Results of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Objective - to evaluate the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection (HR HPV), the efficiency and acceptability on self-collected using the Qvintip device versus clinician-collected samples in vaginal discharge. Subjects and methods. A cross-sectional study involving 200 women attituded to an employer’s outpatient clinic for periodic/annual medical examination. The mean age of the patients was 32.7±6.9 (range: 18-45 years). Vaginal discharge was collected using a Qvintip device and vaginal smear from the cervical canal was taken by a physician for a further HR HPV PCR test. A face-to-face interviews using to assess acceptability of the compared methods. Patients evaluated comfort, pain, privacy and embarrassment using the rating «yes» or «no». Results. 42% of all patients were HR HPV positive. The efficiency of the survey using the self-collected Qvintip device was higher than the clinician-taken samples: 38% vs 27.5% (OR=1.6; pχ2=0.025). The use of the Qvintip device only increased a chance to detect HR-HPV by 5 times: 36.3% vs 9.5% (OR=5.0; pχ2=0.0001). HPV-16 was the most frequently encountered HPV type (17.7%), followed by HPV-56 (16.3%), HPV-39 (13.6%), HPV-31 (10.9%), HPV-33 and HPV-51 (8.2%), HPV-58 (7.5%), HPV-52 (6.1%); HPV-45 (5.4%), HPV-18 (4.1%); HPV-35 (1.4%), HPV-59 (0.7%). 51.2% of HPV-positive women were infected with several types of HR HPV. Two types of HR HPV were detected in 34.5%, three - in 9.5%, four - in 6%, five - in 1.2 % patients. Self-sampling using the Qvintip device was a well-accepted method. Compared to physician-sampling, women reported a preference for self-sampling (64%), as it was more comfortable (75% vs 22.2%, p<0.001) and caused less pain (70.3% vs 22.2%, p<0.001) and less embarrassment (25.8% vs 1.4%, p<0.001). Most preferred to take the self-sample at home in the future (96%) because it was simple and did not require a doctor’s appointment. Conclusion. Reproductive age women show a high rate of HR HPV infection (42%). Vaginal self-sampling using the Qvintip device was more easy and comfortable, and shown higher diagnostic efficiency than the clinician-taken samples. Offering self-sampling for HPV testing may improve screening participation rates and overcome women’s embarrassment regarding clinician examination.

About the authors

T E Belokrinitskaya

Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: tanbell24@mail.ru
д-р мед. наук, проф., зав. каф. акушерства и гинекологии педиатрического фак-та, ФПК и ППС ФГБОУ ВО ЧитГМА 672090, Russian Federation, Chita, ul. Gor'kogo, d. 39a

N I Frolova

Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: taasyaa@mail.ru
канд. мед. наук, ассистент каф. акушерства и гинекологии педиатрического фак-та, ФПК и ППС ФГБОУ ВО ЧитГМА 672090, Russian Federation, Chita, ul. Gor'kogo, d. 39a

O V Turanova

Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: pochta@chitgma.ru
клинический ординатор каф. акушерства и гинекологии педиатрического фак-та, ФПК и ППС ФГБОУ ВО ЧитГМА 672090, Russian Federation, Chita, ul. Gor'kogo, d. 39a

V A Pletneva

Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

студентка, член Молодежного научного общества каф. акушерства и гинекологии педиатрического фак-та, ФПК и ППС ФГБОУ ВО ЧитГМА 672090, Russian Federation, Chita, ul. Gor'kogo, d. 39a

K N Shemyakina

Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

студентка, член Молодежного научного общества каф. акушерства и гинекологии педиатрического фак-та, ФПК и ППС ФГБОУ ВО ЧитГМА 672090, Russian Federation, Chita, ul. Gor'kogo, d. 39a

N B Sambueva

Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

студентка, член Молодежного научного общества кафедры акушерства и гинекологии педиатрического фак-та, ФПК и ППС ФГБОУ ВО ЧитГМА 672090, Russian Federation, Chita, ul. Gor'kogo, d. 39a

E E Maltseva

Chita State Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

студентка, член Молодежного научного общества каф. акушерства и гинекологии педиатрического фак-та, ФПК и ППС ФГБОУ ВО ЧитГМА 672090, Russian Federation, Chita, ul. Gor'kogo, d. 39a

