Discussions about self-obtained samples for HPV testing as an alternative for cervical cancer prevention.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-collected samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing have shown promise, thus opening up a new possibility for cervical cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to explore women's beliefs about collecting their own samples for HPV testing instead of participating in conventional Pap testing. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted in diverse cities in Ontario, Canada. One group included women from a small under-serviced northern city, one included culturally diverse women from a large urban city, and one included culturally diverse women from a medium sized under-serviced city. Transcripts were coded using open and axial coding as well as focused coding procedures and were organized using qualitative software. The Health Belief Model (HMB) was used as a framework for designing the focus group guide and interpreting the results. RESULTS: Six overriding themes were identified in the analysis: (1) need (and desire) for information about cervical cancer and HPV, (2) concerns about self-sampling, (3) perceived potential of self-sampling, (4) logistics remain unanswered, (5) need for education and promotion of self-sampling, and (6) need for options. CONCLUSION: The six themes were connected to some or all of the HBM components. In particular, self-sampling provides a different benefits-minus-barriers equation, which might make it a preferred screening option for some women.

Self-collected samples for testing of oncogenic human papillomavirus: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the role of self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as an alternative to cervical cancer screening by clinicians (i.e., Papanicolaou [Pap] test). METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other sources for evidence related to the efficacy and feasibility of HPV DNA self-collection. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were identified. In 22 comparisons across 19 studies, the concordance between samples collected by patients and those obtained by clinicians was reasonably high in the majority of cases. Women in many countries across wide age ranges were successful in collecting samples for HPV DNA testing. In four studies, the quality of the cytology from patient samples was as good as clinician samples, with more than 95% of samples yielding HPV DNA results. The studies that examined acceptability found that women were generally very positive about collecting their own samples, although some concerns were noted. No study evaluated the effect of HPV DNA self-sampling on screening participation rates, early detection, survival, or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling for HPV DNA testing is a viable screening option, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that self-sampling for HPV DNA testing is an alternative to the Pap test. Although HPV DNA testing using self-collected samples holds promise for use in under-resourced areas or for women who are reluctant to participate in Pap testing programs, the evidence supporting it is limited. Further definitive research is needed to provide a solid evidence base to inform the use of self-sampling for HPV DNA testing for the purpose of increasing screening rates, especially in women who are never or seldom screened.

Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology-SurePath in the Ontario screening program.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to evaluate the adequacy and detection rates of SurePath after its implementation in Ontario. METHODS: The detection and adequacy rates of the SurePath liquid-based cytology system (SP-LBC) were calculated for manually reviewed slides of the year 2002. The adequacy and detection rates from this study group were compared with a historical conventional smear (CS) group from the same laboratories during the same period of the previous year. RESULTS: The SP-LBC study group consisted of 352,680 specimens with cytodiagnoses and the CS group included 378,990 specimens. The unsatisfactory rate for SP-LBC (0.24%) was less than that of the CS group (0.58%). The detection rate of atypical squamous cells (ASC+) by the SP-LBC group (4.69%) was greater than that of the CS group (3.81%), as was the detection rate of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+; 2.13% vs. 1.50% in the CS group). There was only a trend toward increased detection of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL+) in the SP-LBC group (0.34%) relative to the CS group (0.31%), because the detection rate for carcinoma by SP-LBC declined. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of SP-LBC has been followed by better specimen adequacy and detection rates for ASC+, LSIL+, and a trend of increased detection of HSIL+ relative to CS practice. To determine sensitivity rates, a histopathologic database for cervical carcinoma and precancer needs to be established.