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: DNA samples from 92 patients and 156 healthy controls collected from two medical centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were analyzed for four regions located at X-chromosome using the Investigator® Argus X-12 QS Kit.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that microvariant alleles of (DXS7132, DXS10146, HPRTB, DXS10134, and DXS10135) are overrepresented in the BPH group (p < 0.00001). Allele 28 of DXS10135 and allele 15 of DXS7423 could have a protective effect, OR 0.229 (95%CI, 0.066-0.79); and OR 0.439 (95%CI, 0.208-0.925). On the other hand, patients carrying allele 23 of DXS10079 and allele 26 of DXS10148 presented an increased risk to PrCa OR 4.714 (95%CI, 3.604-6.166).
CONCLUSION: The results are in concordance with the involvement of the X chromosome in PrCa and BPH development. STR allele studies may add further information from the definition of a genetic profile of PrCa resistance or susceptibility. As TBL1, AR, LDOC1, and RPL10 genes are located at regions Xp22.31, Xq11.2-12, Xq26.2, and Xq28, respectively, these genes could play an essential role in PrCa or BPH.