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

被引:43
作者
Cadman, Louise [1 ]
Reuter, Caroline [1 ]
Jitlal, Mark [1 ]
Kleeman, Michelle [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Austin, Janet [1 ]
Hollingworth, Tony [1 ]
Parberry, Anna L. [4 ]
Ashdown-Barr, Lesley [1 ]
Patel, Deepali [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Nedjai, Belinda [1 ]
Lorincz, Attila T. [1 ]
Cuzick, Jack [1 ]
机构
[1] Queen Mary Univ London, Ctr Canc Prevent, Wolfson Inst Prevent Med, London EC1M 6BQ, England
[2] Guys & St Thomas NHS Fdn Trust, NIHR Biomed Res Ctr, London, England
[3] Kings Coll London, London, England
[4] Royal London Hosp, Colposcopy Dept, London, England
关键词
CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; WOMEN; HPV; COLLECTION; ACCEPTABILITY; PERFORMANCE; ATTITUDES; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1226
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
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 selfcollected 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, andurine, but lowervalueswere seenforQTandHS. Noclear 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.
引用
收藏
页码:661 / 668
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses
    Arbyn, Marc
    Smith, Sara B.
    Temin, Sarah
    Sultana, Farhana
    Castle, Philip
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 363
  • [2] Prevalence of type-specific human papillomavirus in endoceryical, upper and lower vaginal, perineal and vaginal self-collected specimens: implications for vaginal self-collection
    Belinson, Jerome L.
    Hu, Shangying
    Niyazi, Mayineur
    Pretorius, Robert G.
    Wang, He
    Wen, Chen
    Smith, Jennifer S.
    Li, Jing
    Taddeo, Frank J.
    Burchette, Raoul J.
    Qiao, You-Lin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2010, 127 (05) : 1151 - 1157
  • [3] Attitudes towards cytology and human papillomavirus self-sample collection for cervical screening among Hindu women in London, UK: a mixed methods study
    Cadman, Louise
    Ashdown-Barr, Lesley
    Waller, Jo
    Szarewski, Anne
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, 2015, 41 (01) : 38 - 47
  • [4] Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population
    Cuzick, J.
    Cadman, L.
    Mesher, D.
    Austin, J.
    Ashdown-Barr, L.
    Ho, L.
    Terry, G.
    Liddle, S.
    Wright, C.
    Lyons, D.
    Szarewski, A.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2013, 108 (04) : 908 - 913
  • [5] Cuzick J, 2017, CANCER EPIDEM BIOMAR, V26, P1053, DOI [10.1158/1055-9965.epi-16-0960, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0960]
  • [6] A comparison of different human papillomavirus tests in PreservCyt versus SurePath in a referral population-PREDICTORS 4
    Cuzick, Jack
    Ahmad, Amar S.
    Austin, Janet
    Cadman, Louise
    Ho, Linda
    Terry, George
    Kleeman, Michelle
    Ashdown-Barr, Lesley
    Lyons, Deirdre
    Stoler, Mark
    Szarewski, Anne
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2016, 82 : 145 - 151
  • [7] 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
    Darlin, Lotten
    Borgfeldt, Christer
    Forslund, Ola
    Henic, Emir
    Hortlund, Maria
    Dillner, Joakim
    Kannisto, Paivi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2013, 58 (01) : 155 - 160
  • [8] The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-associated Lesions: Background and Consensus Recommendations From the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology
    Darragh, Teresa M.
    Colgan, Terence J.
    Cox, J. Thomas
    Heller, Debra S.
    Henry, Michael R.
    Luff, Ronald D.
    McCalmont, Timothy
    Nayar, Ritu
    Palefsky, Joel M.
    Stoler, Mark H.
    Wilkinson, Edward J.
    Zaino, Richard J.
    Wilbur, David C.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2013, 32 (01) : 76 - 115
  • [9] Attitudes to self-sampling for HPV among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in Manchester, UK
    Forrest, S
    McCaffery, K
    Waller, J
    Desai, M
    Szarewski, A
    Cadman, L
    Wardle, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2004, 11 (02) : 85 - 88
  • [10] Acceptability of non-speculum clinician sampling for cervical screening in older women: A qualitative study
    Freeman, Madeleine
    Waller, Jo
    Sasieni, Peter
    Lim, Anita W. W.
    Marlow, Laura A., V
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2018, 25 (04) : 205 - 210