Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2024 Nov;67(6):557-564. 10.5468/ogs.24117.

A comparative study of self-collected versus clinician-collected specimens in detecting high-risk HPV infection: a prospective cross-sectional study

• Parapob N
• Lekawanvijit S
• Tongsong T
• Charoenkwan K
• Tantipalakorn C

• KMID: 2561019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.24117

Abstract

Objective
The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing.
Methods
From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing.
Results
Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar’s test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed.
Conclusion
The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.

Keyword

Clinician sampling; High-risk HPV; HPV testing; HPV self-sampling

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flow diagram of participating women.

Reference

References

1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65:87–108.

2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71:209–49.

3. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999; 189:12–9.

4. Andrae B, Andersson TM, Lambert PC, Kemetli L, Silfverdal L, Strander B, et al. Screening and cervical cancer cure: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2012; 344:e900.

5. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ. 1999; 318:904–8.

6. Sankaranarayanan R, Ferlay J. Worldwide burden of gynaecological cancer: the size of the problem. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 20:207–25.

7. International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer. Cervical carcinoma and reproductive factors: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 16,563 women with cervical carcinoma and 33,542 women without cervical carcinoma from 25 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119:1108–24.

8. Xue H, Gao H, Zheng J, Chen Y, Chen J, Pan D, et al. Use of extended HR-HPV genotyping in improving the triage strategy of 2019 ASCCP recommendations in women with positive HR-HPV diagnosis and simultaneous LSIL cytology results. J Cancer. 2021; 12:4332–40.

9. Serrano B, Ibáñez R, Robles C, Peremiquel-Trillas P, de Sanjosé S, Bruni L. Worldwide use of HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening. Prev Med. 2022; 154:106900.

10. Nishimura H, Yeh PT, Oguntade H, Kennedy CE, Narasimhan M. HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences. BMJ Glob Health. 2021; 6:e003743.

11. Yeh PT, Kennedy CE, de Vuyst H, Narasimhan M. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019; 4:e001351.

12. Singla AA, Komesaroff P. Self-collected Pap smears may provide an acceptable and effective method of cervical cancer screening. Health Sci Rep. 2018; 1:e33.

13. Sancho-Garnier H, Tamalet C, Halfon P, Leandri FX, Le Retraite L, Djoufelkit K, et al. HPV self-sampling or the Pap-smear: a randomized study among cervical screening nonattenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France. Int J Cancer. 2013; 133:2681–7.

14. Shan G. Sample size calculation for agreement between two raters with binary endpoints using exact tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018; 27:2132–41.

15. Dzuba IG, Díaz EY, Allen B, Leonard YF, Lazcano Ponce EC, Shah KV, et al. The acceptability of self-collected samples for HPV testing vs. the pap test as alternatives in cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002; 11:265–75.

16. Canfell K, Kim JJ, Brisson M, Keane A, Simms KT, Caruana M, et al. Mortality impact of achieving WHO cervical cancer elimination targets: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Lancet. 2020; 395:591–603.