Evaluation of satisfaction with three different cervical cancer screening modalities: clinician-collected Pap test vs. HPV test by self-sampling vs. HPV test by urine sampling

Shin, Hang-Sik; Lee, Bomyee; Hwang, Sang‐Hyun; Lee, Dong Ock; Sung, Na Young; Park, Jae Young; Jun, Jae Kwan

doi:10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e76

Cited by 34 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current studies indicate that HPV testing showed higher sensitivity than cytology, but the sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing varied depending on the HPV testing method used [22][23][24]. Our study also shows similar results to previous studies.…”

Section: Performance Of Hpv Test Combinations and Cytology For The Desupporting

confidence: 89%

Utility of Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Korea

Kim

Lee

Park

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korean women. This study was performed to discover the utility of HPV (Human Papillomavirus) testing in screening of cervical lesions and to provide the prevalence of HPV and the genotype distribution in a single center of Korea. (2) Methods: A total of 15,141 women who underwent both HPV testing and cervical cytology were enrolled in this retrospective medical record review study. (3) Results: HPV testing showed higher sensitivity than cytology for the detection of histological high-grade squamous lesions. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing varied depending on the method used. The BD Onclarity™ HPV assay had higher sensitivity (90%) than the MyHPV CHIP™ kit (all types of HPV: 82%; high-risk HPV: 76%) for high-grade squamous lesions. A combination of MyHPV CHIP™ and cytology detected 90.9% (30/33) of histological high-grade squamous lesions. A combination of BD Onclarity™ HPV assay and cytology detected 96.55% (84/87) of histological high-grade squamous lesions. In addition, HPV prevalence and genotype distribution were different depending on the HPV testing method used. (4) Conclusion: HPV testing showed higher sensitivity than cytology, but the sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing had variation depending on the method used.

show abstract

Section: Performance Of Hpv Test Combinations and Cytology For The Desupporting

confidence: 89%

Utility of Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Korea

Kim

Lee

Park

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our participants consider it could be a feasible strategy for implementation at their healthcare centers. These findings are similar to those reported in previous studies, highlighting the advantages of urine collection as a method for HPV DNA detection [13,[30][31][32]. Sellors et al in Canada, reported acceptability of 98.4% for urine sample collection compared to 79% for PLOS ONE cervical samples [33].…”

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Sellors et al in Canada, reported acceptability of 98.4% for urine sample collection compared to 79% for PLOS ONE cervical samples [33]. A study by Sy et al done on Micronesian women described urine sampling as more comfortable compared to cervical sampling, by 95% and 82%, respectively [32], while another study reported that urine collection reduced fear and anxiety in participants, proposing it as an attractive alternative that could become a routine procedure [30]. Most healthcare professionals we interviewed (78%) were involved in cancer screening programs and they considered it feasible to implement urine collection as a good alternative for HPVtesting.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of an affordable urine self-sampling method for human papillomavirus detection in Mexican women

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Urine self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening is a non-invasive method that offers several logistical advantages and high acceptability, reducing barriers related to low screening coverage. This study developed and evaluated the performance of a low-cost urine self-sampling method for HPV-testing and explored the acceptability and feasibility of potential implementation of this alternative in routine screening. Methods A series of sequential laboratory assays examined the impact of several pre-analytical conditions for obtaining DNA from urine and subsequent HPV detection. Initially, we assessed the effect of ethylaminediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as a DNA preservative examining several variables including EDTA concentration, specimen storage temperature, time between urine collection and DNA extraction, and first-morning micturition versus convenience sample collection. We further evaluated the agreement of HPV-testing between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples among 95 women. Finally, we explored the costs of self-sampling supplies as well as the acceptability and feasibility of urine self-sampling among women and healthcare workers. Results Our results revealed higher DNA concentrations were obtained when using a 40mM EDTA solution, storing specimens at 25°C and extracting DNA within 72 hrs. of urine collection, regardless of using first-morning micturition or a convenience sampling. We observed good agreement (Kappa = 0.72) between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples for HPV detection. Furthermore, urine self-sampling was an affordable method (USD 1.10), well accepted among cervical cancer screening users, healthcare workers, and decision-makers. Conclusion These results suggest urine self-sampling is feasible and appropriate alternative for HPV-testing in HPV-based screening programs in lower-resource contexts.

show abstract

“…Urine is desirable as sample material as the collection is non-invasive, and the procedure is well accepted by women. [16][17][18] However, conflicting data have been published on the sensitivity of urine samples. Some papers have shown that urine has a lower clinical sensitivity compared with SCV and clinician-obtained samples, 19 20 which may be caused by a lower viral load in the urine sample.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared with clinician-taken cervical samples for HPV testing among women referred for colposcopy. A cross-sectional study

Ørnskov

Jochumsen

et al. 2021

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo increase effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening program, self-sampling can be an option. Both self-collected vaginal samples (SCV) and urine samples may be useful alternatives to clinician-taken cervical samples (CS).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingColposcopy clinic.ParticipantsWomen (n=305) referred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical screening result or conditions like postcoital bleeding.InterventionAll women self-collected a urine and a vaginal sample prior to colposcopy, where a CS and biopsies were taken. All samples were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) using the Cobas HPV assay. The gold standard was histology diagnoses (CIN2+/CIN3+) from biopsies obtained at the same examination.Primary outcomeAbsolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing on SCV and urine to detect CIN2+/CIN3+ compared with the CS.Secondary outcomeThe acceptability by women of self-sampling.ResultsBoth the vaginal and urine sample were comparable to the CS in identifying severe intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+). Absolute sensitivity ranged from 93% for urine samples to 96% for SCV for detecting CIN2+, which is comparable to the sensitivity of CS (overlapping 95% CI).The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) for SCV and 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) for urine samples. At CIN3+, the relative sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.07) for SCV and urine samples, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the self-collected samples and the CS (McNemar’s test >0.05). The relative specificity was also similar (1.03 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) for SCV and 0.98 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.09) for urine samples) (McNemar’s test >0.05).The acceptability of self-sampling was evaluated by questionnaire. The women found the instructions on sample collection easy to understand and were positive about self-sampling with a preference for the urine sample.ConclusionSelf-sampling by SCV and urine is a clinically safe alternative to CS with a high degree of acceptability.

show abstract

Evaluation of satisfaction with three different cervical cancer screening modalities: clinician-collected Pap test vs. HPV test by self-sampling vs. HPV test by urine sampling

Cited by 34 publications

References 33 publications

Utility of Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Korea

Utility of Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Korea

Performance of an affordable urine self-sampling method for human papillomavirus detection in Mexican women

Clinical performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared with clinician-taken cervical samples for HPV testing among women referred for colposcopy. A cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About