对一小批普通和高危患者的临床医生采集和自我采样人类乳头瘤病毒检测结果一致性的探索性分析。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) Pub Date : 2024-03-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/whr.2024.0004
Ashley Wong, Rebecca Morgis, Juliette Entenman, Sarah I Ramirez, Amy L Hays, Tonya S Wright, Christina M Scartozzi, Mack T Ruffin, Jennifer L Moss
{"title":"对一小批普通和高危患者的临床医生采集和自我采样人类乳头瘤病毒检测结果一致性的探索性分析。","authors":"Ashley Wong, Rebecca Morgis, Juliette Entenman, Sarah I Ramirez, Amy L Hays, Tonya S Wright, Christina M Scartozzi, Mack T Ruffin, Jennifer L Moss","doi":"10.1089/whr.2024.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Cervical cancer screening rates have stagnated, but self-sampling modalities have the potential to increase uptake. This study compares the test characteristics of self-sampled high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests with clinician-collected hrHPV tests in average-risk (<i>i.e.,</i> undergoing routine screening) and high-risk patients (<i>i.e.,</i> receiving follow-up after abnormal screening results).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, a relatively small cohort of average-risk (<i>n</i> = 35) and high-risk (<i>n</i> = 12) participants completed both clinician-collected and self-sampled hrHPV testing, along with a brief phone survey. We assessed hrHPV positivity, concordance, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity across both methods (for types 16, 18, or other hrHPV). We also explored the relationship between test concordance and sociodemographic/behavioral factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among average-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 6% for both test methods (<i>i.e.,</i> hrHPV-positive cases: <i>n</i> = 2), resulting in reported concordance, PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity of 100%. Among high-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 100% for clinician-collected tests but only 67% for self-sampled tests, showing varied concordance and sensitivity. Concordance was not associated with sociodemographic or behavioral factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-sampled hrHPV testing demonstrated high accuracy for average-risk patients in this exploratory study. However, its performance was less consistent in high-risk patients who had already received an abnormal screening result, which could be attributed to spontaneous viral clearance over time. The limited number of participants, particularly HPV-positive cases, suggests caution in interpreting these results. Further research with larger cohorts is necessary to validate these findings and to explore the integration of self-sampled hrHPV testing into routine clinical care, particularly for patients with a history of cervical abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>NCT04591977, NCT04585243.</p>","PeriodicalId":75329,"journal":{"name":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"5 1","pages":"259-266"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10956530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploratory Analysis of Concordance Between Clinician-Collected and Self-Sampled Human Papillomavirus Tests in a Small Cohort of Average- and High-Risk Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Wong, Rebecca Morgis, Juliette Entenman, Sarah I Ramirez, Amy L Hays, Tonya S Wright, Christina M Scartozzi, Mack T Ruffin, Jennifer L Moss\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/whr.2024.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Cervical cancer screening rates have stagnated, but self-sampling modalities have the potential to increase uptake. This study compares the test characteristics of self-sampled high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests with clinician-collected hrHPV tests in average-risk (<i>i.e.,</i> undergoing routine screening) and high-risk patients (<i>i.e.,</i> receiving follow-up after abnormal screening results).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, a relatively small cohort of average-risk (<i>n</i> = 35) and high-risk (<i>n</i> = 12) participants completed both clinician-collected and self-sampled hrHPV testing, along with a brief phone survey. We assessed hrHPV positivity, concordance, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity across both methods (for types 16, 18, or other hrHPV). We also explored the relationship between test concordance and sociodemographic/behavioral factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among average-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 6% for both test methods (<i>i.e.,</i> hrHPV-positive cases: <i>n</i> = 2), resulting in reported concordance, PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity of 100%. Among high-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 100% for clinician-collected tests but only 67% for self-sampled tests, showing varied concordance and sensitivity. Concordance was not associated with sociodemographic or behavioral factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-sampled hrHPV testing demonstrated high accuracy for average-risk patients in this exploratory study. However, its performance was less consistent in high-risk patients who had already received an abnormal screening result, which could be attributed to spontaneous viral clearance over time. The limited number of participants, particularly HPV-positive cases, suggests caution in interpreting these results. Further research with larger cohorts is necessary to validate these findings and to explore the integration of self-sampled hrHPV testing into routine clinical care, particularly for patients with a history of cervical abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>NCT04591977, NCT04585243.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"259-266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10956530/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2024.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2024.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:宫颈癌筛查率停滞不前,但自采样方式有可能提高筛查率。本研究比较了高危人乳头状瘤病毒(hrHPV)自采样检测与临床医生采集的 hrHPV 检测在普通风险(即接受常规筛查)和高危患者(即筛查结果异常后接受随访)中的检测特征:在这项横断面研究中,一个相对较小的平均风险(35 人)和高风险(12 人)参与者队列完成了临床医生采集和自我采样的 hrHPV 检测,并进行了简短的电话调查。我们评估了两种方法(针对 16 型、18 型或其他 hrHPV)的 hrHPV 阳性率、一致性、阳性预测值 (PPV)、阴性预测值 (NPV)、灵敏度和特异性。我们还探讨了测试一致性与社会人口/行为因素之间的关系:在普通风险参与者中,两种检测方法的 hrHPV 阳性率均为 6%(即 hrHPV 阳性病例:n = 2),因此报告的一致性、PPV、NPV、灵敏度和特异性均为 100%。在高风险参与者中,临床医生采集的检测结果中 hrHPV 阳性率为 100%,而自我采样的检测结果中 hrHPV 阳性率仅为 67%,显示出不同的一致性和灵敏度。一致性与社会人口或行为因素无关:结论:在这项探索性研究中,自采样 hrHPV 检测对一般风险患者的准确性很高。结论:在这项探索性研究中,自我采样的 hrHPV 检测对一般风险患者的准确性较高,但对筛查结果异常的高风险患者的准确性较低,这可能是由于病毒随着时间的推移自发清除所致。由于参与人数有限,尤其是 HPV 阳性病例,因此在解释这些结果时应谨慎。有必要对更大的群体进行进一步研究,以验证这些发现,并探索将自我采样的 hrHPV 检测纳入常规临床护理,尤其是对有宫颈异常病史的患者:临床试验注册:NCT04591977、NCT04585243。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploratory Analysis of Concordance Between Clinician-Collected and Self-Sampled Human Papillomavirus Tests in a Small Cohort of Average- and High-Risk Patients.

