A Feasibility Study On Self-sampling Of Women's Lower Reproductive Tract For HPV Detection

Objective:To explore the feasibility of female lower reproductive tract self-sampling for HPV detection Subject:The female patients in our hospital during 2016-2017,who had sexexperience and voluntarily accepted cervical cancer screening,and whose result of cervical high-risk HPV screening were positive Methods:Information acquisition,HPV sampling,vaginoscopy and cervical biopsy were conducted for the subjects.The HPV sampling was divided into two parts: physician sampling and self-sampling oflower reproductive tract.Physician sampling was divided into two parts: cervix and lower uterine segment.According to the pathological results of cervical biopsy,the patients were divided into the following groups: group A(cervical biopsy resultwas negative),group B(cervical biopsy result was LSIL/CINI)and group C(cervical biopsy result was HSIL/CIN II,CINIII and SCC).Each group of 30 patients were randomly sampled.The technology of second generation hybrid capture(HC2)was performed to detect the HPV in the collected samples.The consistency of HPV detection results in different ways and different parts of each group was compared Results:A total of 88 patients were involved in the study.Group A: 30,group B: 29,group C: 29.In all 88 patients,the positive count of HPV detectionof the cervix with physician sampling was 88(100% 88/88).The positive countof HPV detection of the lower uterine segment with physician sampling was 73(82.95% 73 / 88),in which the positive count of group A was 23(76.67% 23/29),the positive count of group B was 24(82.76% 24/29),the positive count of group C was 26(89.66% 26/29).The positive count of HPV detection of the lower uterine segmentwith self-sampling was 75(85.22% 75/88),in which the positive count of group A was 23(76.67% 23/29),the positive count of group B was 25(86.21% 25/29),the positive count of group C was 27(93.1% 27/29).In all 88 participants,there was a difference between the results of self-sampling of the lower uterine segment and that of the physician's.The difference was not statistically significant(P = 0.363 > 0.05).In group A,there was no difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment self-sampling and the cervix physician sampling(P > 0.05).In group B,there was a difference between the results of self-sampling of the lower uterine segment and that of the physician's.The difference was not statistically significant(P = 0.375 > 0.05).In group C,there was no difference between the results of self-sampling of the lower uterine segment and that of the physician's(P > 0.05).There was difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment self-sampling and cervix physician sampling in all 88 patients.The difference was statistically significant(P < 0.001).In group A,there was a difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment self-sampling and that of cervix physician sampling,and the difference was statistically significant(P=0.016 <0.05).In group B,there was a difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment self-sampling and that of cervix physician sampling,and the difference was not statistically significant(P=0.063 >0.05).In group C,there was no difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment self-sampling and that of cervix physician sampling(P > 0.05).There was difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment physician sampling and cervix physician sampling in all 88 patients.The difference was statistically significant(P < 0.001).In group A,there was a difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment physician sampling and that of cervix physician sampling,and the difference was statistically significant(P=0.016 <0.05).In group B,there was a difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment physician sampling and that of cervix physician sampling,and the difference was statistically significant(P=0.031 < 0.05).In group C,there was no difference between the detection results of lower uterine segment physician sampling and that of cervix physician sampling(P > 0.05)Conclusion:1.Cervix sampling was superior to lower uterine segment sampling in HPV detection2.With the increase of pathological grade,the HPV detectionresult of lower uterine segment sampling was getting closer to cervix sampling3.The HPV detection results of self-sampling of the lower uterine segment were similar to those of the lower uterine segment of the physician4.Self-sampling of lower uterine segment is feasible for HPV detection...