Validity and reliability of using a self-lavaging device for cytology and HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: findings from a pilot study

Heidi E Jones, Mahesh M Mansukhani, Guo-Xia Tong, Carolyn L Westhoff, Heidi E Jones, Mahesh M Mansukhani, Guo-Xia Tong, Carolyn L Westhoff

Abstract

Self-sampling could increase cervical cancer screening uptake. While methods have been identified for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, to date, self-sampling has not provided adequate specimens for cytology. We piloted the validity and reliability of using a self-lavaging device for cervical cytology and HPV testing. We enrolled 198 women in New York City in 2008-2009 from three ambulatory clinics where they received cervical cancer screening. All were asked to use the Delphi Screener™ to self-lavage 1-3 months after clinician-collected index cytological smear (100 normal; 98 abnormal). Women with abnormal cytology results from either specimen underwent colposcopy; 10 women with normal results from both specimens also underwent colposcopy. We calculated sensitivity of self-collected cytology to detect histologically confirmed high grade lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN, 2+); specificity for histology-negative (CIN 1 or lower), paired cytology negative, or a third cytology negative; and kappa for paired results. One hundred and ninety-seven (99.5%) women self-collected a lavage. Seventy-five percent had moderate to excellent cellularity, two specimens were unsatisfactory for cytology. Seven of 167 (4%) women with definitive results had CIN2+; one had normal and six abnormal cytology results with the self-lavage (sensitivity = 86%, 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 42, 100). The kappa for paired cytology was low (0.36; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.47) primarily due to clinician specimens with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) coded as normal using Screener specimens. However, three cases of HSIL were coded as ASC-US and one as normal using Screener specimens. Seventy-three women had paired high-risk HPV tests with a kappa of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.84). Based on these preliminary findings, a larger study to estimate the performance of the Screener for co-testing cytology and HPV or for HPV testing with cytology triage is warranted.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00702208.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, Weinmann S, Mouchawar J, et al. (2005) Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 675–683.
    1. Byrd TL, Chavez R, Wilson KM (2007) Barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening among Hispanic women. Ethn Dis 17: 129–134.
    1. Knops-Dullens T, de Vries N, de Vries H (2007) Reasons for non-attendance in cervical cancer screening programmes: an application of the Integrated Model for Behavioural Change. Eur J Cancer Prev 16: 436–445.
    1. Jones HE, Allan BR, van de Wijgert JHHM, Altini L, Taylor SM, et al. (2007) Agreement between self- and clinician-collected specimen results for detection and typing of high-risk human papillomavirus in specimens from women in Gugulethu, South Africa. J Clin Microbiol 45: 1679–1683.
    1. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, Sellors JW, Petric M, et al. (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 81: 207–212.
    1. Petignat P, Faltin D, Bruchim I, Tramèr MR, Franco EL, et al. (2007) Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 105: 530–535.
    1. Bidus MA, Zahn CM, Maxwell GL, Rodriguez M, Elkas JC, et al. (2005) The role of self-collection devices for cytology and human papillomavirus DNA testing in cervical cancer screening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48: 127–132.
    1. Wright TC Jr (2007) Cervical cancer screening in the 21st century: is it time to retire the PAP smear? Clin Obstet Gynecol 50: 313–323.
    1. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD (1998) Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Eng J Med 338: 423–428.
    1. Franceschi S, Cuzick J, Herrero R, Dillner J, Wheeler CM (2009) EUROGIN 2008 roadmap on cervical cancer prevention. Int J Cancer 125: 2246–2255.
    1. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, et al. (2007) 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197: 346–355.
    1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, et al. (2002) The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 287: 2114–2119.
    1. Driggers RW, Zahn CM (2008) To ECC or not to ECC: the question remains. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 35: 583–597; viii.
    1. Flahault A, Cadilhac M, Thomas G (2005) Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 859–862.
    1. Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter SD, Hanley J, et al. (2007) Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 357: 1579–1588.
    1. Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, Dippery S, Gardner S, et al. (2006) Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 108: 264–272.
    1. Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB, Mao C, Weiss NS, et al. (2002) Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA 288: 1749–1757.
    1. Mintzer M, Curtis P, Resnick JC, Morrell D (1999) The effect of the quality of Papanicolaou smears on the detection of cytologic abnormalities. Cancer 87: 113–117.
    1. Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Hanselaar AGJM, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. (2001) Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 115: 851–855.
    1. Mitchell H, Medley G (1991) Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 337: 265–267.
    1. Zhao C, Austin RM (2008) Adjunctive high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing is a useful option for disease risk assessment in patients with negative Papanicolaou tests without an endocervical/transformation zone sample. Cancer 114: 242–248.
    1. Moore D, Pugh-Cain D, Walker T (2009) Cervical smear adequacy: cellularity references were found to increase both interobserver agreement and unsatisfactory rate. Cytopathology 20: 161–168.
    1. Anderson CE, Lee AJ, McLaren KM, Caims S, Cowen C, et al. (2004) Level of agreement and biopsy correlation using two- and three-tier systems to grade cervical dyskaryosis. Cytopathology 15: 256–262.
    1. Brink AATP, Meijer CJLM, Wiegerinck MAHM, Nieboer TE, Kruitwagen RFPM, et al. (2006) High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus in cervicovaginal samples collected by two methods, with comparison of a novel self-sampling device to a conventional endocervical brush. J Clin Microbiol 44: 2518–2523.
    1. Muskett JM, Carter AK, Dodge OG (1966) Detection of cervical cancer by irrigation smear and cervical scraping. Br Med J 2: 341–342.
    1. Anderson GH, Krakauer K (1967) The irrigation smear–a new cytodiagnostic technique for the detection of cancer of the uterine cervix. Can Med Assoc J 96: 268–272.
    1. Anderson WA, Gunn SA (1967) Cancer of the cervix: further studies of the patient-obtained vaginal irrigation smear. CA Cancer J Clin 17: 102–104.
    1. Brandt-Nielsen E, Wolthers H (1967) Cancer detection by cervical scrapings and irrigation smears/A comparative study comprising 1225 patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 46: 85–92.
    1. Richart RM, Vaillant HW (1965) The irrigation smear: false-negative rates in a population with cervical neoplasia. JAMA 192: 199–202.
    1. Jones HE, Brudney K, Sawo DJ, Lantigua R, Westhoff CL (2012) The acceptability of a self-lavaging device compared to pelvic examination for cervical cancer screening among low-income women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 21: 1275–1281.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe