This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brink, A. A. T. P. Articles by Snijders, P. J. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brink, A. A. T. P. Articles by Snijders, P. J. F.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2006, p. 2518-2523, Vol. 44, No. 7
0095-1137/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.02440-05
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

High Concordance of Results of Testing for Human Papillomavirus in Cervicovaginal Samples Collected by Two Methods, with Comparison of a Novel Self-Sampling Device to a Conventional Endocervical Brush

Departments of Pathology,¹ Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands,² Maxima Medical Center, Veldhoven,³ Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem,⁴ TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands⁵

Received 25 November 2005/ Returned for modification 20 January 2006/ Accepted 24 April 2006

A user-friendly self-sampling method for collecting representative cervical cell material would lower the threshold for women to respond to the invitation for cervical screening. In the present article, we introduce such a device; we have evaluated its sensitivity and specificity to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), via high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection and liquid-based cytology (LBC), compared to endocervical brush samples obtained by gynecologists. Women who had a cervical smear reading of moderate dyskaryosis or worse or a repeat equivocal Pap smear result in the cervical screening program (n = 64) and healthy volunteers (n = 32) took a self-obtained sample at home prior to their visit to the gynecological outpatient department. At the outpatient department, an endocervical brush smear was taken, followed by colposcopy and biopsy whenever applicable. Both self-obtained samples and endocervical brush samples were immediately collected in Surepath preservation solution and used for LBC and hrHPV testing (by general primer-mediated GP5+/6+ PCR). hrHPV test results showed a good concordance between the two sample types (87%; = 0.71), with sensitivities for prevalent high-grade CIN that did not differ significantly (92% and 95%; P = 1.0). The hrHPV test on self-obtained samples proved to be at least as sensitive for high-grade CIN as cytology on endocervical brush samples (34/37 versus 31/37; P = 0.5). LBC showed a poor concordance between self-obtained and endocervical brush samples (60%; = 0.27). In conclusion, self-obtained samples taken by this novel device are highly representative of the hrHPV status of the cervix. In combination with hrHPV testing, the use of this device may have implications for increasing the attendance rate for cervical screening programs.