Parapob Natnipa, Lekawanvijit Suree, Tongsong Theera, Charoenkwan Kittipat, Tantipalakorn Charuwan
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2024 Nov;67(6):557-564. doi: 10.5468/ogs.24117. Epub 2024 Oct 8.
The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing.
From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing.
Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar's test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed.
The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.
本研究的主要目的是比较自行采集阴道标本与临床医生采集宫颈标本检测高危人乳头瘤病毒（HPV）感染的检出率，以及两种技术之间的相关性。次要目的是评估对HPV检测自行采样的满意度。
2021年10月至2022年9月，纳入HPV 16/18及其他12种高危HPV基因型阳性且细胞学检查为非典型鳞状细胞（Ascus）的女性。所有参与者均接受了HPV样本自行采集方法的指导。对自行采集的阴道样本和临床医生采集的宫颈样本进行HPV DNA分型。
从104例HPV检测结果为阳性的女性中获得了配对的自行采集样本和临床医生采集样本。两种技术检测高危HPV感染的检出率相当：自行采样技术为79/98（80.6%），临床医生采样技术为81/98（82.7%）（McNemar检验；P = 0.774）。检测HPV感染的一致性较高，kappa系数为0.75。超过90%的参与者因自行采集方便、安全而将其评为满意至非常满意。关于进一步随访的方法，51%的参与者选择自行采样，其余参与者则更喜欢由临床医生采集。未观察到与干预相关的并发症。
HPV检测的自行采样技术与临床医生采样技术同样有效，且两种技术在检测高危HPV感染方面具有高度相关性。自行采样方法似乎非常令人满意，并且可能为宫颈HPV感染的检测提供更好的依从性。
