Validity and reliability of using a self-lavaging device for cytology and hpv testing for cervical cancer screening: Findings from a pilot study

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

  Jones, Heidi E ^a,b   Mansukhani, Mahesh M ^a   Tong, Guo Xia ^a   Westhoff, Carolyn L ^a  

^a Department of Medicine   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL AND OBSTETRIC DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; RELIABILITY; SELF LAVAGING DEVICE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VALIDITY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; DEVICES; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PATHOLOGY; PILOT STUDY; PROCEDURES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL LAVAGE; VALIDATION STUDY; VIROLOGY;

ADULT; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PILOT PROJECTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL DOUCHING;

EID: 84893366456     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082115     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, Weinmann S, Mouchawar J, et al. (2005) Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 675-683. (Pubitemid 40812631)
2. Byrd TL, Chavez R, Wilson KM (2007) Barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening among Hispanic women. Ethn Dis 17: 129-134. (Pubitemid 46231376)
3. Knops-Dullens T, de Vries N, de Vries H (2007) Reasons for non-attendance in cervical cancer screening programmes: an application of the Integrated Model for Behavioural Change. Eur J Cancer Prev 16: 436-445. (Pubitemid 47550004)
4. Jones HE, Allan BR, van de Wijgert JHHM, Altini L, Taylor SM, et al. (2007) Agreement between self- and clinician-collected specimen results for detection and typing of high-risk human papillomavirus in specimens from women in Gugulethu, South Africa. J Clin Microbiol 45: 1679-1683. (Pubitemid 46933891)
5. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, Sellors JW, Petric M, et al. (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 81: 207-212. (Pubitemid 40835044)
6. Petignat P, Faltin D, Bruchim I, Tramèr MR, Franco EL, et al. (2007) Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 105: 530-535. (Pubitemid 46590347)
7. Bidus MA, Zahn CM, Maxwell GL, Rodriguez M, Elkas JC, et al. (2005) The role of self-collection devices for cytology and human papillomavirus DNA testing in cervical cancer screening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48: 127-132. (Pubitemid 40354382)
8. Wright TC Jr (2007) Cervical cancer screening in the 21st century: is it time to retire the PAP smear? Clin Obstet Gynecol 50:313-323.
9. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD (1998) Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Eng J Med 338: 423-428. (Pubitemid 28135669)
10. Franceschi S, Cuzick J, Herrero R, Dillner J, Wheeler CM (2009) EUROGIN 2008 roadmap on cervical cancer prevention. Int J Cancer 125: 2246-2255.
11. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, et al. (2007) 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197: 346-355. (Pubitemid 47464164)
12. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, et al. (2002) The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 287: 2114-2119. (Pubitemid 34437346)
13. Driggers RW, Zahn CM (2008) To ECC or not to ECC: the question remains. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 35:583-597; viii.
14. Flahault A, Cadilhac M, Thomas G (2005) Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol 58:859-862. (Pubitemid 40966845)
15. Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter SD, Hanley J, et al. (2007) Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 357:1579-1588. (Pubitemid 47598400)
16. Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, Dippery S, Gardner S, et al. (2006) Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 108: 264-272. (Pubitemid 44305665)
17. Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB, Mao C, Weiss NS, et al. (2002) Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA 288: 1749-1757.
18. Mintzer M, Curtis P, Resnick JC, Morrell D (1999) The effect of the quality of Papanicolaou smears on the detection of cytologic abnormalities. Cancer 87: 113-117. (Pubitemid 29289244)
19. Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Hanselaar AGJM, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. (2001) Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 115: 851-855. (Pubitemid 32476711)
20. Mitchell H, Medley G (1991) Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 337: 265-267.
21. Zhao C, Austin RM (2008) Adjunctive high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing is a useful option for disease risk assessment in patients with negative Papanicolaou tests without an endocervical/transformation zone sample. Cancer 114: 242-248.
22. Moore D, Pugh-Cain D, Walker T (2009) Cervical smear adequacy: cellularity references were found to increase both interobserver agreement and unsatisfactory rate. Cytopathology 20: 161-168.
23. Anderson CE, Lee AJ, McLaren KM, Caims S, Cowen C, et al. (2004) Level of agreement and biopsy correlation using two- and three-tier systems to grade cervical dyskaryosis. Cytopathology 15: 256-262. (Pubitemid 39389258)
24. Brink AATP, Meijer CJLM, Wiegerinck MAHM, Nieboer TE, Kruitwagen RFPM, et al. (2006) High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus in cervicovaginal samples collected by two methods, with comparison of a novel self-sampling device to a conventional endocervical brush. J Clin Microbiol 44: 2518-2523. (Pubitemid 44092421)
25. Muskett JM, Carter AK, Dodge OG (1966) Detection of cervical cancer by irrigation smear and cervical scraping. Br Med J 2: 341-342.
26. Anderson GH, Krakauer K (1967) The irrigation smear-a new cytodiagnostic technique for the detection of cancer of the uterine cervix. Can Med Assoc J 96:268-272.
27. Anderson WA, Gunn SA (1967). Cancer of the cervix: further studies of the patient-obtained vaginal irrigation smear. CA Cancer J Clin 17: 102-104.
28. Brandt-Nielsen E, Wolthers H (1967) Cancer detection by cervical scrapings and irrigation smears/A comparative study comprising 1225 patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 46: 85-92.
29. Richart RM, Vaillant HW (1965) The irrigation smear: false-negative rates in a population with cervical neoplasia. JAMA 192: 199-202.
30. Jones HE, Brudney K, Sawo DJ, Lantigua R, Westhoff CL (2012) The acceptability of a self-lavaging device compared to pelvic examination for cervical cancer screening among low-income women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 21: 1275-1281.