PloS one · 2015
Randomized Comparison of Two Vaginal Self-Sampling Methods for Human Papillomavirus Detection: Dry Swab versus FTA Cartridge.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Catarino Rosa, Vassilakos Pierre, Bilancioni Aline, Vanden Eynde Mathieu, Meyer-Hamme Ulrike, Menoud Pierre-Alain, Guerry Frédéric, Petignat Patrick
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling (self-HPV) is valuable in cervical cancer screening. HPV testing is usually performed on physician-collected cervical smears stored in liquid-based medium. Dry filters and swabs are an alternative. We evaluated the adequacy of self-HPV using two dry storage and transport devices, the FTA cartridge and swab.
METHODS: A total of 130 women performed two consecutive self-HPV samples. Randomization determined which of the two tests was performed first: self-HPV using dry swabs (s-DRY) or vaginal specimen collection using a cytobrush applied to an FTA cartridge (s-FTA). After self-HPV, a physician collected a cervical sample using liquid-based medium (Dr-WET). HPV types were identified by real-time PCR. Agreement between collection methods was measured using the kappa statistic.
RESULTS: HPV prevalence for high-risk types was 62.3% (95%CI: 53.7-70.2) detected by s-DRY, 56.2% (95%CI: 47.6-64.4) by Dr-WET, and 54.6% (95%CI: 46.1-62.9) by s-FTA. There was overall agreement of 70.8% between s-FTA and s-DRY samples (kappa = 0.34), and of 82.3% between self-HPV and Dr-WET samples (kappa = 0.56). Detection sensitivities for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (LSIL+) were: 64.0% (95%CI: 44.5-79.8) for s-FTA, 84.6% (95%CI: 66.5-93.9) for s-DRY, and 76.9% (95%CI: 58.0-89.0) for Dr-WET. The preferred self-collection method among patients was s-DRY (40.8% vs. 15.4%). Regarding costs, FTA card was five times more expensive than the swab (~5 US dollars (USD)/per card vs. ~1 USD/per swab).
CONCLUSION: Self-HPV using dry swabs is sensitive for detecting LSIL+ and less expensive than s-FTA.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 43310942.
METHODS: A total of 130 women performed two consecutive self-HPV samples. Randomization determined which of the two tests was performed first: self-HPV using dry swabs (s-DRY) or vaginal specimen collection using a cytobrush applied to an FTA cartridge (s-FTA). After self-HPV, a physician collected a cervical sample using liquid-based medium (Dr-WET). HPV types were identified by real-time PCR. Agreement between collection methods was measured using the kappa statistic.
RESULTS: HPV prevalence for high-risk types was 62.3% (95%CI: 53.7-70.2) detected by s-DRY, 56.2% (95%CI: 47.6-64.4) by Dr-WET, and 54.6% (95%CI: 46.1-62.9) by s-FTA. There was overall agreement of 70.8% between s-FTA and s-DRY samples (kappa = 0.34), and of 82.3% between self-HPV and Dr-WET samples (kappa = 0.56). Detection sensitivities for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (LSIL+) were: 64.0% (95%CI: 44.5-79.8) for s-FTA, 84.6% (95%CI: 66.5-93.9) for s-DRY, and 76.9% (95%CI: 58.0-89.0) for Dr-WET. The preferred self-collection method among patients was s-DRY (40.8% vs. 15.4%). Regarding costs, FTA card was five times more expensive than the swab (~5 US dollars (USD)/per card vs. ~1 USD/per swab).
CONCLUSION: Self-HPV using dry swabs is sensitive for detecting LSIL+ and less expensive than s-FTA.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 43310942.