Performance of point-of-care testing for cervical cancer screening.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112150-20210220-00162
- Author:
Suang ZHAO
1
;
Xue Lian ZHAO
1
;
Shang Ying HU
1
;
Jun Fei MA
2
;
Cai Feng SU
2
;
De Bin WANG
2
;
Xun ZHANG
1
;
Fang Hui ZHAO
1
Author Information
1. Department of Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
2. Xiangyuan County Women and Children's Hospital, Changzhi 046200, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia/diagnosis*;
Colposcopy;
Early Detection of Cancer/methods*;
Female;
Human papillomavirus 16/genetics*;
Human papillomavirus 18;
Humans;
Mass Screening/methods*;
Papillomaviridae;
Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis*;
Point-of-Care Testing;
Pregnancy;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
- From:
Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine
2022;56(2):165-170
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the performance of point-of-care testing for cervical cancer and precancerous lesions screening. Methods: In September 2020, 197 and 273 women were selected by using simple random sampling method from "self-sampling" cohort and "physician-sampling" cohort established in Xiangyuan county, Shanxi Province, China, respectively. Cervical exfoliated cells were collected by women themselves or gynecologists. All samples were detected by POCT and women with positive result were directly referred for colposcopy. Subsequently, all the samples were detected by careHPV and PCR test. Colposcopy and punch biopsy were performed for women with POCT negative but careHPV or PCR test positive at another visit. Using histopathological diagnosis as the gold standard, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and drew the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The accuracy of POCT was analyzed and compared to that of careHPV and conventional PCR test in cervical cancer and precancerous lesions screening. Results: The median (Q1 , Q3) age of 470 women was 51 (45, 57) years old. Based on self-sampling, the sensitivity and specificity of POCT for CIN2+ were 100.00% (95%CI: 56.56%-100.00%) and 28.95% (95%CI: 22.97%-35.76%), respectively. Compared with POCT, POCT HPV16/18 test had similar sensitivity and higher specificity of 89.47% (95%CI: 84.30%-93.08%). Self-sampling POCT HPV16/18 test had an AUC of 0.947 (95%CI:0.910-0.985), which was higher than that of careHPV and PCR test. Physician-sampling POCT test had 100.00% sensitivity (95%CI: 64.57%-100.00%) and 55.85% specificity (95%CI: 49.83%-61.70%) for detecting CIN2+. POCT HPV16/18 test had lower sensitivity (71.43%, 95%CI: 35.90%-91.76%) and higher specificity (92.45%, 95%CI: 88.63%-95.06%). POCT HPV16/18 test generally showed similar AUC on both self-collected samples and clinician-collected samples (0.947 vs 0.819, P=0.217). Conclusion: POCT HPV16/18 test is an effective method with relatively high sensitivity and specificity for cervical cancer screening.
