Cervicovaginal self-sampling is a reliable method for determination of prevalence of human papillomavirus genotypes in women aged 20 to 30 years

Author(s): Deleré Y, Schuster M, Vartazarowa E, Hänsel T, Hagemann I, et al.


Self-sampling by cervicovaginal lavage could be an attractive method to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) infections to identify women with a risk of cervical precancer. The objective of our study was to use self-sampling for the first time in a cross-sectional approach to determine HPV prevalence and genotype distribution. We evaluated participants' acceptance and laboratory results from self-obtained samples versus endocervical brush samples obtained by gynecologists. To determine the sensitivity of both sampling methods in presumed high- and low-prevalence settings, two groups of women 20 to 30 years of age with (n = 55) and without (n = 101) a recent suspicious cytological smear were compared. Overall, 76% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 65 to 88) of women with and 40% (95% CI, 30 to 49) of women without a recent suspicious cytological smear tested HPV positive. The prevalences of high-risk HPV strains were 71% (95% CI, 59 to 83) and 32% (95% CI, 22 to 41), respectively, for these two groups. The agreement for hr-HPV between the two sampling methods for women with and without suspicious cytology was 84% (κ = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86) and 91% (κ = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92), respectively. Participants rated the user-friendliness of the self-sampling method on a visual analog scale from 0 (easy) to 100 (difficult) with a median of 12. In conclusion, self-sampling by cervicovaginal lavage is a reliable method to determine hr-HPV prevalence and is well accepted by young adult females.

Similar Articles

Comparison of non-invasive sampling methods for detection of HPV in rural African women

Author(s): Lack N, West B, Jeffries D, Ekpo G, Morison L, et al.

Prevalence of genital HPV infections and HPV serology in adolescent girls, prior to vaccination

Author(s): Mollers M, Scherpenisse M, van der Klis FR, King AJ, van Rossum TG, et al.

A review of human carcinogens--Part B: biological agents

Author(s): Bouvard V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, et al.

The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology

Author(s): Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, et al.

Self-sampling versus physician-sampling for human papillomavirus testing

Author(s): Agorastos T, Dinas K, Lloveras B, Font R, Kornegay JR, et al.

Comparison of type-specific human papillomavirus data from self and clinician directed sampling

Author(s): Baldwin S, Santos C, Mendez Brown E, Nuño T, Giuliano A, et al.

A comparison of cervical and vaginal human papillomavirus

Author(s): Castle PE, Rodriguez AC, Porras C, Herrero R, Schiffman M, et al.

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus in a community setting: feasibility in Hispanic women

Author(s): De Alba I, Anton-Culver H, Hubbell FA, Ziogas A, Hess JR, et al.

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

Author(s): Igidbashian S, Boveri S, Spolti N, Radice D, Sandri MT, et al.

ACOG Committee Opinion No

Author(s): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists