Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

Self-sampling for cervical screening have shown good acceptance among hard to reach women and in low healthcare resource setting area. This study was to measure the agreement and available differences between Kato self-sampling device (KSSD) and gynecologist sampling for PAP cytology and Human Pap...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Ibrahim, Zaidah
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English
Published:	2015
Subjects:	Cervix uteri Diseases Diagnosis
Online Access:	http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/60448/1/IB%202015%202IR.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-upm-ir.60448
record_format	uketd_dc
spelling	my-upm-ir.604482018-05-16T04:13:06Z Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia 2015-04 Ibrahim, Zaidah Self-sampling for cervical screening have shown good acceptance among hard to reach women and in low healthcare resource setting area. This study was to measure the agreement and available differences between Kato self-sampling device (KSSD) and gynecologist sampling for PAP cytology and Human Papillomavirus DNA (HPV DNA) detection. Cytology specimens (486 specimen pairs) and HPVDNA specimens (226 specimen pairs) from women attended screening at 2 Primary Health Clinics, in Jempol Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia were assessed. All women underwent self-sampling first followed by gynecologist sampling. The prepared PAP cytology slides were evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. For HPV testing, samples were measured for DNA concentration and quality and underwent HPV DNA detection using nested PCR (primer MY 9/11 and GP5+/6+). Specific HPV genotype was determined by gene sequencing which referred to the online NCBI gene bank. The result between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling were compared using statistical Wilcoxon signed rank test, Kappa agreement and McNemar Chi Square test. In PAP specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling with all samples showed satisfactory for evaluation however had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. For cytological interpretation both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favor CIN2. Median DNA concentration for KSSD and gynecologist sampling were 30.0 ng/ul and 36.0 ng/ul respectively (p=0.045). For detection of HPV DNA, 86.2% agreement( k = 0.64 , 95% CI 0.524-0.756 ,p= 0.001) was found between technique of sampling with KSSD and gynecologist sampling HPV positive were 22.6% and 27% respectively (p>0.05). Both techniques detected HPV 11, 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45. KSSD and gynecologist identified high risk HPV 17.3% and 23.9 % respectively (p= 0.014). HPV 18 showed a significant different (p=0.02) but HPV type 16 showed no significant different (p=1.00) between the sampling techniques. As conclusion,the self-sampling using Kato device is comparable to the gynecologist sampling for PAP cytology and HPV DNA detection and a good potential as an alternative to increase cervical screening participation among women especially in rural area or low healthcare setting. Cervix uteri Diseases Diagnosis 2015-04 Thesis http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/60448/ http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/60448/1/IB%202015%202IR.pdf text en public diploma Universiti Putra Malaysia Cervix uteri Diseases Diagnosis
institution	Universiti Putra Malaysia
collection	PSAS Institutional Repository
language	English
topic	Cervix uteri Diseases Diagnosis
spellingShingle	Cervix uteri Diseases Diagnosis Ibrahim, Zaidah Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
description	Self-sampling for cervical screening have shown good acceptance among hard to reach women and in low healthcare resource setting area. This study was to measure the agreement and available differences between Kato self-sampling device (KSSD) and gynecologist sampling for PAP cytology and Human Papillomavirus DNA (HPV DNA) detection. Cytology specimens (486 specimen pairs) and HPVDNA specimens (226 specimen pairs) from women attended screening at 2 Primary Health Clinics, in Jempol Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia were assessed. All women underwent self-sampling first followed by gynecologist sampling. The prepared PAP cytology slides were evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. For HPV testing, samples were measured for DNA concentration and quality and underwent HPV DNA detection using nested PCR (primer MY 9/11 and GP5+/6+). Specific HPV genotype was determined by gene sequencing which referred to the online NCBI gene bank. The result between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling were compared using statistical Wilcoxon signed rank test, Kappa agreement and McNemar Chi Square test. In PAP specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling with all samples showed satisfactory for evaluation however had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. For cytological interpretation both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favor CIN2. Median DNA concentration for KSSD and gynecologist sampling were 30.0 ng/ul and 36.0 ng/ul respectively (p=0.045). For detection of HPV DNA, 86.2% agreement( k = 0.64 , 95% CI 0.524-0.756 ,p= 0.001) was found between technique of sampling with KSSD and gynecologist sampling HPV positive were 22.6% and 27% respectively (p>0.05). Both techniques detected HPV 11, 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45. KSSD and gynecologist identified high risk HPV 17.3% and 23.9 % respectively (p= 0.014). HPV 18 showed a significant different (p=0.02) but HPV type 16 showed no significant different (p=1.00) between the sampling techniques. As conclusion,the self-sampling using Kato device is comparable to the gynecologist sampling for PAP cytology and HPV DNA detection and a good potential as an alternative to increase cervical screening participation among women especially in rural area or low healthcare setting.
format	Thesis
qualification_level	diploma
author	Ibrahim, Zaidah
author_facet	Ibrahim, Zaidah
author_sort	Ibrahim, Zaidah
title	Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
title_short	Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
title_full	Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
title_fullStr	Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
title_sort	comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and hpv dna detection among women in jempol, negeri sembilan, malaysia
granting_institution	Universiti Putra Malaysia
publishDate	2015
url	http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/60448/1/IB%202015%202IR.pdf
_version_	1747812273370431488

Comparison between self-sampling and gynecologist sampling of cervical specimen for pap cytology and HPV DNA detection among women in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

Similar Items