Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Khoo SP, Lim WT, Rajasuriar R, Nasir NH, Gravitt P, Woo YL
    Cancer Prev Res (Phila), 2021 01;14(1):105-112.
    PMID: 32917643 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-0280
    Vaginal self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can potentially increase cervical screening coverage. This study aimed to investigate the acceptability of vaginal self-sampling for HPV testing and factors that might influence a woman's preference for this as a cervical screening method. This was a cross-sectional study that recruited 725 women from the urban and suburban areas of Selangor, Malaysia. All study participants were instructed to self-collect vaginal sample using a dry flocked swab before responding to a detailed questionnaire documenting their experience and preference for self-sampling. Most of the study participants (>80%) perceived vaginal self-sampling as easy, convenient, not embarrassing, comfortable, and were confident in performing the test. This suggests high acceptability toward vaginal self-sampling for HPV testing. Of the 725 women, 83% preferred self-sampling HPV testing over healthcare personnel sampling HPV testing and Pap test. Women with higher household income and full-time employment status were more likely to prefer self-sampling. Those who had not undergone Pap test also expressed preference for self-sampling HPV testing. Convenience and women's confidence in performing a vaginal self-sampling for HPV testing were the independent key factors that influenced the preference for self-sampling method. Vaginal self-sampling for HPV testing is highly acceptable among Malaysian women. It is the preferred choice as a primary cervical screening method and serves as an alternative to healthcare-acquired sample for Pap test. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Organized cervical cancer screening remains unachievable in many countries. Self-sampling HPV testing is an evidence-based method that can remove barriers to cervical screening. This is particularly important for developing countries in order to achieve the WHO global strategy to accelerate cervical cancer elimination.
  2. Duarte-Salles T, Misra S, Stepien M, Plymoth A, Muller D, Overvad K, et al.
    Cancer Prev Res (Phila), 2016 Sep;9(9):758-65.
    PMID: 27339170 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0434
    We previously identified osteopontin (OPN) as a promising marker for the early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we investigated the association between prediagnostic circulating OPN levels and HCC incidence in a large population-based cohort. A nested case-control study was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 100 HCC cases were identified. Each case was matched to two controls and OPN levels were measured in baseline plasma samples. Viral hepatitis, liver function, and α-fetoprotein (AFP) tests were also conducted. Conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate multivariable odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for OPN levels in relation to HCC. Receiver operating characteristics curves were constructed to determine the discriminatory accuracy of OPN alone or in combination with other liver biomarkers in the prediction of HCC. OPN levels were positively associated with HCC risk (per 10% increment, ORmultivariable = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14-1.48). The association was stronger among cases diagnosed within 2 years of follow-up. Adding liver function tests to OPN improved the discriminatory performance for subjects who developed HCC (AUC = 0.86). For cases diagnosed within 2 years, the combination of OPN and AFP was best able to predict HCC risk (AUC = 0.88). The best predictive model for HCC in this low-risk population is OPN in combination with liver function tests. Within 2 years of diagnosis, the combination of OPN and AFP best predicted HCC development, suggesting that measuring OPN and AFP could identify high-risk groups independently of a liver disease diagnosis. Cancer Prev Res; 9(9); 758-65. ©2016 AACR.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links