- Volume 17 Issue 7
DOI QR Code
Self-Sampling Versus Physicians' Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening - Agreement of Cytological Diagnoses
- Othman, Nor Hayati (Department of Pathology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia) ;
- Zaki, Fatma Hariati Mohamad (Department of Pathology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia) ;
- Hussain, Nik Hazlina Nik (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia) ;
- Yusoff, Wan Zahanim Wan (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II) ;
- Ismail, Pazuddin (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia)
- Published : 2016.07.01
Background: A major problem with cervical cancer screening in countries which have no organized national screening program for cervical cancer is sub-optimal participation. Implementation of self-sampling method may increase the coverage. Objective: We determined the agreement of cytological diagnoses made on samples collected by women themselves (self-sampling) versus samples collected by physicians (Physician sampling). Materials and Methods: We invited women volunteers to undergo two procedures; cervical self-sampling using the Evalyn brush and physician sampling using a Cervex brush. The women were shown a video presentation on how to take their own cervical samples before the procedure. The samples taken by physicians were taken as per routine testing (Gold Standard). All samples were subjected to Thin Prep monolayer smears. The diagnoses made were according to the Bethesda classification. The results from these two sampling methods were analysed and compared. Results: A total of 367 women were recruited into the study, ranging from 22 to 65 years age. There was a significant good agreement of the cytological diagnoses made on the samples from the two sampling methods with the Kappa value of 0.568 (p=0.040). Using the cytological smears taken by physicians as the gold standard, the sensitivity of self-sampling was 71.9% (95% CI:70.9-72.8), the specificity was 86.6% (95% CI:85.7-87.5), the positive predictive value was 74.2% (95% CI:73.3-75.1) and the negative predictive value was 85.1% (95% CI: 84.2-86.0). Self-sampling smears (22.9%) allowed detection of micro-organisms better than physicians samples (18.5%). Conclusions: This study shows that samples taken by women themselves (self-sampling) and physicians have good diagnostic agreement. Self-sampling could be the method of choice in countries in which the coverage of women attending clinics for screening for cervical cancer is poor.
Cervical scrapings;Self-sampling;Physicians' sampling;Cervical Cancer Screening;Pap smear Cytology
Supported by : USM RUI
- Agorastos T, Dinas K, Lloveras B, et al (2005). Self-sampling versus physician-sampling for human papillomavirus testing. Int J STD AIDS, 16, 727-9. https://doi.org/10.1258/095646205774763225
- Belinson J L, Qiao Y L, Pretorius R G, et al (2003). Shanxi Province cervical cancer screening study II: self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus compared to direct sampling for human papillomavirus and liquid based cervical cytology. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 13, 819-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2003.13611.x
- Bosgraaf R P, Ketelaars P J, Verhoef V M, et al (2014). Reasons for non-attendance to cervical screening and preferences for HPV self-sampling in Dutch women. Prev Med, 64, 108-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.011
- Cerigo H, Coutlee F, Franco E L, et al (2012). Dry self-sampling versus provider-sampling of cervicovaginal specimens for human papillomavirus detection in the Inuit population of Nunavik, Quebec. J Med Screen, 19, 42-8.
- da Silva Rocha A, Guilherme Schaefer P & Isabel Albano Edelweiss M (2015). Cervical cytological screening: Assessment of the Fournier (R) self-sampling device in a cervical pathology outpatient clinic. Diagn Cytopathol, 43, 802-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.23307
- da Silva Rocha A, Schaeffer PG, Meurer L, et al (2012). Assessment of the Fournier((R)) cervical specimen selfsampling device using the Papanicolaou method. Acta Cytol, 56, 520-6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000341239
- Darlin L, Borgfeldt C, Forslund O, et al (2013). Vaginal selfsampling without preservative for human papillomavirus testing shows good sensitivity. J Clin Virol, 56, 52-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2012.09.002
- Dodge B, Van Der Pol B, Reece M, et al (2012). Rectal selfsampling in non-clinical venues for detection of sexually transmissible infections among behaviourally bisexual men. Sex Health, 9, 190-1.
- Eperon I, Vassilakos P, Navarria I, et al (2013). Randomized comparison of vaginal self-sampling by standard vs. dry swabs for human papillomavirus testing. BMC Cancer, 13, 353. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-353
- Forney L J, Gajer P, Williams C J, et al (2010). Comparison of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs for microbiome analysis. J Clin Microbiol, 48, 1741-8. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01710-09
- Forrest S, McCaffery K, Waller J, et al (2004). Attitudes to self-sampling for HPV among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in Manchester, UK. J Med Screen, 11, 85-8. https://doi.org/10.1258/096914104774061065
- Gok M, Heideman D A, van Kemenade F J, et al (2012a). Offering self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing to non-attendees of the cervical screening programme: Characteristics of the responders. Eur J Cancer, 48, 1799-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.022
- Gok M, van Kemenade F J, Heideman D A, et al (2012b). Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program. Int J Cancer, 130, 1128-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.26128
- Guan Y, Castle P E, Wang S, et al (2012). A cross-sectional study on the acceptability of self-collection for HPV testing among women in rural China. Sex Transm Infect, 88, 490-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2012-050477
- Harper D M, Noll W W, Belloni D R, et al (2002). Randomized clinical trial of PCR-determined human papillomavirus detection methods: self-sampling versus clinician-directed--biologic concordance and women's preferences. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186, 365-73. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.121076
- Howard M, Lytwyn A, Lohfeld L, et al (2009). Barriers to acceptance of self-sampling for human papillomavirus across ethnolinguistic groups of women. Can J Public Health, 100, 365-9.
