Self- versus physician-collected samples for the follow-up of human papillomavirus-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa
Received 16 October 2017
Accepted for publication 14 February 2018
Published 11 April 2018 Volume 2018:10 Pages 187—194
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Everett Magann
Manuela Viviano,1,* Phuong Lien Tran,1,* Bruno Kenfack,2 Rosa Catarino,1 Mohamed Akaaboune,1,† Liliane Temogne,2 Eveline Tincho Foguem,2 Pierre Vassilakos,3 Patrick Petignat1
1Gynecology Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; 2Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon; 3Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Geneva, Switzerland
*These authors contributed equally to the work
†MA passed away on July 31, 2017
Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is a suitable tool for primary cervical cancer (CC) screening and follow-up in low-resource settings. Vaginal samples taken by women themselves (Self-HPV) are an interesting alternative to physician-performed sampling (Dr-HPV). Our aim was to assess the performance of Self-HPV and Dr-HPV at 6 and 12 months following a CC screening campaign.
Methods: This study was carried out at the Dschang District Hospital, Cameroon. Women aged 30–49 years were recruited in a CC screening campaign. HPV-positive women, of whom 2/3 were treated with thermoablation because of abnormal results at baseline screening, were invited to participate in a follow-up study. Self- and Dr-HPV, as well as cytology, were performed at 6 and 12 months. HPV samples were analyzed using the Xpert HPV assay. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse and of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse were calculated for Self-HPV and Dr-HPV, using cytology as the reference diagnosis.
Results: Overall, 188 HPV-positive women were invited to attend follow-up. The obtained follow-up visits’ attendance was 154 (81.9%) and 131 (69.7%) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. While the overall performance of Dr-HPV at 6 months was slightly superior, Self-HPV showed an improved sensitivity for HSIL+ detection at 12 months when compared with Dr-HPV (83.3% [95% CI 41.8–98.9] versus 71.4% [95% CI 21.5–95.8], respectively). The overall HPV positivity agreement between Self- and Dr-HPV at 6 and 12 months corresponded to a κ value of 0.62 and 0.52, respectively. Among women treated with thermoablation (n=121) at baseline screening, Self-HPV was as sensitive as Dr-HPV, although less specific (P=0.003).
Conclusion: Self-HPV is a valuable tool for the follow-up of HPV-positive women in low-resource settings. Larger, randomized trials are needed to confirm the validity of our findings.
Keywords: human papillomavirus testing, self-sampling, cervical cancer, screening, follow-up
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]