References

  1. Bruni L, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, Albero G et al. ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases in the World. Summary Report 15 December 2016.
  2. Comprehensive Cervical Cancer Control. A guide to essential practice Second edition. World Health Organization, 2014.
  3. WHO guidance note: comprehensive cervical cancer prevention and control: a healthier future for girls and women. World Health Organization, 2013.
  4. Профилактика рака шейки матки. Под ред. Г.Т.Сухих, В.Н.Прилепской. Руководство для врачей. М.: МЕДпресс-информ, 2012.
  5. WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. World Health Organization, 2013.
  6. Bosch F.X, Broker T.R, Forman D et al. Comprehensive control of human papillomavirus infections and related diseases. Vaccine 2013; 31 (Suppl. 7): H1-31.
  7. Lorincz A, Castanon A, Wey Wey Lim A, Sasieni P. New Strategies for HPV-based Cervical Screening. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2013; 9 (5). doi: 10.2217/whe.13.48 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880859/
  8. Wright T.C, Stoler M.H, Behrens C.M et al. Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: end of study results from the ATHENA study using HPV as the first - line screening test. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 136 (2): 189-97.
  9. Martins T.R, de Oliveira C.M, Rosa L.R et al. HPV genotype distribution in Brazilian women with and without cervical lesions: correlation to cytological data. Virol J 2016; 13: 138.
  10. Katki H.A, Kinney W.K, Fetterman B et al. Cervical Cancer Risk for 330,000 Women Undergoing Concurrent HPV Testing and Cervical Cytology in Routine Clinical Practice at a Large Managed Care Organization. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12 (7): 663-72.
  11. Agorastos T, Chatzistamatiou K, Katsamagkas T et al. and the HERMES study group. Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer Based on High - Risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Detection and HPV 16 and HPV 18 Genotyping, in Comparison to Cytology. PLoS One 2015; 10 (3): e0119755. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119755. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368762/
  12. Deleré Y, Schuster M, Vartazarowa E et al. Cervicovaginal Self-Sampling Is a Reliable Method for Determination of Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Genotypes in Women Aged 20 to 30 Years. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49 (10): 3519-22.
  13. Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJ et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self - collected versus clinician - collected samples: a meta - analysis. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15 (2): 172-83. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70570-9.
  14. Chen K, Ouyang Y, Hillemanns P, Jentschke M. Excellent analytical and clinical performance of a dry self - sampling device for human papillomavirus detection in an urban Chinese referral population. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2016; 42 (12): 1839-45. doi: 10.1111/jog.13132.
  15. Del Mistro A, Frayle H, Ferro A et al. Efficacy of self - sampling in promoting participation to cervical cancer screening also in subsequent round. Prev Med Rep 2016; 5: 166-68. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.12.017. eCollection 2017.
  16. Wong E.L.Y, Chan Paul K.S, Chor J.S.Y et al. Evaluation of the Impact of Human Papillomavirus DNA Self - sampling on the Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening. Cancer Nurs 2016; 39 (1): E1-E11.
  17. Jentschke M, Chen K, Arbyn M et al. Direct comparison of two vaginal self - sampling devices for the detection of human papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol 2016; 82: 46-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.06.016.
  18. Ma'som M, Bhoo-Pathy N, Nasir N.H et al. Attitudes and factors affecting acceptability of self - administered cervicovaginal sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping as an alternative to Pap testing among multiethnic Malaysian women. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (8): e011022. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-011022.
  19. Silva J, Cerqueira F, Medeiros R. Acceptability of self - sampling in Portuguese women: the good, the bad or the ugly? Sex Health 2017. doi: 10.1071/SH16077.
  20. Sultana F, Mullins R, English D.R et al. Women’s experience with home - based self - sampling for human papillomavirus testing. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 849.
  21. Boggan J.C, Walmer D.K, Henderson G et al. Vaginal self - sampling for human papillomavirus infection as a primary cervical cancer screening tool in a naitian population. Sex Transm Dis 2015; 42 (11): 655-9.
