4.5 Article

High-risk HPV-RNA screening of physician- and self-collected specimens for detection of cervical lesions among female sex workers in Nairobi, Kenya

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12628

关键词

Cohort; Cytology; Female sex workers; High-risk women; HPV screening; Kenya; Self-collection

资金

  1. Hologic/Gen-Probe Incorporated
  2. Center for AIDS Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare accuracy of detecting high-grade cervical lesions (squamous intraepithelial lesions or greater, HSIL+) by high-risk HPV messenger RNA (hrHPV-RNA) testing between physician- and self-collected specimens, and by conventional cytology. Methods: The present prospective longitudinal study included data collected among female sex workers (FSWs) in Nairobi, Kenya, between December 2, 2009, and February 15, 2013. Participants self-collected cervico-vaginal specimens for hrHPV-RNA testing, and a physician collected cervical specimens for hrHPV-RNA testing and conventional cytology. hrHPV-RNA testing was conducted every 3months, and conventional cytology every 6months. Results: Overall, 350 FSWs aged 18-50years participated. hrHPV-RNA prevalence decreased slightly from 29.9% (103/344) at baseline to 24.3% (53/218) at 24months for physician-collected, and 28.5% (98/344) to 24.3% (53/218) for self-collected specimens. Agreement between the sampling methods appeared to increase over time (baseline 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.65; 24months 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.91). Among 21 patients with HSIL+ over 24months, 18 (86%) and 17 (81%) had hrHPV-RNA-positive results at baseline in physician- and self-collected specimens, respectively; and 20 (95%) had baseline hrHPV-RNA-positive results or cytology anomalies. Conclusion: Overall agreement between physician- and self-collected hrHPV-RNA results was moderate and appeared to increase over time. Baseline physician- and self-collected hrHPV-RNA tests were similarly strong indicators of cumulative HSIL+ over 24months.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据