Clinician-collected Samples Research Articles

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

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 self-sampling for HPV testing. 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. 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. 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.

A-359 Clinical Performance Evaluation of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-Based cobas CT/NG/MG Test for Use on the cobas liat System in a Clinical Laboratory Setting and Point-of-Care (POC) Location

Abstract Background Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), and Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) can be achieved rapidly (in approximately 20 minutes) with the cobas® CT/NG/MG test (assay not cleared by US FDA. Submission currently under review and subject to change per health authority feedback). This automated, qualitative, real-time PCR-based nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is for use on the cobas® liat® system. This study evaluated the test’s clinical performance using urogenital samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Methods This non-interventional, non-observational study used prospective clinician-collected and self-collected specimens (urine, and vaginal swabs, all in cobas® PCR Media) from symptomatic/asymptomatic patients ≥14 years old from 13 POC sites across the US. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of cobas liat CT/NG/MG were calculated with respect to patient infected status (PIS), as determined using results from three FDA-approved NAATs and one laboratory-developed test. Due to insufficient positive NG samples during the trial period, further testing used archived samples. Results The median (range) age of the study population (N=4,800) was 35.0 (15.0-81.0) years; 40.4% (n=1,941) were symptomatic and 51.9% (n=2,489) were assigned female at birth. The cobas CT/NG/MG nucleic acid test demonstrated good clinical performance (Table 1). Across all specimen types, specificity was >97% for each analyte. Sensitivity was ≥95%, except in female urine (CT 87.0%, NG 93.1%, MG 78.9%). Regardless of specimen type, PPV and NPV were ≥95% for CT and NG; PPV for MG was highest in male urine (92.7%) and NPV was >97.5% across analytes. Conclusions In a clinical setting, the cobas CT/NG/MG nucleic acid test showed good clinical performance for the detection of CT, NG, and MG in urogenital samples, in addition to providing a short turn-around time and centralized testing lab quality at the POC for both self- and clinician-collected samples.

Clinical accuracy of OncoPredict HPV Quantitative Typing (QT) assay on self-samples

BackgroundThe VALHUDES initiative was established to assess the clinical accuracy of HPV assays to detect cervical precancers using urine and vaginal self-samples compared to cervical clinician-collected samples. Here, the clinical performance of OncoPredict HPV Quantitative Typing (QT) assay (OncoPredict QT) was evaluated. Methods490 women referred to colposcopy self-collected a urine and a vaginal specimen using Colli-Pee and FLOQSwab, respectively. Subsequently, a colposcopy was performed, and a cervical sample was collected with Cervex-Brush, followed by biopsy if clinically indicated. Vaginal samples were transported dry and resuspended in 5mL of eNAT medium, whilst cervical brushings were immediately transferred in 20mL ThinPrep. ResultsThe clinical sensitivity of OncoPredict HPV QT testing for CIN2+ in urine and vaginal self-samples was similar to cervical samples (ratios of 0.99 [95% CI 0.94-1.05] and 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.04]), respectively, when manufacturer's cut-offs were applied. The specificity for <CIN2 on both self-samples was lower than on cervical samples (urine/cervical ratio = 0.91 [95% CI 0.84-0.98]; vaginal/cervical ratio = 0.90 [95 % CI 0.84-0.98]). Cut-off optimisation improved specificity without compromising sensitivity. Median viral load values adjusted for cellularity were significantly higher in cervical samples compared to urine or vaginal self-samples, in general for all 12 high-risk HPV and in particular for HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 51, 58 (p<0.05). No difference was observed in median viral loads between urine and vaginal samples. ConclusionFollowing cut-off optimisation OncoPredict HPV QT assay demonstrated similar accuracy on self-collected versus cervical samples.

