Abstract
Background The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for primary cervical cancer screening, including among women living with HIV (WLWH). Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) account for 85% of the cervical cancer burden globally, yet have limited access to HPV-based screening, largely due to cost. This study aims to compare the performance of a rapid, isothermal amplification HPV assay (ScreenFire) to that of the Xpert HPV assay for the detection of HPV and cervical precancer among WLWH in Malawi.
Methods We utilized stored self- and provider-collected specimens from a prospective cohort study of WLWH in Malawi from July 2020 to February 2022. Specimens were tested with both Xpert and ScreenFire HPV assays. The overall and within-channel non-hierarchical agreement between ScreenFire and Xpert was determined for both self- and provider-collected specimens. Hierarchical ScreenFire HPV positivity by channel was compared to Xpert for each histological diagnosis - cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared to <CIN2.
Results 315 matched self- and provider-collected specimens had valid results from both Xpert and ScreenFire testing and were included in analyses. Of these, 245 (78%) had normal pathology, 21 CIN1 (7%), 14 CIN2 (4%), and 35 CIN3 (11%). Among provider-collected specimens, the assays had 80% agreement on overall HPV positivity (unweighted kappa 0.59, 95% 0.50-0.69). ScreenFire was HPV-positive in 90% of self-collected specimens that were HPV-positive on Xpert. Channel agreement between the assays was high for both self- and provider-collected specimens, but slightly lower for HPV18/45. In hierarchical analysis, ScreenFire demonstrated high concordance with Xpert testing for detecting CIN2+ cases in all channels, missing no HPV 16 or HPV 18/45 positive CIN2+ case that was positive on Xpert, in both self- and provider-collected specimens.
Conclusion In this study of stored specimens, the ScreenFire HPV assay performed well in the detection of HPV and CIN2+ among WLWH compared to the Xpert HPV assay. If supported by larger validation studies, ScreenFire could be an affordable alternative point-of-care HPV assay for use in LMICs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K12HD103085 and an intramural grant from the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The study funders had no role in the research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional review board approval for the parent study was obtained from UNC and the National Health Sciences Research Committee in Malawi. All participants consented to specimen storage and future testing. Information for the parent study can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8857441/.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. Additional reasonable data requests can be accommodated.
