Self-collected human papillomavirus testing acceptability: Comparison of two self-sampling modalities

Journal of Women's Health

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 397-402

  Igidbashian, Sarah ^a   Boveri, Sara ^a   Spolti, Noemi ^a   Radice, Davide ^a   Sandri, Maria Teresa ^a   Sideri, Mario ^a  

^a EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SAMPLING; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; WART VIRUS;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF CARE; SELF-EXAMINATION; SPECIMEN HANDLING; VAGINAL SMEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952756211     PISSN: 15409996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2189     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Devesa SS, Silverman DT, Young JL Jr, et al. Cancer inci-dence and mortality trends among whites in the United States, 1947-84. J Natl Cancer Inst 1987;79:701-770.
2. Mahlck CG, Jonsson H, Lenner P. Pap smear screening and changes in cervical cancer mortality in Sweden. Int J Gy-naecol Obstet 1994;44:267-272. (Pubitemid 24078073)
3. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, et al., on behalf of the United Kingdom Association of Cancer Registries. Effect of screen-ing on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: Evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999;318:904-908. (Pubitemid 29191925)
4. World Health Organization. Burden of disease project. Available at www.who.int/healthinfo/bodestimates/en/index.html. Accessed February 8, 2007.
5. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E. Estimating the effi-cacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1001-1005. (Pubitemid 26116757)
6. Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, et al. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: Attribu-table factors in the screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:675-683. (Pubitemid 40812631)
7. Bos AB, Rebolj M, Habbema JD, van Ballegooijen M. Non-attendance is still the main limitation for the effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2006;119:2372-2375. (Pubitemid 44546958)
8. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health 1995;85:791-794.
9. Carmichael JA, Jeffrey JF, Steele HD, Ohlke ID. The cytologic history of 245 patients developing invasive cervical carci-noma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:685-690. (Pubitemid 14196297)
10. Sung HY, Kearney KA, Miller M, Kinney W, Sawaya GF, Hiatt RA. Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of in-vasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large pre-paid health plan. Cancer 2000;88:2283-2289. (Pubitemid 30247128)
11. Stuart GC, McGregor SE, Duggan MA, Nation JG Review of the screening history of Alberta women with invasive cer-vical cancer. Can Med Assoc J 1997;157:513-519. (Pubitemid 27405855)
12. Sutton S, Rutherford C Sociodemographic and attitudinal correlates of cervical screening uptake in a national sample of women in Britain. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:2460-2465. (Pubitemid 41446249)
13. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Castro R, Allen B, Nájera P, Alonso de Rúiz PA, Hernández-Avila M. Barriers to early detection of cervical-uterine cancer in Mexico. J Womens Health 1999;8:399-408. (Pubitemid 29231882)
14. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mallett S, et al. Human papillo-mavirus testing by self-sampling: Assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting. J Med Screen 2007;14:34-42. (Pubitemid 46440364)
15. Anhang R, Nelson JA, Telerant R, Chiasson MA, Wright TC Jr. Acceptability of self-collection of specimens for HPV DNA testing in an urban population. J Womens Health 2005;14:721-728. (Pubitemid 41645634)
16. Dannecker C, Siebert U, Thaler CJ, Kiermeir D, Hepp H, Hillemanns P. Primary cervical cancer screening by self-sampling of human papillomavirus DNA in internal medi-cine outpatient clinics. Ann Oncol 2004;15:863-869. (Pubitemid 39004340)
17. Dzuba IG, Diaz EY, Allen B, et al. The acceptability of self-collected samples for HPV testing vs the Pap test as alter-natives in cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002;11:265-275.
18. Harper DM, Noll WW, Belloni DR, Cole BF. Randomized clinical trial of PCR-determined human papillomavirus de-tection methods: Self-sampling versus clinician-directed\Biologic concordance and women's preferences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:365-373. (Pubitemid 34234143)
19. Fischer S. Inexpensive population screening for abnormal cells from the uterine cervix and valid results using the vaginal cytopipette. Gynecol Oncol 1992;46:62-64.
20. Hillemanns P, Kimming R, Hütteman U, et al. Screening for cervical neoplasia by self-assessment for human papilloma-virus DNA. Lancet 1999;354:1970.
21. Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Meijer CJ, Clavel C, Koliopoulos G, Dillner J. Clinical applications of HPV testing: A summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine 2006;24:S78-89. (Pubitemid 44293029)
22. Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, et al., Cana-dian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial Study Group. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1579-1588. (Pubitemid 47598400)
23. Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al., New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening Working Group. Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cy-tology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:492-501.
24. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramèr MR, Franco EL, Coutlée F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physi-cian-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gy-necol Oncol 2007;105:530-535. (Pubitemid 46590347)
25. Brink AA, Meijer CJ, Wiegerinck MA, et al. High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus in cervi-covaginal samples collected by two methods, with compari-son of a novel self-sampling device to a conventional endocervical brush J Clin Microbiol2006;44:2518-2523. (Pubitemid 44092421)
26. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected vaginal specimens for human pap-illomavirus compared to clinician-collected human papillo-mavirus specimens: A meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:207-212. (Pubitemid 40835044)
27. Jones HE, Wiegerinck MA, Nieboer TE, Mol BW, Westhoff CL. Women in the Netherlands prefer self-sampling with a novel lavaging device to clinician collection of specimens for cervical cancer screening. Sex Transm Dis 2008;35:916-917.
28. Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS. Statistics for experiment-ers. New York: John Wiley, 1978.
29. Gök M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, et al. HPV testing on self-collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: Cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:c1040.
30. Hsieh YH, Howell MR, Gaydos JC, McKee KT Jr, Quinn TC, Gaydos CA. Preference among female army recruits for use of self-administrated vaginal swabs or urine to screen for Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections. Sex Transm Dis 2003;30:769-773. (Pubitemid 37229487)
31. Holland-Hall CM, Wiesenfeld HC, Murray PJ. Self-collected vaginal swabs for the detection of multiple sexually trans-mitted infections in adolescent girls. J Pediatr Adolesc Gy-necol 2002;15:307-313. (Pubitemid 36068477)
32. Waller J, McCaffery K, Forrest S, et al. Acceptability of un-supervised HPV self-sampling using written instructions. J Med Screen 2006;13:208-213. (Pubitemid 46057729)