MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Analytical performance of HPV assays on vaginal self-collected vs practitioner-collected cervical samples: the SCoPE study

Saville M, Hawkes D, Keung M, Ip E, Silvers J, Sultana F, et al.

J Clin Virol, 2020 06;127:104375.
PMID: 32361328 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104375

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been evaluated extensively for cervical screening, with studies finding increased sensitivity compared to cytology. Another advantage of HPV based-screening is the ability to test vaginal samples that can be collected by women themselves. Self-collection has the potential to extend cervical screening coverage by increasing participation rates, particularly among women who are under-screened or have never screened. This could have a significant impact on cervical cancer prevention, as the majority of invasive cervical cancer cases occur among under-screened women. Both the Netherlands and Australia have transitioned their national programs from cytology to HPV as the primary screening test and both countries include a pathway for self-collection.
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.
Fulltext Clinical Validation of the cobas HPV Test on the cobas 6800 System for the Purpose of Cervical Screening

Saville M, Sultana F, Malloy MJ, Velentzis LS, Caruana M, Ip ELO, et al.

J Clin Microbiol, 2019 02;57(2).
PMID: 30463896 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01239-18

This study demonstrates that the clinical sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the novel cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test on the cobas 6800 system for high-risk HPV types fulfills the criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. The criteria were formulated by an international consortium, using the cobas 4800 HPV test as a validated reference assay. The cobas HPV test detected over 98% of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) lesions in women age 30 years or older, with a specificity of 98.9% compared with the reference cobas 4800 test. Both the intra- and interlaboratory agreement for the cobas HPV test were 98%. The clinical performance of the cobas HPV test is comparable to those of longitudinally validated HPV assays and fulfills the criteria for its use in primary cervical screening.
Fulltext Exploring monitoring strategies for population surveillance of HPV vaccine impact using primary HPV screening

Velentzis LS, Hawkes D, Caruana M, Brotherton JM, Smith MA, Roeske L, et al.

Tumour Virus Res, 2023 Jun;15:200255.
PMID: 36736490 DOI: 10.1016/j.tvr.2023.200255

Australia's cervical screening program transitioned from cytology to HPV-testing with genotyping for HPV16/18 in Dec'2017. We investigated whether program data could be used to monitor HPV vaccination program impact (commenced in 2007) on HPV16/18 prevalence and compared estimates with pre-vaccination benchmark prevalence. Pre-vaccination samples (2005-2008) (n = 1933; WHINURS), from 25 to 64-year-old women had been previously analysed with Linear Array (LA). Post-vaccination samples (2013-2014) (n = 2989; Compass pilot), from 25 to 64-year-old women, were analysed by cobas 4800 (cobas), and by LA for historical comparability. Age standardised pre-vaccination HPV16/18 prevalence was 4.85% (95%CI:3.81-5.89) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 1.67% (95%CI:1.21-2.13%) by LA, 1.49% (95%CI:1.05-1.93%) by cobas, and 1.63% (95%CI:1.17-2.08%) for cobas and LA testing of non-16/18 cobas positives (cobas/LA). Age-standardised pre-vaccination oncogenic HPV prevalence was 15.70% (95%CI:13.79-17.60%) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 9.06% (95%CI:8.02-10.09%) by LA, 8.47% (95%CI:7.47-9.47%) by cobas and cobas/LA. Standardised rate ratios between post-vs. pre-vaccination rates were significantly different for HPV16/18, non-16/18 HPV and oncogenic HPV: 0.34 (95%CI:0.23-0.50), 0.68 (95%CI:0.55-0.84) and 0.58 (95%CI:0.48-0.69), respectively. Additional strategies (LA for all cobas positives; combined cobas and LA results on all samples) had similar results. If a single method is applied consistently, it will provide important data on relative changes in HPV prevalence following vaccination.
Fulltext Correlates of intention-to-attend and confirmed cervical screening attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: Findings from Compass-PLUS, a prospective cohort study

Velentzis LS, Egger S, Waller J, Jennett CJ, Brotherton JML, Smith MA, et al.

Prev Med Rep, 2024 Sep;45:102849.
PMID: 39220611 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102849

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus pandemic impacted health-seeking behaviour and access to primary care in Australia. We investigated factors associated with intention-to-attend and attendance of cervical screening during the pandemic, mainly in Victoria, Australia.
METHODS: We used questionnaire and attendance data (Aug 2020-Nov 2022) from Compass-PLUS, a sub-study of the Compass randomized-controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus-based vs cytology-based screening. Data was restricted to the HPV-screening arm for comparability to the national program. We investigated associations overall and for younger (25-39 years) and older (≥40 years) cohorts, between intention-to-attend/attendance, and socio-demographics, anxiety-related scores, and agreement with beliefs about screening during the pandemic (e.g. importance of screening, increased workload, working from home, risk of infection).
RESULTS: Among 2,226 participants, positive intention to attend screening was more likely among those with a family history of cancer (p = 0.030) or living outside major cities (p = 0.024). Increased attendance was associated with increasing age (p