Comparative Analysis of HPV Detection Efficiency: Evaluating Cobas 8800 Performance in Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Collected Samples at a Regional Thai Hospital

Background: This study, conducted at a regional Thai hospital, assesses the comparative efficacy of self-collected versus clinician-collected samples for HPV detection using the Cobas 8800 system among Thai women aged 30–60. Methods: Our methodology involved analyzing 1541 self-collected and 1398 clinician-collected samples. Results: The results show a statistically significant mean difference in cycle threshold (Ct) values favoring clinician-collected samples (1.53; 95% CI: 1.18–1.87, p &lt; 0.0001). This pattern was consistent across various age groups, with the most pronounced differences noted in the oldest cohort (50–59 years), suggesting higher detection efficiency in clinician-collected samples. The study further explored the correlation of Ct values with cytological and histological outcomes, where clinician-collected samples demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, particularly in identifying LSIL and HSIL conditions, evidenced by AUC values of 0.793 and 0.866, respectively. While self-sampling remains a viable method, with sensitivity reaching up to 48.84% for LSIL and 46.15% for HSIL, clinician collection proved more accurate, likely influencing future national screening policies. Conclusions: This work underscores the need for robust sample collection methods and the importance of ongoing enhancements to self-sampling assays and techniques to ensure their efficacy in cervical cancer screening programs.

DNA methylation at individual CpG-sites of EPB41L3, HTERT and FAM19A4 are useful for detection of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) or worse: Analysis of individual CpG-sites outperforms averaging

Global methylation analysis of gene promoters is promising for detection of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+) in high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women. However, diagnostic performance of methylation data at individual CpG-sites is limited. We explored methylation for predicting HSIL+ in self- and clinician-collected samples from Papua New Guinea.Methylation of EPB41L3 (1–6 CpG-sites), hTERT (1–10 CpG-sites) and FAM19A4 (1–5 CpG-sites) was assessed through pyrosequencing from 44 HPV+ samples (4 cancers, 19 HSIL, 4 low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), 17 normal). New primers were designed for FAM19A4 directed to the first exon region not explored previously.In clinician-collected samples, methylation at CpG-sites 4 and 5 of EPB41L3 were the best HSIL predictors (AUC >0.83) and CpG-site 4 for cancer (0.925). Combination of EPB41L3 sites 2/4 plus FAM19A4 site 1 were the best HSIL+ markers [100% sensitivity, 63.2% specificity].Methylation at CpG-site 5 of FAM19A4 was the best HSIL predictor (0.67) in self-collected samples, and CpG-sites 1 and 3 of FAM19A4 for cancer (0.77). Combined, FAM19A4 site 1 plus HPV 16/18 detection yielded sensitivity of 82.6% and specificity of 61.9%.In conclusion, methylation at individual CpG-sites of EPB41L3 and FAM19A4 outperformed global analysis and improved HSIL+ detection, warranting further investigation.

Performance of CADM1, MAL and miR124-2 methylation as triage markers for early detection of cervical cancer in self-collected and clinician-collected samples: an exploratory observational study in Papua New Guinea

ObjectiveWHO recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening, with triage of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) positive women. However, there are limitations to effective triage for low-resource, high-burden settings, such as...

Urine high-risk human papillomavirus testing as an alternative to routine cervical screening: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study of two urine collection devices using a randomised study design trial.

To evaluate the sensitivity of human papillomavirus (HPV) tested urine to detect high-grade cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) using two urine collection devices. Randomised controlled trial. St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK. Colposcopy attendees with abnormal cervical screening; a total of 480 participants were randomised. Matched urine and cervical samples were available for 235 and 230 participants using a first-void urine (FVU)-collection device and standard pot, respectively. Urine was self-collected and mixed with preservative - randomised 1:1 to FVU-collection device (Novosanis Colli-pee® 10 mL with urine conservation medium [UCM]) or standard pot. Matched clinician-collected cervical samples were taken before colposcopy. HPV testing used Roche cobas® 8800. A questionnaire evaluated urine self-sampling acceptability. The primary outcome measured sensitivity of HPV-tested urine (FVU-collection device and standard pot) for CIN2+ detection. Secondary outcomes compared HPV-tested cervical and urine samples for CIN2+ and evaluated the acceptability of urine self-sampling. Urine HPV test sensitivity for CIN2+ was higher with the FVU-collection device (90.3%, 95% CI 83.7%-94.9%, 112/124) than the standard pot (73.4%, 95% CI 64.7%-80.9%, 91/124, p = 0.0005). The relative sensitivity of FVU-device-collected urine was 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.97, pMcN = 0.004) compared with cervical, considering that all women were referred after a positive cervical HPV test. Urine-based sampling was acceptable to colposcopy attendees. Testing of FVU-device-collected urine for HPV was superior to standard-pot-collected urine in colposcopy attendees and has promising sensitivity for CIN2+ detection. General population HPV testing of FVU-device-collected urine will establish its clinical performance and acceptability as an alternative to routine cervical screening.

Performance of a vaginal self-collection device versus clinician collected cervical samples for the detection of high-risk human papillomavirus

ObjectiveScreening for cervical cancer requires the participation of target women. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be performed on vaginal self-samples and self-sampling can improve this participation. This study aims to validate the performance of the vaginal self-sampling device (Vitroveil®) to detect high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) in comparison to clinician collected samples and evaluate the degree of acceptability of the Vitroveil® device. MethodsA cross-sectional observational study was carried out in a cohort of 385 participating women (median age of 44 ± 10.47 years) attending primary care centers and cervical pathology services of Granada, Spain. Two paired samples (vaginal self-sample and clinician collected cervical sample) where collected from each participant to compare the detection of HPV with the Vitro HPV Screening assay (Vitro, Granada, Spain). A questionnaire was also provided to the participants to analyze the degree of satisfaction with the device and the preference for sampling method. ResultsOverall concordance for hrHPV detection was substantial (ĸ 0.804). The prevalence of any hrHPV infection was higher in self-collected samples (30.6%) than in clinician-collected samples (24.3%). The participants found the self-sampling device easy to use and preferred self-collection as the collection method. ConclusionThe Vitroveil® self-sampling device enables safe and accruable hrHPV testing, obtaining equivalent results to those of the clinician collected samples. High acceptability of the device has been demonstrated among women in the study. Nevertheless, additional studies are necessary to verify the efficacy and reliability of the device's performance.

Prevalence and Determinants of Cervicovaginal, Oral, and Anal Human Papillomavirus Infection in a Population of Transgender and Gender Diverse People Assigned Female at Birth.

Purpose: The human papillomavirus (HPV) causes cervicovaginal, oral, and anogenital cancer, and cervical cancer screening options include HPV testing of a clinician-collected sample. Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people assigned female at birth (AFAB) face many barriers to preventive care, including cancer screening. Self-sampling options may increase access and participation in HPV testing and cancer screening. This study estimated the prevalence of HPV in self-collected cervicovaginal, oral, and anal samples from Midwestern TGD individuals AFAB. Methods: We recruited TGD individuals AFAB for an observational study, mailing them materials to self-collect cervicovaginal, oral, and anal samples at home. We tested samples for high-risk (HR; 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59) and other HPV genotypes (6, 11, 66, 68, 73, 90) using a polymerase chain reaction mass array test. Prevalence ratios for HPV infection at each site as a function of participant characteristics were estimated in log-binomial models. Results: Out of 137 consenting participants, 102 completed sample collection. Among those with valid tests, 8.8% (HR = 6.6%; HPV 16/18 = 3.3%) were positive for oral HPV, 30.5% (HR = 26.8%; HPV 16/18 = 9.7%) for cervicovaginal HPV, and 39.6% (HR = 33.3%; HPV 16/18 = 8.3%) for anal HPV. A larger fraction of oral (71.4%) than anal infections (50.0%) were concordant with a cervicovaginal infection of the same type. Conclusions: We detected HR cervicovaginal, oral, and anal HPV in TGD people AFAB. It is essential that we reduce barriers to cancer screening for TGD populations, such as through the development of a clinically approved self-screening HPV test.

The impact of loss to follow-up in the Dutch organised HPV-based cervical cancer screening programme.

Loss to follow-up (LTFU) within cervical screening programmes can result in missed clinically relevant lesions, potentially reducing programme effectiveness. To examine the health impact of losing women during the screening process, we determined the proportion of women LTFU per step of the Dutch hrHPV-based screening programme. We then determined the probability of being LTFU by age, screening history and sampling method (self- or clinician-sampled) using logistic regression analysis. Finally, we estimated the number of missed CIN2+/3+ lesions per LTFU moment by using the CIN-risk in women compliant with follow-up. Data from the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (Palga) was used. Women eligible for screening in 2017 and 2018 were included (N = 840,428). For clinician collected (CC) samples, the highest proportion LTFU was found following 'referral advice for colposcopy' (5.5% after indirect referral; 3.8% after direct referral). For self-sampling, the highest proportions LTFU were found following the advice for repeat cytology (13.6%) and after referral advice for colposcopy (8.2% after indirect referral; 4.3% after direct referral). Self-sampling users and women with no screening history had a higher LTFU-risk (OR: 3.87, CI: 3.55-4.23; OR: 1.39, CI: 1.20-1.61) compared to women that used CC sampling and women that have been screened before, respectively. Of all women LTFU in 2017/18, the total number of potentially missed CIN2+ was 844 (21% of women LTFU). Most lesions were missed after 'direct referral for colposcopy' (N = 462, 11.5% of women LTFU). So, this indicates a gap between the screening programme and clinical care which requires further attention, by improving monitoring of patients after referral.

Strategies to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening With Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial

ABSTRACT In the United States, adherence for cervical cancer screening decreased from 86% to 77% between 2005 and 2019. Over 50% of cervical cancers are diagnosed in individuals overdue for screening, and promoting access and adherence is essential. Unlike traditional Papanicolaou testing, human papillomavirus (HPV) screening can use self-collected samples, which have comparable sensitivity and specificity to clinician-collected samples. Self-collecting has been shown to increase screening adherence, possibly by circumventing important barriers such as scheduling clinic appointments and negativity about pelvic examinations. Despite this, most individuals in prior studies remained unscreened with low follow-up of HPV-positive results, and kit uptake among populations that are screening adherent or have unknown screening history is unknown. The STEP trial (self-testing options in the era for primary HPV screening for cervical cancer) was a parallel, single-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing cervical cancer screening completion across groups of individuals with due (screening-adherent), overdue, or unknown screening history. Participants were randomized to traditional care (patient reminders and clinician electronic health record [HER] alerts), education (usual care plus educational materials about screening), direct mail (traditional care plus educational materials plus a mailed HPV self-collection kit), or to opt in (traditional care plus educational materials plus the option to request a self-collection kit). Patients were identified using the Kaiser Permanente Washington HER and administrative claims. Eligible participants were females aged 30 to 64 years with current Kaiser Permanente Washington insurance and primary care, intact cervix, who were either due or overdue for screening. The primary study outcome was screening completion within 6 months after randomization, which could be done either in clinic or using the self-collection kit. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risk (RR) of screening completion for the direct-mail and opt-in groups, relative to the education group. A total of 32,771 participants were randomized between November 2020 and January 2022, of which 13,356 were due for screening, 8682 were overdue, and 10,733 had unknown screening history. Of those due for screening, the RR for screening completion was 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23–1.36; absolute difference, 14.1% [95% CI, 11.2%–16.9%]) for direct mail and 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02–1.12; absolute difference, 3.5% [95% CI, 1.2%–5.7%]) for the opt-in group compared with education. Of those overdue for screening, the RR for screening completion was 1.90 (95% CI, 1.68–2.16; absolute difference 16.9% [95% CI, 13.8%–20.0%]) for direct mail compared with education. Of those with unknown screening history, the RR for screening completion was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03–1.25; absolute difference 2.2% [95% CI, 0.5%–3.9%]) for the opt-in group compared with education. The results of this randomized controlled trial showed that directly mailing HPV self-collection kits increased cervical cancer screening by over 14% compared with education alone. The effect was similar between participants that were due or overdue for screening, and an opt-in approach was found to minimally increase screening.

Performance of urine samples compared to cervical samples for detection of precancer lesions among HPV-positive women attending colposcopy clinic in Mexico City.

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection in self-collected urine samples (SeCUS) may be a promising alternative for cervical cancer screening because of its greater acceptability, as long as it can offer comparable sensitivity to clinician-collected cervical samples (CCoS) for detecting precancer lesions. To evaluate the performance of the SeCUS compared to that of the CCoS for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) detection among hrHPV-positive women receiving colposcopy in Mexico City using different specific extended HPV typing procedures: HPV16/18, HPV16/18/35/39/68 or HPV16/18/35/39/68/31. From March 2017 to August 2018, 4,158 female users of the cervical cancer screening program at Tlalpan Sanitary Jurisdiction in Mexico City were invited to participate in the FRIDA-Tlalpan study. All participants provided ≥ 30mL of SeCUS, and then a CCoS was obtained with Cervex-Brush®, which was used for hrHPV typing. Participants who tested positive for hrHPV in CCoS were referred for colposcopy for diagnostic confirmation, and all SeCUS of these women were also tested for hrHPV typing. In total, 561 hrHPV-positive women were identified by CCoS via colposcopy, and 82.2% of the SeCUS of these women were also hrHPV positive. From both CCoS and SeCUS, 7 cases of CIN3 were detected. Considering HPV16/18 typing, CCoS and SeCUS detected 4 cases of CIN3, but after HPV16/18/35/39/68/31 extension typing, both CCoS and SeCUS detected all 7 of the CIN3 cases among the hrHPV-positive women. Using extended hrHPV typing based on HPV16/18/35/39/68/31, our results suggest that the performance of SeCUS may be equivalent to that of CCoS for detecting CIN3 lesions. Although our results are inconclusive, they support the hypothesis that SeCUS may be an attractive alternative worthy of further research.

Evaluation of self-sampling-based cervical cancer screening strategy using HPV Selfy CE-IVD test coupled with home-collection kit: a clinical study in Italy

BackgroundPrimary human papillomaviruses (HPV) cervical cancer screening can be strengthened by offering home-collection of biological specimen as a valuable option to increase screening coverage. As recommended by World Health Organization (WHO), screening programs should consider whether the inclusion of HPV self-sampling as a complementary option within their existing screening algorithms could address the gaps in current coverage. However, few HPV screening tests are validated for self-sampling according to international guidelines. This study aimed to test a self-sampling-based screening strategy, complementary to the main screening program based on clinician-collected cervical samples. The study took place in Trieste, Italy, and it aimed to evaluate the feasibility of self-testing at home under an opt-in system during COVID-19 pandemic in order to exploit self-sampling to reduce the screening delay generated by the lockdown.Methods500 women, who should have received the screening call in 2020, were asked, via phone call, to participate in the study. To whom agreed, a home-collection kit, including a vaginal dry swab for specimen collection, was sent. The recipients performed the sample self-collection and sent back the swab through traditional mail using a prepaid envelope. Once received by the hospital, the samples were analyzed with HPV Selfy (Ulisse BioMed, Italy), a CE-IVD HPV screening test specifically validated for self-collection. Results were further compared using cobas® 4800 HPV (Roche, Switzerland).Results80% women sent back their swab, showing one of the highest return rate obtained in comparable studies. 34 HPV-positive women were followed up and underwent the Pap test, that revealed 8 low squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) cases, later triaged to colposcopy. HPV Selfy was confirmed to be an adequate test for self-sampling-based screening.ConclusionsThis study further confirmed the feasibility of self-test at home screening strategy based on self-sampling with an opt-in system as a support method to enhance cervical cancer screening coverage in Italy. Enrolled women showed a high appreciation for this approach. HPV Selfy test demonstrated to be a valuable assay for cervical cancer screening based on home self-collection.Trial registration: ASUGI Trieste n. 16008/2018 and amendment 02-11/09/2020.

Staged design recommendations for validating relative sensitivity of self-sample human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening

ObjectivesTo ensure that the emerging methods for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples in cervical screening are evaluated robustly. Study Design and SettingWe assess paired study designs for relative sensitivity of self-collected vs. traditional clinician-collected samples in detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. ResultsDesigns considered are (D1) both samples at screening, with clinical actions triggered by HPV positivity; (D2) offering a self-sample test to clinician-collected HPV-positive women; (D3) as D2 but using a repeat clinician-sample as comparator; (D4) offering a choice of self- vs. clinician-sampling, and the alternative test in HPV-positive women; (D5) paired samples at referral appointment. D1 is simple to analyze but requires the largest sample size and referral of self-sample positive, clinician-sample negative women. D2 requires a much smaller sample size, and no change to clinical practice, and could be used to rule-in a test because estimates are conservative (against self-sampling). D3 mitigates this bias but requires a second clinician sample. D4 is only manageable where self-sampling already occurs. The liberal D5 might be used to rule-out a self-sampling test. ConclusionA universal recommendation for an optimal study design is challenging. Staged validation might be useful with D5 as a gatekeeper for D1-D4.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing in Thailand

IntroductionCervical cancer ranks as the third most prevalent cancer among women in Thailand. However, the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs is limited by several factors that impede the screening rate. The utilization of self-collected samples for screening purposes has the potential to alleviate barriers to screening in Thai women. This study assessed the cost-utility and budget impact of implementing cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing in Thailand.Materials and methodsWe employed a decision tree integrated with a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and health benefits associated with the cervical cancer screening program for women aged 25–65. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Four screening policy options were compared: (1) additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing, (2) clinician-collected samples for HPV DNA testing only, (3) clinician-collected samples for cytology test (i.e., status quo), and (4) no screening. The model inputs were based on unvaccinated women. The screening strategies and management in those with positive results were assumed followed to the Thai clinical practice guideline. Costs were reported in 2022 Thai baht. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. The ten-year budget impacts of the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing were calculated from a payer perspective.ResultsAll screening policies were cost-saving compared to no screening. When comparing the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing with the clinician-collected samples policy, it emerged as the dominant strategy. The incremental benefit in cervical cancer prevention achieved by incorporating self-collected samples for screening was observed at any additional screening rate that could be achieved through their use. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistently favorable results for the screening policies. The average annual budget impact of the additional self-collected samples for screening policy amounted to 681 million Thai baht. This budget allocation could facilitate cervical cancer screening for over 10 million women.ConclusionsAn addition of self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing into the cervical cancer screening program is cost-saving. The benefits of this screening policy outweigh the associated incremental costs. Policymakers should consider this evidence during the policy optimization process.

Evaluation of an Isothermal Amplification HPV Assay on Self-Collected Vaginal Samples as Compared to Clinician-Collected Cervical Samples.

This study aimed to evaluate the concordance of HPV results between the SentisTM HPV assay (Sentis) (BGI Group, Shenzhen, China), an isothermal amplification-based HPV assay, on self-collected and clinician-collected samples and the agreement of Sentis on self-collected samples with the BD OnclarityTM HPV assay (Onclarity) (Becton, Dickinson, and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, USA), a PCR-based HPV assay, on clinician-collected samples. This was a prospective study of 104 women attending the colposcopy clinic for abnormal smears. After informed consent, participants self-collected vaginal samples before having clinician-collected cervical samples. Self-collected samples underwent HPV testing with Sentis (Self-Sentis HPV) and clinician-collected samples were tested with Sentis (Clinician-Sentis HPV) and Onclarity (Clinician-Onclarity), which was used as a reference standard. The concordance was assessed using Cohen's kappa. The prevalence of HPV and the acceptability of self-sampling were also evaluated. The concordance rate between Self-Sentis HPV and Clinician-Sentis HPV was 89.8% with a kappa of 0.769. The concordance rate between Self-Sentis HPV and Clinician-Onclarity was 84.4% with a kappa of 0.643. The prevalence of HPV was 26.0% on Clinician-Onclarity, 29.3% on Clinician-Sentis HPV, and 35.6% on Self-Sentis HPV. Overall, 65% of participants would undergo self-sampling again. This was attributed to mainly not feeling embarrassed (68%) and being convenient (58%). Our study showed a substantial agreement between Self-Sentis HPV with Clinician-Sentis HPV and Clinician-Onclarity. Self-sampling was also shown to be a generally well-accepted method of screening.

Clinical Accuracy of Alinity m HR HPV Assay on Self- versus Clinician-Taken Samples Using the VALHUDES Protocol

The VALHUDES protocol was established to evaluate clinical accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV) assays to detect cervical precancer on first-void urine (FVU) and vaginal self-samples versus matched clinician-collected cervical samples (CCSs). Here we evaluated clinical performance of Alinity m HR HPV assay in a colposcopy referral population. Home-collected FVU (Colli-Pee FV 5020) 1 day before colposcopy (n = 492), at-clinic collected dry vaginal self-samples [multi-Collect Swab (mC; n = 493), followed by Evalyn Brush (EB; n = 233) or Qvintip (QT; n = 260)] and matched CCSs, were available for the study. Sensitivity to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) of Alinity testing on FVU (ratio,0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03), mC (ratio,1.00; 95% CI, 0.94-1.06), and EB/QT (ratio,0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-1.00) was not different to CCSs. Specificity on FVU was similar to CCS (ratio,1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.10), whereas specificity on mC was lower (ratio,0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90), but on EB/QT was higher (ratio,1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15) than on CCS. Accuracy on EB (sensitivity ratio,0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.05; specificity ratio,1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.31) was slightly better than on QT (sensitivity ratio,0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03; specificity ratio,1.00; 95% CI, 0.92-1.09). In conclusion, clinical sensitivity of Alinity assay on all self-sample types was similar to cervical specimens. Adjustment of signal thresholds improved assay's accuracy to detect CIN2+ in all self-sample types.

Accuracy of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing on Urine and Vaginal Self-Samples Compared to Clinician-Collected Cervical Sample in Women Referred to Colposcopy.

In the context of cervical cancer prevention, where human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is pivotal, HPV testing is replacing Pap Smear in primary screening. This transition offers an opportunity for integrating self-sampling to enhance coverage. We evaluated the accuracy of HPV testing using self-collected urine and vaginal samples, comparing them to physician-collected cervical swabs. From a cohort of 245 women with abnormal cytology, we collected self-sampled vaginal, urine, and clinician-administered cervical specimens. Employing Anyplex™II HPV28 assay, outcomes revealed HPV positivity rates of 75.1% (cervical), 78.4% (vaginal), and 77.1% (urine). Significant, hr-HPV detection concordance was observed between self-taken cervical samples and clinical counterparts (k = 0.898 for vaginal; k = 0.715 for urine). This study extends beyond accuracy, highlighting self-collected sample efficacy in detecting high-grade cervical lesions. The insight underscores self-sampling's role in bolstering participation and aligns with WHO's goal to eliminate cervical cancer by 2030.

Can HPV Test on Random Urine Replace Self-HPV Test on Vaginal Self-Samples or Clinician-Collected Cervical Samples?

This study investigated whether random urine (RU) samples can be used to accurately identify human papillomavirus (HPV) and whether these samples can replace self-collected vaginal samples in HPV tests. A total of 167 patients with abnormal Pap smears were recruited. The patients provided self-collected vaginal and RU samples for HPV testing. Clinicians obtained cervical samples from the patients. Colposcopy examination and cervical biopsy were performed. Hybrid Capture II (HC II) and Cervista tests were used to detect HPV in the RU samples. The results of tests on clinician-collected cervical samples were used as the benchmark. The sensitivities of the Cervista tests on vaginal samples and the HC II and Cervista tests on RU samples were 75.00%, 49.07%, and 44.44%, respectively. After we adjusted the HPV detection cutoff value for urine samples based on values in the receiver operating characteristic curve, the sensitivities of the HC II and Cervista tests increased to 63.89% and 58.33%, respectively. In 167 patients, 59 had cervix biopsies showing CIN2 or worse (CIN2+). For CIN2+, the sensitivity was 47.5% and 50.8% in the HC II and Cervista tests on RU samples, respectively. HPV tests on RU samples had approximately 60% sensitivity to HPV tests on clinician-collected cervical samples after the cutoff values were adjusted. For CIN2+, the sensitivity was only approximately 50%. Further studies and improvements in urine-based HPV testing are needed to establish it as a more convenient and accessible method for detecting HPV and cervical dysplasia in patients.

Efficiency of CIN2+ Detection by Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone (TRH) Site-Specific Methylation.

Cervical cancer screening typically involves a Pap smear combined with high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) detection. Women with hr-HPV positivity but normal cytology, as well as those with precancerous abnormal cytology, such as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high-grade SIL (HSIL), are referred for colposcopy and histology examination to identify abnormal lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer. However, in order to enhance the accuracy of detection, bioinformatics analysis of a microarray database was performed, which identified cg01009664, a methylation marker of the thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH). Consequently, a real-time PCR assay was developed to distinguish CIN2+ (CIN2, CIN3, and cervical cancer) from CIN2- (CIN1 and normal cervical epithelia). The real-time PCR assay utilized specific primers targeting methylated cg01009664 sites, whereas an unmethylated reaction was used to check the DNA quality. A cut-off value for the methylated reaction of Ct < 33 was established, resulting in improved precision in identifying CIN2+. In the first cohort group, the assay demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.7% and a specificity of 98.6%. In the cytology samples identified as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and LSIL, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting CIN2+ were 95.0% and 98.9%, respectively. However, when self-collected samples from women with confirmed histology were tested, the sensitivity for CIN2+ detection dropped to 49.15%, while maintaining a specificity of 100%. Notably, the use of clinician-collected samples increased the sensitivity of TRH methylation testing. TRH methylation analysis can effectively identify women who require referral for colposcopy examinations, aiding in the detection of CIN2+.