METHODS: Liquid based cervico-vaginal cytology specimens with squamous abnormalities and corresponding histology from 97 women with subsequent colposcopy and biopsy were included. The specimens were then subjected to the dual stain and Roche Cobas 4800 multiplex real time PCR HPV DNA testing. The sensitivity and specificity of the dual stain and HPV testing were calculated using CIN 2+ on histology as a reference standard.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the dual stain in detecting histology proven CIN 2+ was 93.7% and 76.5% while HPV testing was 85.7% and 14.7% respectively. Of the 44 women with ASCUS or LSIL on cytology, the dual stain also reduced the number of unnecessary colposcopy referrals from 27 to 7 when used as a triage marker compared to HPV testing.
CONCLUSION: p16/Ki-67 dual stain was more sensitive and specific than HPV testing in determining the presence of CIN 2+ on histology. It could triage low grade cervico-vaginal specimens more effectively and potentially help women avoid unnecessary colposcopies. Future studies are needed to further evaluate its role in cervical cancer screening programmes.
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.
METHODS: Women older than 21 years with a histologic diagnosis of ICC and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN 2 or 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)] were enrolled. Cervical specimens were reviewed by histopathologists to confirm the presence of ICC or CIN 2/3/AIS lesion and tested with short PCR fragment 10-DNA enzyme immunoassay-line probe assay for 14 oncogenic HPV types and 11 non-oncogenic HPV types. The prevalence of HPV 16, HPV 18, and other high-risk HPV types in ICC [including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma (ADC/ASC)] and CIN 2/3/AIS was estimated.
RESULTS: In the 5 Asian countries, diagnosis of ICC was confirmed in 500 women [SCC (n = 392) and ADC/ASC (n = 108)], and CIN 2/3/AIS, in 411 women. Human papillomavirus DNA was detected in 93.8% to 97.0% (84.5% for the Philippines) of confirmed ICC cases [94.0%-98.7% of SCC; 87.0%-94.3% (50.0% for the Philippines) of ADC/ASC] and in 93.7% to 100.0% of CIN 2/3/AIS. The most common types observed among ICC cases were HPV 16 (36.8%-61.3%), HPV 18 (12.9%-35.4%), HPV 52 (5.4%-10.3%), and HPV 45 (1.5%-17.2%), whereas among CIN 2/3/AIS cases, HPV 16 (29.7%-46.6%) was the most commonly observed type followed by HPV 52 (17.0%-66.7%) and HPV 58 (8.6%-16.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the data on the HPV prevalence, HPV type distribution, and their role in cervical carcinogenesis in 5 Asian countries. These data are of relevance to public health authorities for evaluating the existing and future cervical cancer prevention strategies including HPV-DNA testing-based screening and HPV vaccination in these Asian populations.
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.