  22. Zhao F.H, Lewkowitz A.K, Chen F et al. Pooled analysis of a self - sampling HPV DNA test as a cervical cancer primary screening method. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104 (3): 178-88.
  23. Balasubramanian A, Kulasingam S.L, Baer A et al. Accuracy and cost - effectiveness of cervical cancer screening by high - risk human papillomavirus DNA testing of self - collected vaginal samples. J Lower Genit Tract Dis 2010; 14 (3): 185-95.
  24. Bhatla N, Dar L, Patro A.R et al. Can human papillomavirus DNA testing of self - collected vaginal samples compare with physician - collected cervical samples and cytology for cervical cancer screening in developing countries? Cancer Epidemiol 2009; 33 (6): 446-50.
  25. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mallett S et al. Human papillomavirus testing by self - sampling: assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting. J Med Screen 2007; 14 (1): 34-42.
  26. Артымук Н.В., Марочко К.В. Эффективность выявления вируса папилломы человека при помощи устройства для самостоятельного забора вагинального отделяемого. Акушерство и гинекология. 2016; 3: 85-91.
  27. Wright T.C.Jr, Denny L, Kuhn L et al. HPV DNA testing of self - collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. JAMA 2000; 283 (1): 81-6.
  28. Haguenoer K, Sengchanh S, Gaudy-Graffin C et al. Vaginal self - sampling is a cost - effective way to increase participation in a cervical cancer screening programme: a randomised trial. Br J Cancer 2014; 111 (11): 2187-96. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.510.
  29. Bansil P, Wittet S, Lim J.L et al. Acceptability of self - collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low - resource settings: a mixed methods approach. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 596.
  30. Doorbar J, Egawa N, Griffin H et al. Human papillomavirus molecular biology and disease association. Rev Med Virol 2015; 25 (Suppl. 1): 2-23. doi: 10.1002/rmv.1822.
  31. Rogovskaya S.I, Shabalova I.P, Mikheeva I.V et al. Human papillomavirus prevalence and type - distribution, cervical cancer screening practices and current status of vaccination implementation in Russian Federation, the Western countries of the former Soviet Union, Caucasus region and Central Asia. Vaccine 2013; 31 (Suppl. 7): H46-58. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.06.043.
  32. Белокриницкая Т.Е., Фролова И.И., Тарбаева Д.А. и др. Конфаундинг - факторы папилломавирусной инфекции и цервикальной дисплазии у молодых женщин. Доктор.Ру. 2015; 14 (115): 7-12.
  33. Мерзлякова М.К., Никитина Е.Г., Бычков В.А. и др. Сравнительные аспекты распространенности генотипов вируса папилломы человека у женского населения Томской области и Республики Тыва. Сиб. онкол. журн. 2012; Прил. 1: 108-9.
  34. Основные показатели деятельности акушерско - гинекологической службы в Российской Федерации в 2015 году. Под ред. Е.Н.Байбариной. М., 2016.
  35. Zehbe I, Jackson R, Wood B et al. Community - randomised controlled trial embedded in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study: human papillomavirus self - sampling versus Papanicolaou cytology. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (10): e011754.
  36. Ortiz A.P, Alejandro N, Pérez C.M et al. Acceptability of Cervical and Anal HPV Self - sampling in a Sample of Hispanic Women in Puerto Rico. PR Health Sci J 2012; 31 (4): 205-12.
  37. Darlin L, Borgfeldt C, Forslund O et al. Comparison of use of vaginal HPV self - sampling and offering flexible appointments as strategies to reach long - term non - attending women in organized cervical screening. J Clin Virol 2013; 58 (1): 155-60.
  38. Verdoodt F, Jentschke M, Hillemanns P et al. Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self - sampling kits: a systematic review and meta - analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51 (16): 2375-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.006. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296294.
  39. Chou H.H, Huang H.J, Cheng H.H et al. Self - sampling HPV test in women not undergoing Pap smear for more than 5 years and factors associated with under - screening in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 2015; pii: S0929-6646(15)00353-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2015.10.014.
  40. Tranberg M, Bech B.H, Blaakær J et al. Study protocol of the CHOiCE trial: a three - armed, randomized, controlled trial of home - based HPV self - sampling for non - participants in an organized cervical cancer screening program. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5094020/

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2017 Consilium Medicum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).