Self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus as a follow-up alternative after treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
CIN
papillomavirus infections
predictive value of tests
self-care
specimen handling/methods
Journal
Oncology letters
ISSN: 1792-1074
Titre abrégé: Oncol Lett
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 101531236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
01
11
2020
accepted:
11
01
2021
entrez:
5
3
2021
pubmed:
6
3
2021
medline:
6
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Women treated for high-grade cervical-intraepithelial-neoplasia (CIN) require long-term follow-up with high-risk human-papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Self-sampling for HPV is well-accepted among these patients, but its role in follow-up for this group requires investigation. The present study examined how well HPV findings from self-sampled vaginal (VSS) and urine specimens correctly identified women from this cohort with recurrent CIN2+ compared with samples collected by clinicians. At 1st post-conization follow-up, 531 patients (99.8% participation) gave urine samples, performed VSS, underwent colposcopy with punch biopsy of visible lesions and clinician-collected cervical sampling for HPV analysis and liquid-based cytology. A total of 113 patients with positive HPV and/or abnormal cytology at 1st follow-up underwent 2nd follow-up. At 1st follow-up, all patients with recurrent CIN3 had positive HPV results by all methods. Clinician sampling and VSS revealed HPV16 positivity in 50% of recurrent cases and urine sampling revealed HPV16 positivity in 25% of recurrent cases. At 2nd follow-up, all 7 newly-detected CIN2/3 recurrences were associated with HPV positivity on VSS and clinician-samples. Only clinician-collected samples detected HPV positivity for two adenocarcinoma-in-situ recurrences, and both were HPV18 positive. A total of 77 patients had abnormal cytology at 1st follow-up, for which HPV positivity via VSS yielded highest sensitivity. The HPV findings were positive from VSS in 12 patients with high-grade squamous-intraepithelial-lesions (HSIL), and 11 patients with HSIL had positive HPV findings in clinician-collected and urine samples. All methods for assessing HPV presence yielded significant age-adjusted odds ratios for predicting abnormal lesions at 1st follow-up. For overall HPV results, Cohen's kappa revealed substantial agreement between VSS and clinician sampling, and moderate agreement between urine and clinician sampling. Clinician sampling and VSS were highly concordant for HPV16. Insofar as the pathology was squamous (not glandular), VSS appeared as sensitive as clinician sampling for HPV in predicting outcome among the present cohort. Since VSS can be performed at home, this option can maximize participation in the required long-term follow-up for these women at high-risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33664804
doi: 10.3892/ol.2021.12501
pii: OL-0-0-12501
pmc: PMC7884875
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
240Informations de copyright
Copyright: © Östensson et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
J Virol Methods. 2019 Feb;264:23-30
pubmed: 30452931
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Nov;95(11):1251-1257
pubmed: 27513888
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Feb 24;58(3):
pubmed: 31896666
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Jun;97(6):758-765
pubmed: 29430635
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):172-83
pubmed: 24433684
Int J Cancer. 2010 Oct 15;127(8):1923-30
pubmed: 20473898
JAMA. 2002 Apr 24;287(16):2114-9
pubmed: 11966386
Lancet Oncol. 2011 May;12(5):441-50
pubmed: 21530398
Cancer. 2019 Jan 15;125(2):239-248
pubmed: 30536370
Cytopathology. 2009 Feb;20(1):5-16
pubmed: 19133067
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):e0190156
pubmed: 29272293
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 May;125(2):500-7
pubmed: 22266548
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;201(1):17.e1-8
pubmed: 19344881
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):59-64
pubmed: 18255129
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 18;13(6):e0199038
pubmed: 29912903
BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 24;16(1):868
pubmed: 27557928
Int J Womens Health. 2015 Feb 02;7:149-54
pubmed: 25674016
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Sep;142(3):359-364
pubmed: 29856071
J Clin Virol. 2016 Sep;82:46-50
pubmed: 27434147
Acta Cytol. 2017;61(6):425-433
pubmed: 28564641
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017 Jun;26(6):609-615
pubmed: 28332888
Int J Cancer. 2017 Jul 1;141(1):8-23
pubmed: 28124442
Oncol Rep. 2012 Jul;28(1):346-52
pubmed: 22484610
Cancer Cytopathol. 2017 Mar;125(3):205-211
pubmed: 28060456
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Nov;95(11):1258-1263
pubmed: 27564523
BMJ. 2014 Oct 15;349:g6252
pubmed: 25319476
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Jul;92(7):830-40
pubmed: 23530870
J Rural Health. 2016 Spring;32(2):136-45
pubmed: 26265118
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 Oct;82(10):960-5
pubmed: 12956848
BMJ Open. 2017 Dec 14;7(12):e017070
pubmed: 29247086
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2005 Sep;14(7):650-9
pubmed: 16181021
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;35(22):2542-2550
pubmed: 28541790
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 04;6(8):e011022
pubmed: 27491667
J Cancer Educ. 2021 Feb;36(1):126-133
pubmed: 31522376
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Sep;21(9):817-26
pubmed: 25936581
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jun;127:104375
pubmed: 32361328
J Community Health. 2014 Oct;39(5):849-56
pubmed: 25120228
Women Health. 2012;52(2):162-81
pubmed: 22458292
Pathol Annu. 1973;8:301-28
pubmed: 4583016
BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 19;16:832
pubmed: 27538390
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012 May;31(5):627-40
pubmed: 21818524
Vaccine. 2012 Nov 20;30 Suppl 5:F88-99
pubmed: 23199969
BMJ. 2014 Sep 16;349:g5264
pubmed: 25232064
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Mar;210:236-241
pubmed: 28068597