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.
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.
OBJECTIVE: We determined the agreement of cytological diagnoses made on samples collected by women themselves (selfsampling) versus samples collected by physicians (Physician sampling).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We invited women volunteers to undergo two procedures; cervical selfsampling using the Evalyn brush and physician sampling using a Cervex brush. The women were shown a video presentation on how to take their own cervical samples before the procedure. The samples taken by physicians were taken as per routine testing (Gold Standard). All samples were subjected to Thin Prep monolayer smears. The diagnoses made were according to the Bethesda classification. The results from these two sampling methods were analysed and compared.
RESULTS: A total of 367 women were recruited into the study, ranging from 22 to 65 years age. There was a significant good agreement of the cytological diagnoses made on the samples from the two sampling methods with the Kappa value of 0.568 (p=0.040). Using the cytological smears taken by physicians as the gold standard, the sensitivity of selfsampling was 71.9% (95% CI:70.972.8), the specificity was 86.6% (95% CI:85.7 87.5), the positive predictive value was 74.2% (95% CI:73.375.1) and the negative predictive value was 85.1% (95% CI: 84.286.0). Selfsampling smears (22.9%) allowed detection of microorganisms better than physicians samples (18.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that samples taken by women themselves (selfsampling) and physicians have good diagnostic agreement. Selfsampling could be the method of choice in countries in which the coverage of women attending clinics for screening for cervical cancer is poor.
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.