Analytical performance of HPV assays on vaginal self-collected vs practitioner-collected cervical samples: the SCoPE study.

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been evaluated extensively for cervical screening, with studies finding increased sensitivity compared to cytology. Another advantage of HPV based-screening is the ability to test vaginal samples that can be collected by women themselves. Self-collection has the potential to extend cervical screening coverage by increasing participation rates, particularly among women who are under-screened or have never screened. This could have a significant impact on cervical cancer prevention, as the majority of invasive cervical cancer cases occur among under-screened women. Both the Netherlands and Australia have transitioned their national programs from cytology to HPV as the primary screening test and both countries include a pathway for self-collection.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).

STUDY DESIGN

303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.

RESULTS

HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.