No abstract

ObjectivesDNA methylation analysis of cancer-related genes is a promising tool for HPV-positive women to identify those with cervical (pre)cancer (CIN3+) in need of treatment. However, clinical performance of methylation markers can be influenced by the sample type utilized. We describe a multiplex quantitative methylation-specific PCR that targets FAM19A4 and mir124-2 loci, to detect CIN3+ using both HPV-positive lavage- and brush self-samples.MethodsWe determined methylation thresholds for clinical classification using HPV-positive training sets comprising lavage self-samples of 182 women (including 40 with CIN3+) and brush self-samples of 224 women (including 61 with CIN3+). Subsequently, independent HPV-positive validation sets of 389 lavage self-samples (including 78 with CIN3+), and 254 brush self-samples (including 72 with CIN3+) were tested using the preset thresholds. Furthermore, the clinical performance of combined methylation analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping was determined.ResultsTraining set analysis revealed similar FAM19A4 and mir124-2 thresholds for both self-sample types to yield highest CIN3+ sensitivity at 70% specificity. Validation set analysis resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 70.5% (95%CI: 60.4–80.6) at a specificity of 67.8% (95%CI: 62.7–73.0) for lavage self-samples, and a CIN3+ sensitivity of 69.4% (95%CI: 58.8–80.1) at a 76.4% (95%CI: 70.2–82.6) specificity for brush self-samples. In combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, CIN3+ sensitivity and specificity were 88.5% (95%CI: 81.4–95.6) and 46.0% (95%CI: 40.4–51.5) for lavage self-samples, and 84.7% (95%CI: 76.4–93.0) and 54.9% (95%CI: 47.7–62.2) for brush self-samples.ConclusionsFAM19A4/mir124-2 methylation analysis performs equally well in HPV-positive lavage- and brush self-samples to identify women with CIN3+. In combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, significantly higher CIN3+ sensitivities are obtained, at decreased specificity.

No abstract

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage-based one for testing for hrHPV (high-risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN21/31), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non-responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33-63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n 5 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush-based or a lavage-based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self-sampling responders testing hrHPV-positive were invited for a physiciantaken sample for cytology; triage-positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush-based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage-based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8-4.2). The hrHPV-positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87-1.13). The detection of CIN21 and CIN31 in the brush group (2.0% for CIN21; 1.3% for CIN31) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN21; 1.0% for CIN31) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83-1.24 for CIN21 and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92-1.70 for CIN31. The two self-sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush-based device to non-responders is noninferior to offering a lavage-based device in terms of participation. The two self-sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN21/CIN31 and are both well accepted.The introduction of organized programs for cervical cancer screening in developed countries has contributed to a significant decrease in the incidence and mortality rate of cervical cancer.1-5 A major issue concerning the effectiveness of the screening programs is that many women do not attend the cervical screening (i.e., non-responders). Non-participation women are at increased risk of developing cervical cancer; therefore, it is important to reach these women. 5-8 Offering

In 2017 the cervical cancer screening program in The Netherlands will be revised. Cervical smears will primarily be tested for the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) instead of cytology, and vaginal self-sampling will be offered to non-responders. This includes a potential risk that part of the women who would otherwise opt for a cervical smear will wait for self-sampling. However, self-sampling for hrHPV in a responder population has never been studied yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the applicability and accuracy of self-sampling in detecting hrHPV in a screening responder population. A total of 2049 women, aged 30-60years, participating in the screening program in The Netherlands were included from April 2013 to May 2015. After they had their cervical smear taken, women self-collected a cervicovaginal sample with a brush-based device, the Evalyn Brush. Both the cervical smear and self-sample specimen were tested with the COBAS 4800 HPV platform. The hrHPV prevalence was 8.0% (95% CI 6.9-9.2) among the physician-taken samples, and 10.0% (95% CI 8.7-11.3) among the self-samples. There was 96.8% (95% CI 96.0-97.5) concordance of hrHPV prevalence between self-samples and physician-taken samples. Women in our study evaluated self-sampling as convenient (97.1%), user-friendly (98.5%), and 62.8% preferred self-sampling over a physician-taken sampling for the next screening round. In conclusion, self-sampling showed high concordance with physician-taken sampling for hrHPV detection in a responder screening population and highly acceptable to women. Implementation of HPV-self-sampling for the responder population as a primary screening tool may be considered.