detect cervical precancer.

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Ardashel Latsuzbaia; Philip E Castle; Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Davy Vanden Broeck
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Eur       Date:  2022-02-17
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.