Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Assessment of a Self-sampling Device and Gynecologist Sampling for Cytology and HPV DNA Detection in a Rural and Low Resource Setting: Malaysian Experience

  • Latiff, Latiffah A (Cancer Resource and Education Center (CaRE), Universiti Putra Malaysia) ;
  • Ibrahim, Zaidah (Cancer Resource and Education Center (CaRE), Universiti Putra Malaysia) ;
  • Pei, Chong Pei (Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia) ;
  • Rahman, Sabariah Abdul (Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia) ;
  • Akhtari-Zavare, Mehrnoosh (Cancer Resource and Education Center (CaRE), Universiti Putra Malaysia)
  • Published : 2016.01.11
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the agreement and differences between cervical self-sampling with a Kato device (KSSD) and gynecologist sampling for Pap cytology and human papillomavirus DNA (HPV DNA) detection. Materials and Methods: Women underwent self-sampling followed by gynecologist sampling during screening at two primary health clinics. Pap cytology of cervical specimens was evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. Cervical specimens were also extracted and tested for HPV DNA detection. Positive HPV smears underwent gene sequencing and HPV genotyping by referring to the online NCBI gene bank. Results were compared between samplings by Kappa agreement and McNemar test. Results: For Pap specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling but had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. Both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favouring CIN2 for cytology result. HPV DNA detection showed 86.2%agreement (K=0.64, 95% CI 0.524-0.756, p=0.001) between samplings. KSSD and gynaecologist sampling identified high risk HPV in 17.3% and 23.9% respectively (p=0.014). Conclusion: The self-sampling using Kato device can serve as a tool in Pap cytology and HPV DNA detection in low resource settings in Malaysia. Self-sampling devices such as KSSD can be used as an alternative technique to gynaecologist sampling for cervical cancer screening among rural populations in Malaysia.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdullah F, Aziz NA, Su TT (2011). Factors related to poor practice of Pap smear screening among secondary school teachers in Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1347-52.
  2. Arbyn M, Herbert A, Schenck U, et al (2007). European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid-based cytology. Cytopathol, 18, 133-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2303.2007.00464.x
  3. Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJF, et al (2014). Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol, 2045, 1-12.
  4. Baldwin S, Santos C, Mendez Brown E, et al (2005). Comparison of type-specific human papillomavirus data from self and clinician directed sampling. Gynecol Oncol, 97, 612-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.02.001
  5. Barbee L, Kobetz E, Menard J, et al (2010). Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action. Cancer Causes Control, 21, 421-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-009-9474-0
  6. Boon M, Suurmeijer A (1993). The Pap Smear. 2nd edn. Leiden: Coulomb Press Leyden.
  7. Burghardt E, Pickel H, Girardi F (1998). Colposcopy Cervical Pathology. 3rd revise. New York.
  8. Cuzick J, Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, et al (2008). Overview of human papillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries. Vaccine, 26, 29-41.
  9. DeAlba I, Anton-culver H, Hubbell FA, et al (2008). Selfsampling for human papillomavirus in a community setting: feasibility in hispanic women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 17, 2163-8. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2935
  10. Dijkstra MG, Heideman DAM, Van Kemenade FJ, et al (2012). Brush-based self-sampling in combination with GP5+/6+-PCR-based hrHPV testing: high concordance with physiciantaken cervical scrapes for HPV genotyping and detection of high-grade CIN. J Clin Virol, 54, 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2012.02.022
  11. Franceschi S (2005).The IARC commitment to cancer prevention: the example of papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res, 166, 277-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-26980-0_18
  12. Garland SM, Cuzick J, Domingo EJ, et al (2008). Recommendations for cervical cancer prevention in Asia Pacific. Vaccine, 26, 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.06.020
  13. Giorgi Rossi P, Baiocchi D, Ciatto S (2010). Endocervical Cells Italian Working Group. Women with a Pap test lacking endocervical cells are at lower risk of CIN2+ than women with negative Pap test with endocervical cells: a cohort study with 4.5 year follow-up. Acta Cytol, 54, 265-71. https://doi.org/10.1159/000325033
  14. Gok M, Heideman DAM, Van Kemenade FJ, et al (2012). Offering self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing to non-attendees of the cervical screening programme: Characteristics of the responders. Eur J Cancer, 48, 1799-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.022
  15. Gravitt P, Coutlee F, Iftner T, et al (2008). New technologies in cervical cancer screening. Vaccine, 26,42-51.
  16. Herbert A, Bergeron C, Wiener H, et al (2007). European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology. Cytopathol, 18, 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2303.2007.00469.x
  17. Kivlahan C, Ingra E (1986). Papanicolaou smears without endocervical cells: are they inadequate? Acta Cytol, 30, 258-60.
  18. Latiffah AL, Sabariah AR, Wong YW, et al (2015). Assessment of the reliability of a novel self-sampling device for performing cervical sampling in Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 559-564. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.2.559
  19. Lindell M, Sanner K, Wikstrom I, Wilander E (2012). Self-sampling of vaginal fluid and high-risk human papillomavirus testing in women aged 50 years or older not attending Papanicolaou smear screening. BJOG, 119, 245-8.
  20. Min-Son K, Kui SC, Spring BJ, Park S, Park EC (2009). Predicting the stage of adoption of cervical cancer screening among Korean women. Prev Med, 49, 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.05.007
  21. Nahvijou A, Hadji M, BaratiMarnani A, et al (2014). A systematic review of economic aspects of cervical cancer screening strategies worldwide: discrepancy between economic analysis and policymaking. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 8229-37. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.19.8229
  22. Noguchi M, Nakanishi M, Kato K (1982). Appraisal of a newly developed self-collection device for obtaining cervical specimens. Acta Cytol, 26, 633-635.
  23. Okayama K, Okodo M, Fujii M, et al (2012). Improved accuracy of cytodiagnosis using the Kato self-collection devise: the usefulness of smear preparation in liquid-based cytology methods. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 4521-4. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.9.4521
  24. Othman NH, Zaki FHM (2014). Self-collection tools for routine cervical cancer screening: a review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 8563-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.20.8563
  25. Othman NH, Rebolj M (2009). Challenges to Cervical Cancer Screening in a Developing Country:The Case of Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 747-752.
  26. Pengsaa P, Sriamporn S, Kritpetcharat A, et al (2003). A comparison of cytology with Pap smears taken by a gynecologist and with a self-sampling device. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 4, 99-102.
  27. Pengsaa P, Vatanasapt V, Sriamporn S, Sanchaisuriya P, et al (1997). A self-administered device for cervical cancer screening in northeast Thailand. Acta Cytol, 41, 749-754. https://doi.org/10.1159/000332698
  28. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramer MR, Franco EL, Coutlee F (2007). Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and metaanalysis. Gynecol Oncol, 105, 530-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.023
  29. Razak N, Mn K, Zubairi Y, Naing N, Zaki N (2013). Estimating the five-year survival of cervical cancer patients treated in Hospital University Sains Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 825-8. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.2.825
  30. Sanchaisuriya P, Pengsaa P, Sriamporn S, et al (2004). Experience with a self-administered device for cervical cancer screening by Thai women with different educational backgrounds. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 5,144-150.
  31. Solomon D, Nayar R (2004). The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
  32. Waller J, Bartoszek M, Marlow L, Wardle J (2009). Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey. J Med Screen, 16, 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2009.009073
  33. Wong LP (2010). Knowledge and attitudes about HPV infection, HPV vaccination, and cervical cancer among rural south-east Asian women. Int J Behav Med, 18, 105-111.
  34. Wong LP, Wong YL, Low WY, Khoo EM, Shuib R (2009). Knowledge and awareness of cervical cancer and screening among Malaysian women who have never had a Pap smear: a qualitative study. Singapore Med J, 50, 49-53.
  35. Zainal Ariffin O, Nor Saleha IT (2011). National cancer registry report malaysia cancer statistics-data and figure 2007.
  36. Zhao FH, Lewkowitz AK, Chen F, et al (2012). Pooled analysis of a self-sampling HPV DNA test as a cervical cancer primary screening method. J Natl Cancer Inst, 104, 178-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr532