High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Messenger RNA Testing in Physician- and Self-Collected Specimens for Cervical Lesion Detection in High-Risk Women, Kenya

Background Little is known about the performance of physician-versus self-collected specimens for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) messenger RNA (mRNA) testing or risk factors for hrHPV mRNA positivity in physician- versus self-collected specimens. We compared the performance of hrHPV mRNA testing of physician- and self-collected specimens for detecting cytological high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or more severe (≥HSIL) and examined risk factors for hrHPV mRNA positivity in female sex workers in Nairobi. Methods From 2009 to 2011, 344 female sex workers participated in this cross-sectional study. Women self-collected a cervicovaginal specimen. A physician conducted a pelvic examination to obtain a cervical specimen. Physician- and self-collected specimens were tested for hrHPV mRNA and sexually transmitted infections using APTIMA nucleic acid amplification assays (Hologic/Gen-Probe Incorporated, San Diego, CA). Cervical cytology was conducted using physician-collected specimens and classified according to the Bethesda criteria. Results Overall hrHPV mRNA prevalence was similar in physician- and self-collected specimens (30% vs. 29%). Prevalence of ≥HSIL was 4% (n = 15). Overall sensitivity of hrHPV testing for detecting ≥HSIL was similar in physician-collected (86%; 95% CI, 62%–98%; 13 cases detected) and self-collected specimens (79%; 95% CI, 55%–95%; 12 cases detected). Overall specificity of hrHPV mRNA for ≥HSIL was similar in both physician-collected (73%; 95% CI, 68%–79%) and self-collected (75%; 95% CI, 70%–79%) specimens. High-risk HPV mRNA positivity in both physician- and self-collected specimens seemed higher in women who were younger (<30 years), had Trichomonas vaginalis or Mycoplasma genitalium infections, or had more than 8 years of educational attainment. Conclusions Self-collected specimens for hrHPV mRNA testing seemed to have similar sensitivity and specificity as physician-collected specimens for the detection of ≥HSIL among high-risk women.

[1]  V. Moyer,et al.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  Y. Qiao,et al.  Pooled Analysis of a Self-Sampling HPV DNA Test as a Cervical Cancer Primary Screening Method , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  M. Klimek,et al.  Concomitant infections with human papillomavirus and various mycoplasma and ureaplasma species in women with abnormal cervical cytology. , 2011, Advances in medical sciences.

[4]  M. Hudgens,et al.  Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid‐based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: The FASE study , 2011, International journal of cancer.

[5]  J. Noël,et al.  High prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection among women with Trichomonas vaginalis infection on monolayer cytology , 2010, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[6]  P. van Damme,et al.  Epidemiology of Trichomonas vaginalis and Human Papillomavirus Infection Detected by Real-Time PCR in Flanders , 2010, Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation.

[7]  S. Luchters,et al.  Association of HIV infection with distribution and viral load of HPV types in Kenya: a survey with 820 female sex workers , 2010, BMC infectious diseases.

[8]  J. Del Amo,et al.  Prevalence and risk factors of high-risk human papillomavirus in female sex workers in Spain: differences by geographical origin. , 2009, Journal of women's health.

[9]  D. Stewart,et al.  Self-collected samples for testing of oncogenic human papillomavirus: a systematic review. , 2007, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[10]  E. Franco,et al.  Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2007, Gynecologic oncology.

[11]  M. Sherman,et al.  Comparison of HPV-based assays with Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening in Morelos State, Mexico , 2003, Cancer Causes & Control.

[12]  J. Nygård,et al.  The cervical cancer screening programme in Norway, 1992–2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer , 2002, Journal of medical screening.

[13]  C Poole,et al.  Low P-Values or Narrow Confidence Intervals: Which Are More Durable? , 2001, Epidemiology.

[14]  C. Wheeler,et al.  Human Papillomavirus: A Highly Prevalent Sexually Transmitted Disease Agent Among Female Sex Workers From Mexico City , 2001, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[15]  S. Kjaer,et al.  Human Papillomavirus Infection in Danish Female Sex Workers: Decreasing Prevalence With Age Despite Continuously High Sexual Activity , 2000, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[16]  T. Wright,et al.  Two-stage cervical cancer screening: an alternative for resource-poor settings. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  T. Wright,et al.  HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. , 2000, JAMA.

[18]  H. Adami,et al.  International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening , 1997, Cancer Causes & Control.

[19]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. , 1983, Biometrics.

[20]  J. Pfanzagl.  On median unbiased estimates , 1972 .

[21]  A. Stang,et al.  Identifying Minimal Sufficient Adjustment Sets , 2010 .

[22]  A. Stang,et al.  DAG program: identifying minimal sufficient adjustment sets. , 2010, Epidemiology.

[23]  R. Rajkumar,et al.  Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. , 2001, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[24]  J. Pearl,et al.  Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. , 1999, Epidemiology.

[25]  G. Shaw,et al.  Maternal pesticide exposure from multiple sources and selected congenital anomalies. , 1999 .

[26]  H. Bartsch,et al.  International Agency for Research on Cancer. , 1969, WHO chronicle.