Cargando…
Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear
The newest high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection techniques were included for cervical cancer primary screening under the Spanish National Health System in 2019. These analyses allow changing population approaches to foster adherence to screening. Therefore, the validity of self versus conv...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9933799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36797261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29255-y |
_version_ | 1784889746561957888 |
---|---|
author | Gibert, M. J. Sánchez-Contador, C. Artigues, G. |
author_facet | Gibert, M. J. Sánchez-Contador, C. Artigues, G. |
author_sort | Gibert, M. J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The newest high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection techniques were included for cervical cancer primary screening under the Spanish National Health System in 2019. These analyses allow changing population approaches to foster adherence to screening. Therefore, the validity of self versus conventional sampling for HPV and cytology analyses was appraised. Women's preferences concerning samples and devices were also evaluated. This is a diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study among 120 women recruited from a colposcopy clinic at a general hospital in Illes Balears, Spain. Participants were given written information and asked for a self-sample. One of two sets containing two devices each were handed. One set was transported dry and the second in liquid medium. Next, clinicians collected vaginal samples that were our gold standards. The agreement between both techniques was examined with the Kappa coefficient (κ). Self-sampling evaluation and preferences for different vaginal devices were also surveyed. The agreement between self and conventional samples concerning HPV positivity was very good (κ 0.86 for Mía by XytoTest® and 0.83 for Viba-Brush®) or reasonable (κ 0.73 for Iune and 0.68 for viscose swab). Pap smears from self-samples exhibited moderate agreement (κ 0.41 for Mía® and 0.51 for Viba-Brush® respectively) for negative versus ASC-US and worse results. Most of the participants considered self-sampling as beneficial (110 or 91.7%) and the advantages were, in decreasing order, scheduling, comfort, intimacy and less fear for pain or disturbance. The priority of choice for the devices was Mía® and viscose swab (chosen in first or second place) in opposition to Iune and Viba-Brush® (chosen in third or fourth place). If Viba-Brush® was to collect the best quality samples, 108 women (94.7%) switched their decisions. Our agreement between self and conventional samples was very good or reasonable for HPV, with the best values for devices in a liquid medium, and moderate for cytology. Even so, reflex cytology on self-samples is a valuable tool in promoting adherence. Self-sampling was widely accepted for smooth and thin devices. However, there is no resistance to change to others if a higher quality of the sample is obtained. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9933799 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99337992023-02-17 Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear Gibert, M. J. Sánchez-Contador, C. Artigues, G. Sci Rep Article The newest high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection techniques were included for cervical cancer primary screening under the Spanish National Health System in 2019. These analyses allow changing population approaches to foster adherence to screening. Therefore, the validity of self versus conventional sampling for HPV and cytology analyses was appraised. Women's preferences concerning samples and devices were also evaluated. This is a diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study among 120 women recruited from a colposcopy clinic at a general hospital in Illes Balears, Spain. Participants were given written information and asked for a self-sample. One of two sets containing two devices each were handed. One set was transported dry and the second in liquid medium. Next, clinicians collected vaginal samples that were our gold standards. The agreement between both techniques was examined with the Kappa coefficient (κ). Self-sampling evaluation and preferences for different vaginal devices were also surveyed. The agreement between self and conventional samples concerning HPV positivity was very good (κ 0.86 for Mía by XytoTest® and 0.83 for Viba-Brush®) or reasonable (κ 0.73 for Iune and 0.68 for viscose swab). Pap smears from self-samples exhibited moderate agreement (κ 0.41 for Mía® and 0.51 for Viba-Brush® respectively) for negative versus ASC-US and worse results. Most of the participants considered self-sampling as beneficial (110 or 91.7%) and the advantages were, in decreasing order, scheduling, comfort, intimacy and less fear for pain or disturbance. The priority of choice for the devices was Mía® and viscose swab (chosen in first or second place) in opposition to Iune and Viba-Brush® (chosen in third or fourth place). If Viba-Brush® was to collect the best quality samples, 108 women (94.7%) switched their decisions. Our agreement between self and conventional samples was very good or reasonable for HPV, with the best values for devices in a liquid medium, and moderate for cytology. Even so, reflex cytology on self-samples is a valuable tool in promoting adherence. Self-sampling was widely accepted for smooth and thin devices. However, there is no resistance to change to others if a higher quality of the sample is obtained. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9933799/ /pubmed/36797261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29255-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Gibert, M. J. Sánchez-Contador, C. Artigues, G. Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear |
title | Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear |
title_full | Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear |
title_fullStr | Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear |
title_full_unstemmed | Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear |
title_short | Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear |
title_sort | validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and pap smear |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9933799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36797261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29255-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gibertmj validityandacceptanceofselfvsconventionalsamplingfortheanalysisofhumanpapillomavirusandpapsmear AT sanchezcontadorc validityandacceptanceofselfvsconventionalsamplingfortheanalysisofhumanpapillomavirusandpapsmear AT artiguesg validityandacceptanceofselfvsconventionalsamplingfortheanalysisofhumanpapillomavirusandpapsmear |