scholarly journals Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in an Indigenous Community in Guatemala

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 444-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Gottschlich ◽  
Alvaro Rivera-Andrade ◽  
Edwin Grajeda ◽  
Christian Alvarez ◽  
Carlos Mendoza Montano ◽  
...  

Purpose Cervical cancer rates in Latin America are higher than those in developed countries, likely because of the lower prevalence of screening. Specifically, less than 40% of women in Guatemala are regularly screened and even fewer women are screened in indigenous communities. Current screening strategies—Pap smears and visual inspection with acetic acid—might not be the most effective methods for controlling cancer in these settings. We thus investigated the potential of self-collection of cervical samples with testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) to help prevent cervical cancer in an indigenous community in Guatemala. Patients and Methods A community representative random sample of 202 indigenous women age 18 to 60 years residing in Santiago Atitlan, Guatemala, were surveyed to assess knowledge of and risk factors for HPV and cervical cancer. Women were then invited to self-collect a cervical sample using HerSwab collection kits to assess the prevalence of HPV and the acceptability of self-sampling. Results Of 202 women who completed the survey, 178 (89%) provided a self-sample. In all, 79% of these women found the test comfortable, 91% found the test easy to use, and 100% reported they were willing to perform the test periodically as a screening method. Thirty-one samples (17%) were positive for at least one of 13 high-risk HPV types, and eight (4.5%) were positive for HPV 16/18. Conclusion HPV testing by using self-collected samples was well accepted, suggesting that it is a plausible modality for cervical cancer screening in indigenous communities. Further studies are needed to assess rates of follow-up after a positive test and to determine whether these findings extend to other indigenous and nonindigenous communities in Guatemala and Latin America.

Vaccine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. L88-L95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo L. Franco ◽  
Vivien Tsu ◽  
Rolando Herrero ◽  
Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce ◽  
Allan Hildesheim ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Howard D Strickler ◽  
Marla J Keller ◽  
Nancy A Hessol ◽  
Isam-Eldin Eltoum ◽  
Mark H Einstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening (PHS) utilizes oncogenic human papillomavirus (oncHPV) testing as the initial cervical cancer screening method and typically, if positive, additional reflex-triage (e.g., HPV16/18-genotyping, Pap testing). While US guidelines support PHS usage in the general population, PHS has been little studied in women living with HIV (WLWH) Methods We enrolled n=865 WLWH (323 from the Women’s Interagency HIV Study [WIHS] and 542 from WIHS-affiliated colposcopy clinics). All participants underwent Pap and oncHPV testing, including HPV16/18-genotyping. WIHS WLWH who tested oncHPV[+] or had cytologic atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (ASC-US+) underwent colposcopy, as did a random 21% of WLWH who were oncHPV[-]/Pap[-] (controls). Most participants additionally underwent p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry Results Mean age was 46 years, median CD4 was 592 cells/μL, 95% used antiretroviral therapy. Seventy WLWH had histologically-determined cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN-2+), of which 33 were defined as precancer (i.e., [i] CIN-3+ or [ii] CIN-2 if concurrent with cytologic high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [HSILs]). PHS had 87% sensitivity (Se) for precancer, 9% positive predictive value (PPV), and a 35% colposcopy referral rate (Colpo). “PHS with reflex HPV16/18-genotyping and Pap testing” had 84% Se, 16% PPV, 30% Colpo. PHS with only HPV16/18-genotyping had 24% Colpo. “Concurrent oncHPV and Pap Testing”(Co-Testing) had 91% Se, 12% PPV, 40% Colpo. p16/Ki-67 immunochemistry had the highest PPV, 20%, but 13% specimen inadequacy. Conclusions PHS with reflex HPV16/18-genotyping had fewer unnecessary colposcopies and (if confirmed) could be a potential alternative to Co-Testing in WLWH


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110109
Author(s):  
Binhua Dong ◽  
Huachun Zou ◽  
Xiaodan Mao ◽  
Yingying Su ◽  
Hangjing Gao ◽  
...  

Background: China’s Fujian Cervical Pilot Project (FCPP) transitioned cervical cancer screening from high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping to genotyping. We investigated the clinical impact of this introduction, comparing performance indicators between HR-HPV genotyping combined with cytology screening (HR-HPV genotyping period) and the previous HR-HPV nongenotyping combined with cytology screening (HR-HPV nongenotyping period). Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed using data from the FCPP for China. We obtained data for the HR-HPV nongenotyping period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013, and for the HR-HPV genotyping period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. Propensity score matching was used to match women from the two periods. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess factors associated with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). The primary outcome was the incidence of CIN2+ in women aged ⩾25 years. Performance was assessed and included consistency, reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and cost. Results: Compared with HR-HPV nongenotyping period, in the HR-HPV genotyping period, more CIN2+ cases were identified at the initial screening (3.06% versus 2.32%; p < 0.001); the rate of colposcopy referral was higher (10.87% versus 6.64%; p < 0.001); and the hazard ratio of CIN2+ diagnosis was 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.43–1.88; p < 0.001) after controlling for health insurance status and age. The total costs of the first round of screening (US$66,609 versus US$65,226; p = 0.293) were similar during the two periods. Higher screening coverage (25.95% versus 25.19%; p = 0.007), higher compliance with age recommendations (92.70% versus 91.69%; p = 0.001), lower over-screening (4.92% versus 10.15%; p < 0.001), and reduced unqualified samples (cytology: 1.48% versus 1.73%, p = 0.099; HR-HPV: 0.57% versus 1.34%, p < 0.001) were observed in the HR-HPV genotyping period. Conclusions: Introduction of an HR-HPV genotyping assay in China could detect more CIN2+ lesions at earlier stages and improve programmatic indicators. Evidence suggests that the introduction of HR-HPV genotyping is likely to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in China.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte A. Brown ◽  
Johnannes Bogers ◽  
Shaira Sahebali ◽  
Christophe E. Depuydt ◽  
Frans De Prins ◽  
...  

Since the Pap test was introduced in the 1940s, there has been an approximately 70% reduction in the incidence of squamous cell cervical cancers in many developed countries by the application of organized and opportunistic screening programs. The efficacy of the Pap test, however, is hampered by high interobserver variability and high false-negative and false-positive rates. The use of biomarkers has demonstrated the ability to overcome these issues, leading to improved positive predictive value of cervical screening results. In addition, the introduction of HPV primary screening programs will necessitate the use of a follow-up test with high specificity to triage the high number of HPV-positive tests. This paper will focus on protein biomarkers currently available for use in cervical cancer screening, which appear to improve the detection of women at greatest risk for developing cervical cancer, including Ki-67,p16INK4a, BD ProEx C, and Cytoactiv HPV L1.


2003 ◽  
Vol 127 (8) ◽  
pp. 984-990
Author(s):  
David R. Bolick

Abstract Human papillomavirus testing is becoming an integral component of cervical cancer screening. Market forces will require most laboratories that perform Papanicolaou tests to develop a system for handling human papillomavirus testing also. Data and information are presented that may facilitate laboratories when addressing the following issues in the process of developing a human papillomavirus testing service: Which methodology is the best fit for the laboratory? Is it better to develop an in-house testing service or to send it out? How do I get started? What are the financial and economic issues, and how should they be managed?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document