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.


Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be used as a primary test for cervical cancer screening. HPV self-sampling has the potential to replace physician/nurse sampling. Our objective was to compare the acceptability of two self-sampling methods among 205 women undergoing an excisional procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO).

Methods: One hundred eleven patients were given a Hybrid Capture (HC) Cervical Sampler™ (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and 94 received a self-lavaging device, the Delphi® Screener (Delphi Bioscience, Scherpenzeel, The Netherlands), both with written instructions. Self-sampling was performed just before the clinician-collected cervical sample. Women responded to questions using 5-point ordinal scales on the general acceptability of self-sampling and the physical comfort, embarrassment, pain, and difficulty experienced. Participants were also asked whether they prefer self-sampling or clinician sampling.

Results: Both self-sampling methods were generally accepted with a significantly high score (p = 0.005) and significantly lower embarrassment (p = 0.042) in favor of the Delphi Screener. Both self-sampling methods were physically well accepted, not painful, and easy to perform. Most women (n = 117, 68%) preferred the self-sampled compared to the clinician-sampled test, with a significantly higher proportion in the Delphi Screener group (n = 59, 77.6%) compared to those using the HC Sampler (n = 58, 60.4%) (p = 0.021).

Conclusions: The present study shows that self-sampling for HPV testing is favorably received by women. A sampling device specifically developed for self-sampling, such as the Delphi Screener, shows the highest degree of satisfaction. A well-accepted HPV sampling method could be especially useful for women who do not take part in cervical screening or in settings where organized screening is not fully implemented.

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.

ACOG Committee Opinion No

Author(s): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists