肛门癌筛查中自我与临床收集的拭子:一项临床试验。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-01-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0312781
Clare E F Dyer, Fengyi Jin, Jennifer M Roberts, I Mary Poynten, Annabelle Farnsworth, Leon P McNally, Philip H Cunningham, Andrew E Grulich, Richard J Hillman
{"title":"肛门癌筛查中自我与临床收集的拭子:一项临床试验。","authors":"Clare E F Dyer, Fengyi Jin, Jennifer M Roberts, I Mary Poynten, Annabelle Farnsworth, Leon P McNally, Philip H Cunningham, Andrew E Grulich, Richard J Hillman","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0312781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk of anal cancer is high in certain populations and screening involves collection of anal swabs for HPV DNA and/or cytology testing. However, barriers exist, such as the need for an intimate examination, and stigma around HIV status, sexual orientation, and sexual practices. Self-collected anal swabs (SCA) are a proposed alternative to clinician-collected swabs (CCA) to overcome these barriers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were order-randomised to undergo SCA or CCA first, with a second swab taken immediately afterwards. Sample adequacy was assessed for HPV DNA and cytology testing. CCA was used as the gold standard to calculate sensitivity and specificity of SCA for cytology and HPV results. Acceptability of swab collection was assessed following the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in sample validity for HPV DNA testing between SCA and CCA (p = 0.564). Concordance was >90% for detection of any HR-HPV and HPV16. There was no significant difference in cellular adequacy for cytological testing between SCA and CCA, (p = 0.162). Concordance for cytologic prediction was 88.2% for any cytologic abnormality. Almost half (48.5%) of participants expressed no preference for SCA versus CCA; 15.2% preferred SCA and 35.4% CCA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SCA may be an acceptable and feasible alternative to CCA for detecting HPV and cytological abnormalities in a clinic population.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 1","pages":"e0312781"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717180/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self- versus clinician-collected swabs in anal cancer screening: A clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Clare E F Dyer, Fengyi Jin, Jennifer M Roberts, I Mary Poynten, Annabelle Farnsworth, Leon P McNally, Philip H Cunningham, Andrew E Grulich, Richard J Hillman\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0312781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk of anal cancer is high in certain populations and screening involves collection of anal swabs for HPV DNA and/or cytology testing. However, barriers exist, such as the need for an intimate examination, and stigma around HIV status, sexual orientation, and sexual practices. Self-collected anal swabs (SCA) are a proposed alternative to clinician-collected swabs (CCA) to overcome these barriers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were order-randomised to undergo SCA or CCA first, with a second swab taken immediately afterwards. Sample adequacy was assessed for HPV DNA and cytology testing. CCA was used as the gold standard to calculate sensitivity and specificity of SCA for cytology and HPV results. Acceptability of swab collection was assessed following the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in sample validity for HPV DNA testing between SCA and CCA (p = 0.564). Concordance was >90% for detection of any HR-HPV and HPV16. There was no significant difference in cellular adequacy for cytological testing between SCA and CCA, (p = 0.162). Concordance for cytologic prediction was 88.2% for any cytologic abnormality. Almost half (48.5%) of participants expressed no preference for SCA versus CCA; 15.2% preferred SCA and 35.4% CCA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SCA may be an acceptable and feasible alternative to CCA for detecting HPV and cytological abnormalities in a clinic population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"e0312781\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717180/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312781\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312781","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肛门癌的风险在某些人群中很高,筛查包括收集肛门拭子进行HPV DNA和/或细胞学检测。然而,存在障碍,例如需要进行亲密检查,以及围绕艾滋病毒状况、性取向和性行为的污名。自收集肛门拭子(SCA)是一种建议的替代临床收集拭子(CCA)来克服这些障碍。方法:参与者被随机分组,首先接受SCA或CCA,随后立即采取第二次拭子。评估HPV DNA和细胞学检测的样本充分性。CCA作为金标准计算SCA对细胞学和HPV结果的敏感性和特异性。按照程序评估拭子收集的可接受性。结果:SCA组与CCA组HPV DNA检测样本效度差异无统计学意义(p = 0.564)。任何HR-HPV和HPV16检测的一致性为90%。SCA和CCA在细胞学检测的细胞充分性方面无显著差异(p = 0.162)。对于任何细胞学异常,细胞学预测的一致性为88.2%。几乎一半(48.5%)的参与者表示对SCA和CCA没有偏好;15.2%的人喜欢SCA, 35.4%的人喜欢CCA。结论:在临床人群中,SCA可能是CCA检测HPV和细胞学异常的可接受和可行的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Self- versus clinician-collected swabs in anal cancer screening: A clinical trial.

Self- versus clinician-collected swabs in anal cancer screening: A clinical trial.

Self- versus clinician-collected swabs in anal cancer screening: A clinical trial.

Self- versus clinician-collected swabs in anal cancer screening: A clinical trial.

Background: Risk of anal cancer is high in certain populations and screening involves collection of anal swabs for HPV DNA and/or cytology testing. However, barriers exist, such as the need for an intimate examination, and stigma around HIV status, sexual orientation, and sexual practices. Self-collected anal swabs (SCA) are a proposed alternative to clinician-collected swabs (CCA) to overcome these barriers.

Methods: Participants were order-randomised to undergo SCA or CCA first, with a second swab taken immediately afterwards. Sample adequacy was assessed for HPV DNA and cytology testing. CCA was used as the gold standard to calculate sensitivity and specificity of SCA for cytology and HPV results. Acceptability of swab collection was assessed following the procedure.

Results: There was no significant difference in sample validity for HPV DNA testing between SCA and CCA (p = 0.564). Concordance was >90% for detection of any HR-HPV and HPV16. There was no significant difference in cellular adequacy for cytological testing between SCA and CCA, (p = 0.162). Concordance for cytologic prediction was 88.2% for any cytologic abnormality. Almost half (48.5%) of participants expressed no preference for SCA versus CCA; 15.2% preferred SCA and 35.4% CCA.

Conclusions: SCA may be an acceptable and feasible alternative to CCA for detecting HPV and cytological abnormalities in a clinic population.

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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信