Introduction: Communities of socially excluded immigrant women, especially Muslim, Asian, Aboriginal and Maroon, are among the groups of women with low rates of cervical screening. Exclusion of the pelvic examination could result in a higher acceptance of the cervical screening among these communities and an increase in screening coverage. Aim: To assess the performance of the Fournier® cervical specimen self-sampling device for the cytological diagnosis of precursor or neoplastic lesions in the uterine cervix using the Papanicolaou method. Methods: A case-control study was conducted at the Cervical Pathology Outpatient Clinic. Liquid-based cytology slides were obtained by the Fournier device and stained using the Papanicolaou method. The slides were analyzed by two pathologists, blinded for the colposcopic and histological results and compared to Papanicolaou smears that were obtained using the traditional method of speculum examination. Results: There were 68 patients who were considered free from precursor or neoplastic cervical lesions. There were 35 cases of low-grade lesions, 13 cases of high-grade lesions and 3 cases of squamous-cell carcinoma. According to the first and second pathologists, the sensitivities of the device for identifying precursor or neoplastic cervical lesions were 50.0 and 60.0%, and the specificities of the method were 81.8 and 73.8%. According to the first and second pathologists, the positive predictive values of the diagnostic test were 0.67 and 0.63, and the negative predictive values were 0.68 and 0.71, respectively. Conclusion: Sensitivity and specificity of the Fournier device test was comparable to Papanicolaou smears tests obtained using the traditional method with speculum examination.

1.
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 109: Cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1409–1420.
2.
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 425: Health care for undocumented immigrants. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:251–254.
3.
Dzuba IG, Diaz EY, Allen B, et al: The acceptability of self-collected samples for HPV testing vs. the pap test as alternatives in cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002;11:265–275.
4.
Lazcano-Ponce EC, Castro R, Allen B, Najera P, Alonso de Ruiz PA, Hernandez-Avila M: Barriers to early detection of cervical-uterine cancer in Mexico. J Womens Health 1999;8:399–408.
5.
Morrison EA, Goldberg GL, Hagan RJ, Kadish AS, Burk RD: Self-administered home cervicovaginal lavage: a novel tool for the clinical-epidemiologic investigation of genital human papillomavirus infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:104–107.
6.
Moscicki AB: Comparison between methods for human papillomavirus DNA testing: a model for self-testing in young women. J Infect Dis 1993;167:723–725.
7.
Agorastos T, Dinas K, Lloveras B, et al: Self-sampling versus physician-sampling for human papillomavirus testing. Int J STD AIDS 2005;16:727–729.
8.
Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramer MR, Franco EL, Coutlee F: Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:530–535.
9.
Wright TC, Jr., Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Lorincz A: HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. JAMA 2000;283:81–86.
10.
Knesel BW, Dry JC, Wald-Scott C, Aftab A: Preliminary evaluation of a cervical self-sampling device with liquid-based cytology and multiparameter molecular testing. J Reprod Med 2005;50:256–260.
11.
Castle PE, Aftab A, Saint-Jean G, Mendez L: Detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus in specimens collected with a novel self-sampling device. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:2158–2159.
12.
Plano Municipal de Saúde do Municipio de Porto Alegre – Ano 2010–2013. Conferência Municipal de Saúde do Municipio de Porto Alegre, 2010.
13.
Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ: 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120–2129.
14.
Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Carlson J, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ: 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:295–304.
15.
Walker P, Dexeus S, De PG, et al: International terminology of colposcopy: an updated report from the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:175–177.
16.
Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D: 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:346–355.
17.
Crum CP: Symposium Part 1: should the Bethesda System terminology be used in diagnostic surgical pathology? Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22:5–12.
18.
Belinson JL, Qiao YL, Pretorius RG, et al: Shanxi Province cervical cancer screening study II: self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus compared to direct sampling for human papillomavirus and liquid based cervical cytology. Int J Gynecol Cancer2003;13:819–826.
19.
Holanda F Jr, Castelo A, Veras TM, de Almeida FM, Lins MZ, Dores GB: Primary screening for cervical cancer through self sampling. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;95:179–184.
20.
Nobbenhuis MA, Helmerhorst TJ, van den Brule AJ, et al: Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women. J Clin Pathol 2002;55:435–439.
21.
Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al: Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810–819.
22.
Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Muwonge R, et al: Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer 2008;123:153–160.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.