METHODS: The following electronic resources were searched: Medline @EBSCOHOST(Medline), Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Manual searches were also conducted. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of HPV DNA testing by self-sampling in comparison with clinician-collected sampling.
RESULTS: In total, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. The majority (19 studies) were quantitative intervention studies and 4 studies were qualitative observational studies. Eleven studies reported a preference for self-sampling by women compared with clinician-collected sampling (64.7%-93%). The remaining studies found that women preferred clinician-collected sampling because mainly of respondents' lack of confidence in their ability to complete self-sampling correctly. In most articles reviewed, the studied associated factors, such as demographic factors (age, marital status, and ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (income, education level), reproductive factors (condom use, number of children, current use of contraception, and number of partners), and habits (smoking status) were not found to be significantly associated with preference.
CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of sampling were found to be acceptable to women. Self-sampling is cost-effective and could increase the screening coverage among underscreened populations. However, more information about the quality, reliability, and accuracy of self-sampling is needed to increase women's confidence about using to this method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cervical scrapings were collected from women attending clinics for routine Pap smear screening. HPV-DNA was detected by PCR using MY09/11 and GP5+/GP6+ primer sets and genotyping was accomplished by cycle-sequencing.
RESULTS: A total of 635 women were recruited into the study with mean ± SD age of 43 ± 10.5 years. Of these 92.6% (588/635) were reported as within normal limits (WNL) on cytology. The presence of HPV infection detected by nested MY/GP+-PCR was 4.4% (28/635). The overall prevalence of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) in abnormal Pap smears was 53.8% (7/13). HPVs were also seen in 3.1% (18/588) of smears reported as WNL by cytology and 5.9% (2/34) in smears unsatisfactory for evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall percentage of HPV positivity in routine cervical screening samples is comparable with abnormal findings in cytology. Conventional Pap smear 'missed' a few samples. Since HPV testing is expensive, our results may provide valuable information for strategising implementation of effective cervical cancer screening in a country with limited resources like Malaysia. If Pap smear coverage could be improved, HPV testing could be used as an adjunct method on cases with ambiguous diagnoses.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).
STUDY DESIGN: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.
RESULTS: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study where women aged between 20-80 years were recruited via convenient sampling from villages in Long Banga, Sarawak over a five-day outreach programme. Cervicovaginal selfsamples were obtained and screened for the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA (HR-HPV) using the careHPVTM Test. A self-administered questionnaire was also administered to determine the sociodemographic and perception towards the self-sampling method.
RESULTS: The 55 women recruited consist of ethnic backgrounds of Penan (58.18%), Kenyah (25.45%), Iban (5.45%), Saban (3.64%), Kelabit (3.64%), Malay (1.82%) and Chinese (1.82%). The prevalence of HR-HPV was 1.85% (n=1/55). Nearly 80% of the women were unemployed, and more than half have had attended primary education. Nine (16.4%) have heard about HPV, and seven (13%) knew HPV infection could cause cervical cancer. Three of them had HPV vaccination, and only one (1.85%) knew the brand of the HPV vaccine. Although 40% preferred self-sampling over clinician-collection, only ten (18.2%) women have completed the self-collection perception questionnaire.
CONCLUSION: Primary HPV DNA screening using the selfsampling method can be carried out in the remote areas during the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising mobility restriction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 258 community dwelling women from urban and rural settings who participated in health campaigns. In order to reduce the sampling bias, half of the study population performed the self-sampling prior to the physician sampling while the other half performed the self-sampling after the physician sampling, randomly. Acquired samples were assessed for cytological changes as well as HPV DNA detection.
RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 40.4±11.3 years. The prevalence of abnormal cervical changes was 2.7%. High risk and low risk HPV genotypes were found in 4.0% and 2.7% of the subjects, respectively. A substantial agreement was observed between self-sampling and the physician obtained sampling in cytological diagnosis (k=0.62, 95%CI=0.50, 0.74), micro-organism detection (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.66, 0.88) and detection of hormonal status (k=0.75, 95%CI=0.65, 0.85) as well as detection of high risk (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.4, 0.98) and low risk (K=0.77, 95%CI=0.50, 0.92) HPV. Menopausal state was found to be related with 8.39 times more adequate cell specimens for cytology but 0.13 times less adequate cell specimens for virological assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that self-sampling has a good agreement with physician sampling in detecting HPV genotypes. Self-sampling can serve as a tool in HPV screening while it may be useful in detecting cytological abnormalities in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women underwent self-sampling followed by gynecologist sampling during screening at two primary health clinics. Pap cytology of cervical specimens was evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. Cervical specimens were also extracted and tested for HPV DNA detection. Positive HPV smears underwent gene sequencing and HPV genotyping by referring to the online NCBI gene bank. Results were compared between samplings by Kappa agreement and McNemar test.
RESULTS: For Pap specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling but had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. Both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favouring CIN2 for cytology result. HPV DNA detection showed 86.2%agreement (K=0.64, 95% CI 0.524-0.756, p=0.001) between samplings. KSSD and gynaecologist sampling identified high risk HPV in 17.3% and 23.9% respectively (p= 0.014).
CONCLUSION: The self-sampling using Kato device can serve as a tool in Pap cytology and HPV DNA detection in low resource settings in Malaysia. Self-sampling devices such as KSSD can be used as an alternative technique to gynaecologist sampling for cervical cancer screening among rural populations in Malaysia.