Randomized comparison of vaginal self-sampling by standard vs. dry swabs for human papillomavirus testing

Isabelle Eperon, Pierre Vassilakos, Isabelle Navarria, Pierre-Alain Menoud, Aude Gauthier, Jean-Claude Pache, Michel Boulvain, Sarah Untiet, Patrick Petignat, Isabelle Eperon, Pierre Vassilakos, Isabelle Navarria, Pierre-Alain Menoud, Aude Gauthier, Jean-Claude Pache, Michel Boulvain, Sarah Untiet, Patrick Petignat

Abstract

Background: To evaluate if human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (Self-HPV) using a dry vaginal swab is a valid alternative for HPV testing.

Methods: Women attending colposcopy clinic were recruited to collect two consecutive Self-HPV samples: a Self-HPV using a dry swab (S-DRY) and a Self-HPV using a standard wet transport medium (S-WET). These samples were analyzed for HPV using real time PCR (Roche Cobas). Participants were randomized to determine the order of the tests. Questionnaires assessing preferences and acceptability for both tests were conducted. Subsequently, women were invited for colposcopic examination; a physician collected a cervical sample (physician-sampling) with a broom-type device and placed it into a liquid-based cytology medium. Specimens were then processed for the production of cytology slides and a Hybrid Capture HPV DNA test (Qiagen) was performed from the residual liquid. Biopsies were performed if indicated. Unweighted kappa statistics (к) and McNemar tests were used to measure the agreement among the sampling methods.

Results: A total of 120 women were randomized. Overall HPV prevalence was 68.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.3-77.2) by S-WET, 54.4% (95% CI 44.8-63.9) by S-DRY and 53.8% (95% CI 43.8-63.7) by HC. Among paired samples (S-WET and S-DRY), the overall agreement was good (85.7%; 95% CI 77.8-91.6) and the κ was substantial (0.70; 95% CI 0.57-0.70). The proportion of positive type-specific HPV agreement was also good (77.3%; 95% CI 68.2-84.9). No differences in sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade one (CIN1) or worse between the two Self-HPV tests were observed. Women reported the two Self-HPV tests as highly acceptable.

Conclusion: Self-HPV using dry swab transfer does not appear to compromise specimen integrity. Further study in a large screening population is needed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01316120.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Agreement of type-specific HPV detection between S-WET, S-DRY and HC. Note: S-DRY = dry vaginal swabs used for self-sampling; S-WET = vaginal swabs with wet transport medium used for self- sampling; HC = Hybrid Capture physician sampeld; *HPV 16 in single or mixed infections; **HPV 18 in single or mixed infections; ***One or more of the non-16/18 high risk HPV types, in single or mixed infections.

References

    1. Cox JT. History of the use of HPV testing in cervical screening and in the management of abnormal cervical screening results. J Clin Virol. 2009;45(Suppl 1):S3–S12.
    1. Parkin DM. The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:3030–3044. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21731.
    1. zur Hausen H. Papillomaviruses in the causation of human cancers - a brief historical account. Virology. 2009;384:260–265. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2008.11.046.
    1. Schmeink CE, Bekkers RL, Massuger LF, Melchers WJ. The potential role of self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus detection in cervical cancer screening. Rev Med Virol. 2011;21:139–153. doi: 10.1002/rmv.686.
    1. Arbyn M, Dillner J. Review of current knowledge on HPV vaccination: an appendix to the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. J Clin Virol. 2007;38:189–197. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2006.12.009.
    1. Bosch FX, de Sanjose S. Human papillomavirus in cervical cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2002;4:175–183. doi: 10.1007/s11912-002-0079-y.
    1. Schiffman M, Castle PE. Human papillomavirus: epidemiology and public health. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:930–934.
    1. Lazcano-Ponce E, Lorincz AT, Cruz-Valdez A, Salmeron J, Uribe P, Velasco-Mondragon E, Nevarez PH, Acosta RD, Hernandez-Avila M. Self-collection of vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer prevention (MARCH): a community-based randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1868–1873. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61522-5.
    1. Petignat P, Untiet S, Vassilakos P. How to improve cervical cancer screening in Switzerland? Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13663.
    1. Gok M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Spruyt JW, Voorhorst F, Belien JA, Babovic M, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study. BMJ. 2010;340:c1040. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1040.
    1. Petignat P, Vassilakos P. Is it time to introduce HPV self-sampling for primary cervical cancer screening? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:166–167. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr544.
    1. Krech T, Castriciano S, Jang D, Smieja M, Enders G, Chernesky M. Detection of high risk HPV and Chlamydia trachomatis in vaginal and cervical samples collected with flocked nylon and wrapped rayon dual swabs transported in dry tubes. J Virol Methods. 2009;162:291–293. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2009.08.011.
    1. Gustavsson I, Lindell M, Wilander E, Strand A, Gyllensten U. Use of FTA card for dry collection, transportation and storage of cervical cell specimen to detect high-risk HPV. J Clin Virol. 2009;46:112–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.06.021.
    1. Feng Q, Cherne S, Winer RL, Popov V, Zambrano H, Yerovi C, Hawes SE, Koutsky LA, Kiviat NB. Evaluation of transported dry and wet cervical exfoliated samples for detection of human papillomavirus infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:3068–3072. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00736-10.
    1. Shah KV, Daniel RW, Tennant MK, Shah N, McKee KT Jr, Gaydos CA, Gaydos JC, Rompalo A. Diagnosis of human papillomavirus infection by dry vaginal swabs in military women. Sex Transm Infect. 2001;77:260–264. doi: 10.1136/sti.77.4.260.
    1. Wolfrum SG, Koutsky LA, Hughes JP, Feng Q, Xi LF, Shen Z, Winer RL. Evaluation of dry and wet transport of at-home self-collected vaginal swabs for human papillomavirus testing. J Med Microbiol. 2012;61:1538–1545. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.046110-0.
    1. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramer MR, Franco EL, Coutlee F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:530–535. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.023.
    1. Belinson JL, Pretorius RG, Enerson C, Garcia F, Cruz EP, Belinson SE, Yeverino Garcia E, Brainard J. The Mexican Cervical Cancer Screening Trial: self-sampling for human papillomavirus with unaided visual inspection as a secondary screen. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:27–32. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e318197f479.
    1. Belinson JL, Du H, Yang B, Wu R, Belinson SE, Qu X, Pretorius RG, Yi X, Castle PE. Improved sensitivity of vaginal self-collection and high-risk human papillomavirus testing. Int J Cancer. 2012;130:1855–1860. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26202.
    1. Zhao FH, Lewkowitz AK, Chen F, Lin MJ, Hu SY, Zhang X, Pan QJ, Ma JF, Niyazi M, Li CQ. et al.Pooled Analysis of a Self-Sampling HPV DNA Test as a Cervical Cancer Primary Screening Method. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:178–188. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr532.
    1. Gravitt PE, Belinson JL, Salmeron J, Shah KV. Looking ahead: a case for human papillomavirus testing of self-sampled vaginal specimens as a cervical cancer screening strategy. Int J Cancer. 2011;129:517–527. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25974.
    1. Cerigo H, Coutlee F, Franco EL, Brassard P. Dry self-sampling versus provider-sampling of cervicovaginal specimens for human papillomavirus detection in the Inuit population of Nunavik, Quebec. J Med Screen. 2012;19:42–48.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться