Publication:

Test performance and acceptability of self- versus provider-collected swabs for high-risk HPV DNA testing in female-to-male trans masculine patients

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2018

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Public Library of Science
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Reisner, S. L., M. B. Deutsch, S. M. Peitzmeier, J. M. White Hughto, T. P. Cavanaugh, D. J. Pardee, S. A. McLean, et al. 2018. “Test performance and acceptability of self- versus provider-collected swabs for high-risk HPV DNA testing in female-to-male trans masculine patients.” PLoS ONE 13 (3): e0190172. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190172.

Abstract

Background: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) causes virtually all cervical cancers. Trans masculine (TM) people (those assigned female at birth who identify with a gender other than female) have low uptake of conventional cervical cancer screening. Self-collected hrHPV DNA testing has high levels of acceptability among cisgender (non-transgender) females and may support increased cervical cancer screening uptake in TM individuals. Objective: To assess the test performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal specimens in comparison to provider-collected cervical swabs for hrHPV DNA detection in TM individuals ages 21–64 years. Methods: Between March 2015-September 2016, 150 TM participants with a cervix (mean age = 27.5 years; SD = 5.7) completed a one-time study visit comprised of a self-report survey, self-collected vaginal HPV DNA swab, clinician-administered cervical HPV swab, and brief interview on acceptability of clinical procedures. Participants were randomized to complete either self- or provider-collection first to minimize ordering effects. Self- and provider-collected samples were tested for 13 hrHPV DNA types using a DNA Hybridization Assay. The primary outcome variable was the concordance (kappa statistic) and performance (sensitivity, specificity) of self-collected vaginal HPV DNA specimens versus provider-collected cervical HPV swabs as the gold standard. Results: Of the 131 participants completing both the self- and provider-collected HPV tests, 21 cases of hrHPV were detected by the provider cervical swab (gold standard; 16.0% hrHPV prevalence); 15 of these cases were accurately detected by the self-collected vaginal swab (71.4% concordance) (Kappa = 0.75, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.92; p<0.001). Compared to the provider-collected cervical hrHPV DNA sample (gold standard), the self-collected vaginal hrHPV DNA test demonstrated a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0495) and specificity of 98.2% (95% CI: 0.96, 1.00; p<0.0001). Over 90% of participants endorsed a preference for the self-collected vaginal swab over provider-collected cervical swab. Conclusion: Self-collected vaginal swabs are highly acceptable to TM as a means to test for hrHPV DNA. Test performance of this self-collection method for hrHPV detection in TM is consistent with previous studies in cisgender females. Self-collected vaginal swab testing for hrHPV DNA represents a reasonable and patient-centered strategy for primary cervical cancer screening in TM patients unwilling to undergo provider collection of specimens via speculum exam.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Medicine and Health Sciences, Diagnostic Medicine, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis, Cancer Screening, Oncology, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Screening Guidelines, Cancers and Neoplasms, Gynecological Tumors, Cervical Cancer, Biology and life sciences, Organisms, Viruses, DNA viruses, Papillomaviruses, Human Papillomavirus, Biology and Life Sciences, Microbiology, Medical Microbiology, Microbial Pathogens, Viral Pathogens, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Pathogens, Cell Biology, Cytology, Molecular biology, Molecular biology techniques, Molecular probe techniques, Probe hybridization, DNA hybridization, Patients, Public and Occupational Health, Health Screening

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories