High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-sampling compared to physician-taken smear in a responder population of the Dutch cervical screening: Results of the VERA study

Ketelaars, Pleun J. W.; Bosgraaf, Remko P.; Siebers, Albert G.; Massuger, Leon F.A.G.; Linden, J.C. van der; Wauters, C. A. P.; Rahamat‐Langendoen, Janette; Brule, Adriaan J. C. van den; IntHout, Joanna; Melchers, Willem J. G.; Bekkers, Ruud L.M.

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.021

Cited by 78 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, almost 10% reported uncertainty regarding sample collection and some stated the lack of a click when rotating the brush as their reason. Despite small numbers, this finding is higher than reported by Van Baars et al [10] (3.0%) and Ketelaars et al [9] (0.8%) who used the same device in a referral and screening population, respectively. This difference might be explained by the fact that the women in our study performed home-based self-sampling, whereas in the study by Van Baars et al [10] the women performed clinic-based self-sampling allowing them to ask questions and receive guidance.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…Ketelaars et al [9] found no significant differences in HPV16/18 prevalence between samples, whereas the prevalence of HPV of other types was significantly higher in self-samples (8.0%) than in GP-collected samples (6.3%). We observed no significant differences in the HPV prevalence between samples, but the same trend was seen, especially for the prevalence of HPV of other types (21.1% versus 18.3%, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies comparing self-samples and clinician-collected samples for HPV detection show moderate to very good concordance in referral populations [7, 8], whereas one study conducted in a screening population reported a very high level of agreement [9]. Yet, studies on HPV concordance derive mainly from studies using Hybrid Capture II (HC2) or in-house Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based assays [7, 8], while only few studies have used established, clinically validated PCR-based HPV DNA assays [9, 10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, studies on HPV concordance derive mainly from studies using Hybrid Capture II (HC2) or in-house Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based assays [7, 8], while only few studies have used established, clinically validated PCR-based HPV DNA assays [9, 10]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Good concordance of HPV detection between cervico-vaginal self-samples and general practitioner-collected samples using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStudies comparing self-samples and clinician-collected samples for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection using clinically validated PCR-based HPV DNA assays are limited. We measured the concordance of HPV detection between home-based self-sampling and general practitioner (GP) sampling using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test and studied women’s accept of home-based self-sampling.MethodsPaired GP-collected samples and cervico-vaginal self-samples were obtained from 213 women aged 30–59 years diagnosed with ASC-US within the cervical cancer screening program. After undergoing cervical cytology at their GP, the women collected a self-sample with the Evalyn Brush at home and completed a questionnaire. Both samples were HPV-tested using the Cobas 4800 test. Histology results were available for those who tested HPV positive in GP-collected samples.ResultsWe observed good concordance for HPV detection between self-samples and GP-collected samples (κ: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58–0.81). No underlying CIN2+ cases were missed by self-sampling. Women evaluated that self-sampling was easy (97.2%, 95% CI: 93.9–98.9%) and comfortable (94.8%, 95% CI: 90.9–97.4%).ConclusionsHome-based self-sampling using the Evalyn Brush and the Cobas 4800 test is an applicable and reliable alternative to GP-sampling.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Good concordance of HPV detection between cervico-vaginal self-samples and general practitioner-collected samples using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Self-sampling can change this state of affairs by enabling screening programs to reach marginalized women and ultimately increase attendance. There is increasing evidence to that effect [11][12][13][14][15] . It stands to reason to assume that women who do not benefit from screening are also less likely to be reached by hpv vaccination programs 16 , which augments the disparity in health promotion that self-sampling can help reduce or eliminate.…”

Section: El Franco Mph Drph Frsc Fcahs Ocmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: Empowering Women to Lead a Paradigm Change in Cancer Control

Franco

2018

Current Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this new era of precision medicine and patient-centred care, the advent of self-sampling in cervical cancer screening is among the most disruptive innovations in cancer control and prevention. However, it has taken a long time to mature as an idea. The concept of self-sampling with swabs or brushes as a reliable substitute for providercollected cervical specimens has been the focus of at least 25 years of research. Although obtaining an adequate cytology specimen for cervical cancer screening served as the initial rationale 1 , it was the pragmatic goal of obtaining repeated samples for studying the natural history of genital human papillomavirus infection that drove much of this research 2,3 . The original aim of making the experience of participating in cervical cancer screening less daunting to women failed to be realized initially because the tradeoff between convenience to the woman and quality of the cervical sample was far from ideal.Given that it is an intuitively simple and attractive idea, why did it take so long for self-sampling to mature as a technological innovation? During most of the last 70 years, cervical cancer screening has been based on the Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology technique, which relies on the microscopic identification by a cytotechnician or cytopathologist of cellular abnormalities in optimally stained cervical samples smeared on glass slides. These samples must be representative of the ecto-and endocervix to be deemed adequate. For this to happen, a properly trained health care provider, i.e., a physician or nurse, must use a speculum to visualize the cervical os and transformation zone and collect cellular samples from the inner and outer perimeter of the latter using devices such as a wooden spatula, cytobrush, or broom-like device. The transformation zone perimeter is the origin of most neoplastic cervical lesions. Samples that do not properly reflect the cellular composition of the ecto-and endocervix are thus likely to yield false-negative cytology results in women with precancerous or cancerous lesions. Exceptionally, a cytotechnician reading such a Pap smear with meticulous attention to detail may fortuitously find an isolated cluster of dysplastic or malignant cells. However, an exhaustive smear scanning takes time. In the high-volume routine of most cytopathology laboratories, not more than a few minutes are spent per slide, which makes sample quality paramount in cervical cancer screening via cytology. The advent of liquid-based cytology improved the efficiency and ease of smear processing and reading but did not eliminate the need for a speculum-assisted and properly collected cervical sample by a health care provider. It is thus of no surprise that under the stringent quality control of specimen adequacy for cytology screening self-sampling never became much of a promise.The advent of molecular testing for nucleic acid of oncogenic genotypes of human papillomavirus (hpv) made self-sampling an attractive idea for cervical cancer screening again. Clinically validated hpv...

show abstract

Feasibility and Accuracy of Menstrual Blood Testing for High-risk Human Papillomavirus Detection With Capture Sequencing

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-sampling compared to physician-taken smear in a responder population of the Dutch cervical screening: Results of the VERA study

Cited by 78 publications

References 29 publications

Good concordance of HPV detection between cervico-vaginal self-samples and general practitioner-collected samples using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test

Good concordance of HPV detection between cervico-vaginal self-samples and general practitioner-collected samples using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test

Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: Empowering Women to Lead a Paradigm Change in Cancer Control

Feasibility and Accuracy of Menstrual Blood Testing for High-risk Human Papillomavirus Detection With Capture Sequencing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About