- Kahn J A, Slap G B, Huang B, et al (2004). Comparison of adolescent and young adult self-collected and cliniciancollected samples for human papillomavirus. Obstet Gynecol, 103, 952-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000124569.61462.8d
- Karwalajtys T, Howard M, Sellors J W, et al (2006). Vaginal self sampling versus physician cervical sampling for HPV among younger and older women. Sex Transm Infect, 82, 337-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.2005.019430
- Latiff L A, Ibrahim Z, Pei C P, et al (2015a). Comparative assessment of a self-sampling device and gynecologist sampling for cytology and HPV DNA detection in a rural and low resource setting: Malaysian experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 8495-501.
- Latiff L A, Rahman S A, Wee W Y, et al (2015b). Assessment of the reliability of a novel self-sampling device for performing cervical sampling in Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 559-64. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.2.559
- Lim A W, Hollingworth A, Kalwij S, et al (2016). Offering self-sampling to cervical screening non-attenders in primary care. J Med Screen.
- Moscicki A B (1993). Comparison between methods for human papillomavirus DNA testing: a model for self-testing in young women. J Infect Dis, 167, 723-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/167.3.723
- Nabandith V, Pholsena V, Mounthisone P, et al (2012). First trial of cervical cytology in healthy women of urban Laos using by self-sampling instrument. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 4665-7. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.9.4665
- Okayama K, Okodo M, Fujii M, et al (2012). Improved accuracy of cytodiagnosis using the Kato self-collection devise: the usefulness of smear preparation in liquid-based cytology methods. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 4521-4. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.9.4521
- Othman N H & Mohamad Zaki F H (2014). Self-collection tools for routine cervical cancer screening: a review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 8563-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.20.8563
- Othman NH, Rebolj M (2009). Challenges to cervical screening in a developing country: The case of Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 747-52.
- Palmisano M E, Gaffga A M, Daigle J, et al (2003). Detection of human papillomavirus DNA in self-administered vaginal swabs as compared to cervical swabs. Int J STD AIDS, 14, 560-7. https://doi.org/10.1258/095646203767869183
- Pengsaa P, Sriamporn S, Kritpetcharat O, et al (2003). A comparison of cytology with Pap smears taken by a gynecologist and with a self-sampling device. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 4, 99-102.
- Piana L, Leandri F X, Le Retraite L, et al (2011). HPV-Hr detection by home self sampling in women not compliant with pap test for cervical cancer screening. Results of a pilot programme in Bouches-du-Rhone. Bull Cancer, 98, 723-31 [in French].
- Rompalo A M, Gaydos C A, Shah N, et al (2001). Evaluation of use of a single intravaginal swab to detect multiple sexually transmitted infections in active-duty military women. Clin Infect Dis, 33, 1455-61. https://doi.org/10.1086/322588
- Sancho-Garnier H, Tamalet C, Halfon P, et al (2013). HPV self-sampling or the Pap-smear: A randomized study among cervical screening nonattenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France. Int J Cancer.
- Scarinci IC, Litton AG, Garces-Palacio IC, et al (2013). Acceptability and usability of self-collected sampling for HPV testing among African-American women living in the Mississippi Delta. Womens Health Issues, 23, 123-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2012.12.003
- Schmeink C E, Bekkers R L, Massuger L F, et al (2011). The potential role of self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus detection in cervical cancer screening. Rev Med Virol, 21, 139-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.686
- Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mallett S, et al (2007). Human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling: assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting. J Med Screen, 14, 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1258/096914107780154486
- Tamalet C, Le Retraite L, Leandri FX, et al (2013). Vaginal self-sampling is an adequate means of screening HR-HPV types in women not participating in regular cervical cancer screening. Clin Microbiol Infect, 19, 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12063
- van Baars R, Bosgraaf R P, ter Harmsel B W, et al (2012). Dry storage and transport of a cervicovaginal self-sample by use of the Evalyn Brush, providing reliable human papillomavirus detection combined with comfort for women. J Clin Microbiol, 50, 3937-43. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01506-12
- Verdoodt F, Jentschke M, Hillemanns P, et al (2015). Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Cancer, 51, 2375-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.006
- Wikstrom I, Lindell M, Sanner K, et al (2011). Self-sampling and HPV testing or ordinary Pap-smear in women not regularly attending screening: a randomised study. Br J Cancer, 105, 337-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.236
- Yoshida T, Nishijima Y, Hando K, et al (2013). Primary study on providing a basic system for uterine cervical screening in a developing country: analysis of acceptability of selfsampling in Lao PDR. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 3029-35. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.5.3029