Effect of vaginal self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates: a community-based study in Newfoundland.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is highly preventable and treatable if detected early through regular screening. Women in the Canadian province of Newfoundland & Labrador have relatively low rates of cervical cancer screening, with rates of around 40 % between 2007 and 2009. Persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary cause for the development of cervical cancer, and HPV testing, including self-sampling, has been suggested as an alternative method of cervical cancer screening that may alleviate some barriers to screening. Our objective was to determine whether offering self-collected HPV testing screening increased cervical cancer screening rates in rural communities. METHODS: During the 2-year study, three community-based cohorts were assigned to receive either i) a cervical cancer education campaign with the option of HPV testing; ii) an educational campaign alone; iii) or no intervention. Self-collection kits were offered to eligible women at family medicine clinics and community centres, and participants were surveyed to determine their acceptance of the HPV self-collection kit. Paired proportions testing for before-after studies was used to determine differences in screening rates from baseline, and Chi Square analysis of three dimensional 2 × 2 × 2 tables compared the change between communities. RESULTS: Cervical cancer screening increased by 15.2 % (p < 0.001) to 67.4 % in the community where self-collection was available, versus a 2.9 % increase (p = 0.07) in the community that received educational campaigns and 8.5 % in the community with no intervention (p = 0.193). The difference in change in rates was statistically significant between communities A and B (p < 0.001) but not between communities A and C (p = 0.193). The response rate was low, with only 9.5 % (168/1760) of eligible women opting to self-collect for HPV testing. Of the women who completed self-collection, 15.5 % (26) had not had a Pap smear in the last 3 years, and 88.7 % reported that they were somewhat or very satisfied with self-collection. CONCLUSIONS: Offering self-collected HPV testing increased the cervical cancer screening rate in a rural NL community. Women who completed self-collection had generally positive feelings about the experience. Offering HPV self-collection may increase screening compliance, particularly among women who do not present for routine Pap smears.

MassARRAY spectrometry is more sensitive than PreTect HPV-Proofer and consensus PCR for type-specific detection of high-risk oncogenic human papillomavirus genotypes in cervical cancer.

Type-specific detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) is indicated for better risk stratification and clinical management of women testing positive for HPV and for epidemiologic surveillance. MassARRAY spectrometry (MassARRAY; Sequenom) is a novel method for type-specific detection of 15 high-risk oncogenic HPV types: HPV-16, -18, -31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -59, -66, -68, and -73. PreTect HPV-Proofer (Proofer; Norchip) is a type-specific assay that detects E6/E7 mRNA from five high-risk oncogenic HPV types: HPV-16, -18, -31, -33, and -45. The performance of these tests for type-specific identification of HPV was assessed with cervical specimens from 192 cases of cervical cancer in comparison with consensus MY09/MY11 PCR followed by nucleotide sequencing (consensus PCR). The overall HPV detection rates were 94.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7, 97.9), 83.3% (95% CI, 78.1, 88.5), and 86.5% (95% CI, 81.7, 91.3) for MassARRAY, Proofer, and consensus PCR, respectively. All tests were negative in six (3.1%) of the 192 cases. Considering only the specimens that contained at least one of the five types targeted by Proofer, the detection rates were 96.6%, 91.4%, and 86.9% for MassARRAY, Proofer, and consensus PCR, respectively. MassARRAY detected multiple infections in 14.1%, Proofer detected multiple infections in 3.6%, and consensus PCR failed to detect any multiple infections. The agreement was highest at 86.0% (kappa = 0.76) between MassARRAY and Proofer and lowest at 81.8% (kappa = 0.69) between Proofer and consensus PCR. In conclusion, MassARRAY is a highly sensitive and accurate method for type-specific detection of oncogenic HPV in cervical cancer, with Proofer showing impressive performance.

Aptima HPV E6/E7 mRNA test is as sensitive as Hybrid Capture 2 Assay but more specific at detecting cervical precancer and cancer.

Detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 oncogene expression may be more predictive of cervical cancer risk than testing for HPV DNA. The Aptima HPV test (Gen-Probe) detects E6/E7 mRNA of 14 oncogenic types. Its clinical performance was compared with that of the Hybrid Capture 2 DNA test (HC2; Qiagen) in women referred for colposcopy and those routinely screened. Aptima was also compared with the PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA assay (Proofer; Norchip) in the referral population. Cervical specimens collected in PreservCyt (Hologic Inc.) were processed for HPV detection and genotyping with the Linear Array (LA) method (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Laval, Quebec, Canada). Histology-confirmed high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2) or worse (CIN 2+) served as the disease endpoint. On the basis of 1,418 referral cases (CIN 2+, n = 401), the sensitivity of Aptima was 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.4, 98.2), whereas it was 94.3% (95% CI, 92.0, 96.6) for HC2. The specificities were 43.2% (95% CI, 40.2, 46.2) and 38.7% (95% CI, 35.7, 41.7), respectively (P < 0.05). In 1,373 women undergoing routine screening (CIN 2+, n = 7), both Aptima and HC2 showed 100% sensitivity, and the specificities were 88.3% (95% CI, 86.6, 90.0) and 85.3% (95% CI, 83.5, 87.3), respectively (P < 0.05); for women ≥ 30 years of age (n = 845), the specificities were 93.9% (95% CI, 92.3, 95.5) and 92.1% (95% CI, 90.3, 93.9), respectively (P < 0.05). On the basis of 818 referral cases (CIN 2+, n = 235), the sensitivity of Aptima was 94.9% (95% CI, 92.1, 97.7) and that of Proofer was 79.1% (95% CI, 73.9, 84.3), and the specificities were 45.8% (95% CI, 41.8, 49.8) and 75.1% (95% CI, 71.6, 78.6), respectively (P < 0.05). Both Aptima and Proofer showed a higher degree of agreement with LA genotyping than HC2. In conclusion, the Aptima test is as sensitive as HC2 but more specific for detecting CIN 2+ and can serve as a reliable test for both primary cervical cancer screening and the triage of borderline cytological abnormalities.

Clinical performance of the PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA assay in comparison with that of the Hybrid Capture 2 test for identification of women at risk of cervical cancer.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has a higher clinical sensitivity than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN 2+). However, an improvement in specificity would be desirable. As malignant transformation is induced by HPV E6/E7 oncogenes, detection of E6/E7 oncogene activity may improve specificity and be more predictive of cervical cancer risk. The PreTect HPV-Proofer assay (Proofer; Norchip) detects E6/E7 mRNA transcripts from HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 with simultaneous genotype-specific identification. The clinical performance of this assay was assessed in a cross-sectional study of women referred for colposcopy in comparison with the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) test, which detects DNA of 13 high-risk oncogenic HPV types collectively. Cervical specimens were collected in PreservCyt, and cytology was performed using the ThinPrep method (Hologic). The samples were processed for HPV detection with Proofer and HC2 and genotyping with the Linear Array method (Roche Molecular Systems). Histology-confirmed CIN 2+ served as the disease endpoint to assess the clinical performance of the tests. A total of 1,551 women were studied, and of these, 402 (25.9%) were diagnosed with CIN 2+ on histology. The Proofer assay showed a sensitivity of 78.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.1 to 82.1) versus 95.8% (95% CI, 93.8 to 97.8) for HC2 (P < 0.05) and a specificity of 75.5% (95% CI, 73.0 to 78.0) versus 39.6% (95% CI, 36.8 to 42.4), respectively (P < 0.05). The lower sensitivity and higher specificity of Proofer for detection of CIN 2+ can be attributed to the fact that this test detects the expression of E6/E7 genes beyond a threshold from a limited number of oncogenic HPV types. In conclusion, Proofer is more specific than HC2 in identifying women with CIN 2+ but has a lower sensitivity.

Performance of ProEx C and PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA tests in comparison with the hybrid capture 2 HPV DNA test for triaging ASCUS and LSIL cytology.

The clinical usefulness of the ProEx C (Becton Dickinson) and PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA tests (Proofer; Norchip) for the triage of ASCUS and LSIL cytology was determined in comparison with the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test (HC2; Qiagen). The study population consisted of women with a history of abnormal cytology referred to colposcopy. Histology-confirmed CIN 2+ served as the disease endpoint. The study was based on 1,360 women (mean age 30.7 years), of whom 380 had CIN 2+. Among 315 with ASCUS (CIN 2+, n = 67), the sensitivities of ProEx C, Proofer, and HC2 to detect CIN 2+ were, 71.6, 71.6, and 95.5%, respectively, with a corresponding specificity of 74.6, 74.2, and 35.1%. Among 363 with LSIL (CIN 2+, n = 108), the sensitivities of ProEx C, Proofer, and HC2 were, 67.6, 74.1, and 96.3%, respectively, with a corresponding specificity of 60, 68.2, and 18.4%. Among 225 HC2-positive ASCUS (CIN 2+, n = 64), 105 tested positive by ProEx C, reducing colposcopy referral by 53.3% and detecting 71.9% of CIN 2+; Proofer was positive in 112/225, reducing colposcopy referral by 50.2% and detecting 75.0% of CIN 2+. Among 312 HC2-positive LSIL (CIN 2+, n = 104), 160 tested positive by ProEx C, reducing coloposcopy referral by 48.7% and detecting 66.3% of CIN 2+; Proofer was positive in 159/312, reducing colposcopy referral by 49.0% and detecting 75.0% of CIN 2+. In conclusion, both ProEx C and Proofer have a similar performance profile with a significantly higher specificity but lower sensitivity than HC2 for the detection of CIN 2+. Consequently, although they can reduce colposcopy referral, they will miss a proportion of CIN 2+ cases. This is a major limitation and should be taken into account if these tests are considered for ASCUS or LSIL triage.