Objectives: Cervical cancer screening rates have stagnated, but self-sampling modalities have the potential to increase uptake. This study compares the test characteristics of self-sampled high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests with clinician-collected hrHPV tests in average-risk (i.e., undergoing routine screening) and high-risk patients (i.e., receiving follow-up after abnormal screening results).

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a relatively small cohort of average-risk (n = 35) and high-risk (n = 12) participants completed both clinician-collected and self-sampled hrHPV testing, along with a brief phone survey. We assessed hrHPV positivity, concordance, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity across both methods (for types 16, 18, or other hrHPV). We also explored the relationship between test concordance and sociodemographic/behavioral factors.

Results: Among average-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 6% for both test methods (i.e., hrHPV-positive cases: n = 2), resulting in reported concordance, PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity of 100%. Among high-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 100% for clinician-collected tests but only 67% for self-sampled tests, showing varied concordance and sensitivity. Concordance was not associated with sociodemographic or behavioral factors.

Conclusions: Self-sampled hrHPV testing demonstrated high accuracy for average-risk patients in this exploratory study. However, its performance was less consistent in high-risk patients who had already received an abnormal screening result, which could be attributed to spontaneous viral clearance over time. The limited number of participants, particularly HPV-positive cases, suggests caution in interpreting these results. Further research with larger cohorts is necessary to validate these findings and to explore the integration of self-sampled hrHPV testing into routine clinical care, particularly for patients with a history of cervical abnormalities.

Clinical trial registration: NCT04591977, NCT04585243.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信