{"title":"在南非一家三级医院就诊的妇女中，应用棉条为基础的液体细胞学自我收集性能不佳。","authors":"Teboho Amelia Tiiti, Varsetile Varster Nkwinika, Tebogo Loraine Mashishi, Kgotlaethata Aaron Molefi, Thembeni Lucia Msibi, Moshawa Khaba, Johannes Bogers, Ramokone Lisbeth Lebelo","doi":"10.1002/dc.25429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The South African Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Policy was updated in June 2017, recommending liquid-based cytology (LBC) as the preferred screening method and the investigation of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the performance of the Self Collection Cervical Health Screening Kit [SelfCerv (applicator tampon)] to the Cervex-Brush Combi for cytology screening. The study further aimed to compare high-risk (hr-) human papillomavirus (HPV) and LBC test results from both methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included 446 paired samples, comprising self-collected (SelfCerv) and healthcare provider-collected (Cervex-Brush Combi) samples from women aged ≥ 18 years attending gynaecology outpatient clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa. LBC slides were prepared using the ThinPrep 5000 processor and manually stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E). Detection of 14 hr-HPV types was performed using the Abbott RealTime HR-HPV assay. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 17.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas, USA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A statistically significant difference in cervical cytology detection between the two methods was observed (p = 0.0025). The Cervex-Brush Combi was more effective in collecting endocervical cells (73.4%; 95% CI: 69.0-77.9) compared to the SelfCerv applicator tampon (7.3%; 95% CI: 4.7-9.9); (p < 0.001). Cytological abnormalities were detected in 65.4% (136/208) of participants who tested positive for hr-HPV by healthcare provider sampling compared to 40.8% (84/206) by self-sampling. A fair agreement (κ: 0.35) with a concordance rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 94.4-98.0) was observed for specimen adequacy and diagnosis parameters [κ: 0.34, with a concordance rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 63.2-72.1)] between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this study do not support the implementation of applicator tampon-based self-collection as a method for cytology-based cervical cancer screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":11349,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Poor Performance of Applicator Tampon-Based Self-Collection for Liquid-Based Cytology Among Women Attending a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa.\",\"authors\":\"Teboho Amelia Tiiti, Varsetile Varster Nkwinika, Tebogo Loraine Mashishi, Kgotlaethata Aaron Molefi, Thembeni Lucia Msibi, Moshawa Khaba, Johannes Bogers, Ramokone Lisbeth Lebelo\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/dc.25429\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The South African Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Policy was updated in June 2017, recommending liquid-based cytology (LBC) as the preferred screening method and the investigation of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the performance of the Self Collection Cervical Health Screening Kit [SelfCerv (applicator tampon)] to the Cervex-Brush Combi for cytology screening. The study further aimed to compare high-risk (hr-) human papillomavirus (HPV) and LBC test results from both methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included 446 paired samples, comprising self-collected (SelfCerv) and healthcare provider-collected (Cervex-Brush Combi) samples from women aged ≥ 18 years attending gynaecology outpatient clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa. LBC slides were prepared using the ThinPrep 5000 processor and manually stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E). Detection of 14 hr-HPV types was performed using the Abbott RealTime HR-HPV assay. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 17.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas, USA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A statistically significant difference in cervical cytology detection between the two methods was observed (p = 0.0025). The Cervex-Brush Combi was more effective in collecting endocervical cells (73.4%; 95% CI: 69.0-77.9) compared to the SelfCerv applicator tampon (7.3%; 95% CI: 4.7-9.9); (p < 0.001). Cytological abnormalities were detected in 65.4% (136/208) of participants who tested positive for hr-HPV by healthcare provider sampling compared to 40.8% (84/206) by self-sampling. A fair agreement (κ: 0.35) with a concordance rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 94.4-98.0) was observed for specimen adequacy and diagnosis parameters [κ: 0.34, with a concordance rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 63.2-72.1)] between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this study do not support the implementation of applicator tampon-based self-collection as a method for cytology-based cervical cancer screening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic Cytopathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic Cytopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.25429\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.25429","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Poor Performance of Applicator Tampon-Based Self-Collection for Liquid-Based Cytology Among Women Attending a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa.
Background: The South African Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Policy was updated in June 2017, recommending liquid-based cytology (LBC) as the preferred screening method and the investigation of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening.
Aim: To compare the performance of the Self Collection Cervical Health Screening Kit [SelfCerv (applicator tampon)] to the Cervex-Brush Combi for cytology screening. The study further aimed to compare high-risk (hr-) human papillomavirus (HPV) and LBC test results from both methods.
Methods: The study included 446 paired samples, comprising self-collected (SelfCerv) and healthcare provider-collected (Cervex-Brush Combi) samples from women aged ≥ 18 years attending gynaecology outpatient clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa. LBC slides were prepared using the ThinPrep 5000 processor and manually stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E). Detection of 14 hr-HPV types was performed using the Abbott RealTime HR-HPV assay. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 17.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas, USA).
Results: A statistically significant difference in cervical cytology detection between the two methods was observed (p = 0.0025). The Cervex-Brush Combi was more effective in collecting endocervical cells (73.4%; 95% CI: 69.0-77.9) compared to the SelfCerv applicator tampon (7.3%; 95% CI: 4.7-9.9); (p < 0.001). Cytological abnormalities were detected in 65.4% (136/208) of participants who tested positive for hr-HPV by healthcare provider sampling compared to 40.8% (84/206) by self-sampling. A fair agreement (κ: 0.35) with a concordance rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 94.4-98.0) was observed for specimen adequacy and diagnosis parameters [κ: 0.34, with a concordance rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 63.2-72.1)] between the two methods.
Conclusion: The findings of this study do not support the implementation of applicator tampon-based self-collection as a method for cytology-based cervical cancer screening.
期刊介绍：
Diagnostic Cytopathology is intended to provide a forum for the exchange of information in the field of cytopathology, with special emphasis on the practical, clinical aspects of the discipline. The editors invite original scientific articles, as well as special review articles, feature articles, and letters to the editor, from laboratory professionals engaged in the practice of cytopathology. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the basis of scientific merit, practical significance, and suitability for publication in a journal dedicated to this discipline. Original articles can be considered only with the understanding that they have never been published before and that they have not been submitted for simultaneous review to another publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
