Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
A Randomized Comparison of Different Vaginal Self-sampling Devices and Urine for Human Papillomavirus Testing-Predictors 5.1.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cadman Louise, Reuter Caroline, Jitlal Mark, Kleeman Michelle, Austin Janet, Hollingworth Tony, Parberry Anna L, Ashdown-Barr Lesley, Patel Deepali, Nedjai Belinda, Lorincz Attila T, Cuzick Jack
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening is rapidly replacing cytology as the cervical screening modality of choice. In addition to being more sensitive than cytology, it can be done on self-collected vaginal or urine samples. This study will compare the high-risk HPV positivity rates and sensitivity of self-collected vaginal samples using four different collection devices and a urine sample.
METHODS: A total of 620 women referred for colposcopy were invited to provide an initial stream urine sample collected with the Colli-Pee device and take two vaginal self-samples, using either a dry flocked swab (DF) and a wet dacron swab (WD), or a HerSwab (HS) and Qvintip (QT) device. HPV testing was performed by the BD Onclarity HPV Assay.
RESULTS: A total of 600 vaginal sample pairs were suitable for analysis, and 505 were accompanied by a urine sample. Similar positivity rates and sensitivities for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were seen for DF, WD, and urine, but lower values were seen for QT and HS. No clear user preferences were seen between devices, but women found urine easiest to collect, and were more confident they had taken the sample correctly. The lowest confidence in collection was reported for HS.
CONCLUSIONS: Urine, a DF swab, and WD swab all performed well and were well received by the women, whereas the Qvintip and HerSwab devices were less satisfactory.
IMPACT: This is the first study to compare five self-sampling methods in the same women taken at the same time. It supports wider use of urine or vaginal self-sampling for cervical screening.
METHODS: A total of 620 women referred for colposcopy were invited to provide an initial stream urine sample collected with the Colli-Pee device and take two vaginal self-samples, using either a dry flocked swab (DF) and a wet dacron swab (WD), or a HerSwab (HS) and Qvintip (QT) device. HPV testing was performed by the BD Onclarity HPV Assay.
RESULTS: A total of 600 vaginal sample pairs were suitable for analysis, and 505 were accompanied by a urine sample. Similar positivity rates and sensitivities for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were seen for DF, WD, and urine, but lower values were seen for QT and HS. No clear user preferences were seen between devices, but women found urine easiest to collect, and were more confident they had taken the sample correctly. The lowest confidence in collection was reported for HS.
CONCLUSIONS: Urine, a DF swab, and WD swab all performed well and were well received by the women, whereas the Qvintip and HerSwab devices were less satisfactory.
IMPACT: This is the first study to compare five self-sampling methods in the same women taken at the same time. It supports wider use of urine or vaginal self-sampling for cervical screening.