Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening

RP Bosgraaf, VMJ Verhoef, LFAG Massuger, AG Siebers, J Bulten, GM de Kuyper-de Ridder, CJM Meijer, PJF Snijders, DAM Heideman, J IntHout, Folkert van Kemenade, WJG Melchers, RLM Bekkers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

64 Citations (Scopus)


We determined whether the participation rate for a brush-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage-based one for testing for hrHPV (high-risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non-responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33-63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n=30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush-based or a lavage-based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self-sampling responders testing hrHPV-positive were invited for a physician-taken sample for cytology; triage-positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush-based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage-based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8-4.2). The hrHPV-positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87-1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83-1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92-1.70 for CIN3+. The two self-sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush-based device to non-responders is noninferior to offering a lavage-based device in terms of participation. The two self-sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted. What's new? If people won't come into the clinic to get tested for HPV, send the test to them: that's the public health strategy the Netherlands will employ beginning in 2016. This study compared two methods of self-sampling for HPV, one brush based and one lavage based. The authors measured participation rates, user comfort, how often each method detected the virus, and how often neoplasias were detected. They found non-inferiority in the participation rates, and in all other measures the two methods performed equally well.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)646-655
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Cancer
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Research programs

  • EMC MM-03-24-01

Cite this