Szarewski, A;
Cadman, L;
Mallett, S;
Austin, J;
Londesborough, P;
Waller, J;
Wardle, J;
... Cuzick, J; + view all
(2007)
Human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling: assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting.
Journal of Medical Screening
, 14
(1)
34 - 42.
10.1258/096914107780154486.
![[thumbnail of J_Med_Screen-2007-Szarewski-34-42.pdf]](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) Preview |
PDF
J_Med_Screen-2007-Szarewski-34-42.pdf Download (177kB) |
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the performance and acceptability of unsupervised self-sampling with clinician sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types for the first time in a UK screening setting. Setting: Nine hundred and twenty women, from two demographically different centres, attending for routine cervical smear testing Methods: Women performed an unsupervised HPV self-test. Immediately afterwards, a doctor or nurse took an HPV test and cervical smear. Women with an abnormality on any test were offered colposcopy. Results: Twenty-one high-grade and 39 low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) were detected. The sensitivity for high-grade disease (CIN2+) for the self HPV test was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60–92), clinician HPV test 100% (95% CI 85–100), cytology 81% (95% CI 60–92). The sensitivity of both HPV tests to detect high- and low-grade cervical neoplasia was much higher than that of cytology (self-test 77% [95%CI 65–86], clinician test 80% [95% CI 68–88], cytology 48% [95% CI 36–61]). For both high-grade alone, and high and low grades together, the specificity was significantly higher for cytology (greater than 95%) than either HPV test (between 82% and 87%). The self-test proved highly acceptable to women and they reported that the instructions were easy to understand irrespective of educational level. Conclusions: Our results suggest that it would be reasonable to offer HPV self-testing to women who are reluctant to attend for cervical smears. This approach should now be directly evaluated among women who have been non-attenders in a cervical screening programme.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
