A New Brazilian Device for Cervical Cancer Screening: Acceptability and Accuracy of Self-sampling

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the accuracy and patient acceptability toward self-sampling using a new device - SelfCervix® - for detecting HPV-DNA.

Methods A total of 73 women aged 25–65 who underwent regular cervical cancer screening from March to October 2016 were included. Women performed self-sampling followed by a physician-sampling, and the samples were analyzed for HPV-DNA. After that, patients were surveyed about their acceptability of self-sampling.

Results HPV-DNA detection rate of self-sampling presented high accuracy and was similar to physician-collection. Sixty-four (87.7%) patients answered the acceptability survey. Most patients (89%) considered the self-sampling comfortable, and 82.5% preferred self-sampling to physician-sampling. The reasons cited were time-saving and convenience. Fifty-one (79.7%) reported that they would recommend self-sampling.

Conclusion Self-sampling using the new Brazilian device SelfCervix® is not inferior in HPV-DNA detection rate compared with physician-collection, and patients are supportive of the method. Therefore, it might be an option to reach under-screened populations in Brazil.

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a acurácia e aceitabilidade da auto-coleta utilizando um novo coletor - SelfCervix® - para a detecção de DNA de HPV.

Métodos Foram incluídas no estudo 73 mulheres com idade entre 25–65 anos que realizaram seu rastreamento regular do câncer de colo do útero entre Março e Outubro de 2016. Estas mulheres realizaram a auto-coleta, seguida de coleta profissional e as amostras foram analisadas para a presença de DNA de HPV. Após, elas responderam um questionário sobre a experiência da auto-coleta.

Resultados As taxas de detecção de DNA de HPV por auto-coleta foram altas e similares as da coleta profissional. Sessenta e quatro (87,7%) pacientes responderam o questionário de experiência. A maioria (89%) considerou a auto-coleta confortável, e 82,5% preferiram o método comparado a coleta profissional. As razões citadas foram economia de tempo e conveniência. Cinquenta e uma (79,7%) mulheres confirmaram que recomendariam a auto-coleta.

Conclusão Auto-coleta utilizando o novo coletor desenvolvido no Brasil não é inferior na detecção de DNA de HPV quando comparada a coleta profissional, e apresenta uma boa aceitabilidade pelas mulheres. Desta maneira, pode ser uma opção para alcançar populações que não realizam o rastreamento padrão.

Keywords

uterine cervical neoplasms - human papillomavirus - cytology - diagnostic screening programs - early detection of cancer

Palavras-chave

Neoplasias do colo de útero - Papiloma vírus humano - Programas de rastreamento - Detecção precoce do câncer

Contributions

All authors participated in the concept and design of the present study; analysis and interpretation of data; draft or revision of the manuscript, and they have approved the manuscript as submitted. All authors are responsible for the reported research.

Publication History

Received: 26 January 2023

Accepted: 20 March 2023

Article published online:
20 June 2023

• References

• 1 Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L. et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8 (02) e191-e203
• 2 Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2007; 45 (2-3): 93-106
• 3 Jackson R, Wang L, Jembere N, Murphy J, Kupets R. Why do women get cervical cancer in an organized screening program in Canada?. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2019; 23 (01) 1-6
• 4 Vaccarella S, Lortet-Tieulent J, Plummer M, Franceschi S, Bray F. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49 (15) 3262-3273
• 5 Augusto EF, Rosa MLG, Cavalcanti SMB, Oliveira LHS. Barriers to cervical cancer screening in women attending the Family Medical Program in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287 (01) 53-58
• 6 Schiffman M, Doorbar J, Wentzensen N. et al. Carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2: 16086
• 7 Lenhoff A. Five FDA-approved HPV assays. MLO Med Lab Obs 2012; 44 (07) 14 , 16, 18
• 8 Fontham ETH, Wolf AMD, Church TR. et al. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2020; 70 (05) 321-346
• 9 Castle PE, Silva VRS, Consolaro MEL. et al. Participation in cervical screening by self-collection, Pap, or a choice of either in Brazil. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2019; 12 (03) 159-170
• 10 Demarco M, Hyun N, Carter-Pokras O. et al. A study of type-specific HPV natural history and implications for contemporary cervical cancer screening programs. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 22: 100293
• 11 Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P. Collaboration on self-sampling and hpv testing. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self-samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ 2018; 5: 363
• 12 El-Zein M, Bouten S, Louvanto K. et al; CASSIS Study Group*. Predictive value of HPV testing in self-colleted and clinician-collected samples compared with cytology in detecting high-grade cervical lesions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2019; 28 (07) 1134-1140
• 13 Arrossi S, Thouyaret L, Herrero R. et al; EMA Study team. Effect of self-collection of HPV DNA offered by community health workers at home visits on uptake of screening for cervical cancer (the EMA study): a population-based cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Glob Health 2015; 3 (02) e85-e94
• 14 Torres KL, Mariño JM, Pires Rocha DA. et al. Self-sampling coupled to the detection of HPV 16 and 18 E6 protein: A promising option for detection of cervical malignancies in remote areas. PLoS One 2018; 13 (07) e0201262
• 15 Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bösze P. et al. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (01) 166-172
• 16 Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM. et al; International HPV screening working group. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014; 383 (9916): 524-532
• 17 Aitken CA, van Agt HME, Siebers AG. et al. Introduction of primary screening using high-risk HPV DNA detection in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: a population-based cohort study. BMC Med 2019; 17 (01) 228-231
• 18 Rebolj M, Rimmer J, Denton K. et al. Primary cervical screening with high risk human papillomavirus testing: observational study. BMJ 2019; 364: l240
• 19 Koliopoulos G, Nyaga VN, Santesso N. et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 8 (08) CD008587
• 20 Thomsen LT, Kjaer SK, Munk C, Ørnskov D, Waldstrøm M. Benefits and potential harms of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening: A real-world comparison of HPV testing versus cytology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021; 100 (03) 394-402
• 21 Zhao Y, Bao H, Ma L. et al. Real-world effectiveness of primary screening with high-risk human papillomavirus testing in the cervical cancer screening programme in China: a nationwide, population-based study. BMC Med 2021; 19 (01) 164
• 22 Smith MA, Canfell K. Projected impact of HPV vaccination and primary HPV screening on cervical adenocarcinoma: Example from Australia. Papillomavirus Res 2017; 3: 134-141
• 23 Katki HA, Kinney WK, Fetterman B. et al. Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12 (07) 663-672 . Doi: 10/1016/S1470–2045(11)70145–0
• 24 Loopik DL, Koenjer LM, Siebers AG, Melchers WJG, Bekkers RLM. Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (02) 200.e1-200.e9
• 25 Teixeira JC, Vale DB, Bragança JF, Campos CS, Discacciati MG, Zeferino LC. Cervical cancer screening program based on primary DNA-HPV testing in a Brazilian city: a cost-effectiveness study protocol. BMC Public Health 2020; 20 (01) 576
• 26 Vale DB, Teixeira JC, Bragança JF, Derchain S, Sarian LO, Zeferino LC. Elimination of cervical cancer in low- and middle-income countries: Inequality of access and fragile healthcare systems. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2021; 152 (01) 7-11
• 27 Vale DB, Silva MT, Discacciati MG, Polegatto I, Teixeira JC, Zeferino LC. Is the HPV-test more cost-effective than cytology in cervical cancer screening? An economic analysis from a middle-income country. PLoS One 2021; 16 (05) e0251688
• 28 Cromwell I, Smith LW, van der Hoek K. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of primary human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: Results from the HPV FOCAL Trial. Cancer Med 2021; 10 (09) 2996-3003
• 29 Gottschlich A, van Niekerk D, Smith LW. et al. Assessing 10-year safety of a single negative HPV test for cervical cancer screening: Evidence from FOCAL-DECADE cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021; 30 (01) 22-29
• 30 Polman NJ, de Haan Y, Veldhuijzen NJ. et al. Experience with HPV self-sampling and clinician-based sampling in women attending routine cervical screening in the Netherlands. Prev Med 2019; 125: 5-11
• 31 Polman NJ, Ebisch RMF, Heideman DAM. et al. Performance of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse: a randomised, paired screen-positive, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20 (02) 229-238
• 32 Bertucci M, Bonnet E, Satger L. et al. Acceptability of vaginal self-sampling with high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: a French questionnaire-based study. Women Health 2021; 61 (01) 83-94
• 33 Andersson S, Belkić K, Mints M, Östensson E. Acceptance of self-sampling among long-term cervical screening non-attenders with HPV-positive results: promising opportunity for specific cancer education. J Cancer Educ 2021; 36 (01) 126-133
• 34 Lorenzi NPC, Termini L, Longatto Filho A. et al. Age-related acceptability of vaginal self-sampling in cervical cancer screening at two university hospitals: a pilot cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2019; 19 (01) 963
• 35 Mezei AK, Armstrong HL, Pedersen HN. et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening methods in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Int J Cancer 2017; 141 (03) 437-446
• 36 Bhatla N, Dar L, Patro AR. et al. Can human papillomavirus DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compare with physician-collected cervical samples and cytology for cervical cancer screening in developing countries?. Cancer Epidemiol 2009; 33 (06) 446-450
• 37 Chen C, Yang Z, Li Z, Li L. Accuracy of several cervical screening strategies for early detection of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012; 22 (06) 908-921
• 38 Kamath Mulki A, Withers M. Human Papilloma Virus self-sampling performance in low- and middle-income countries. BMC Womens Health 2021; 21 (01) 12
• 39 Nishimura H, Yeh PT, Oguntade H, Kennedy CE, Narasimhan M. HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences. BMJ Glob Health 2021; 6 (05) e003743