Concordance and Acceptability of HPV DNA Genotyping Test by Patient’s Self-Sampling Against Clinician Sampling

Junita Indarti; Danny Maesadatu  Syaharutsa; Ilham Utama  Surya; Kristian  Alda

doi:10.32771/inajog.v12i2.2402

Junita Indarti Faculty of Medicine Univeristas Indonesia
Danny Maesadatu Syaharutsa Faculty of Medicine Univeristas Indonesia
Ilham Utama Surya Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia
Kristian Alda Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32771/inajog.v12i2.2402

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of this alternative method, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic and considering Indonesia’s cultural context.

Methods: This study utilized a cross-sectional design, and involved patients at the Gynecology and Colposcopy Clinic of Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital. The estimated sample size was 48, determined using a diagnostic test formula. The sample population consisted of female patients with positive VIA or abnormal Pap smear results. Each patient underwent HPV DNA self-sampling and clinician sampling tests using the GenoFlow HPV Array technique and continued with colposcopy. All patients were also administered a questionnaire consisting of eight questions about their perspective on the self-sampling HPV DNA test. The data analysis employed a 2 × 2 table using SPSS version 20, and Cohen’s kappa coefficient was calculated to measure the agreement between the sampling results of patients’ and Clinicians’.

Results: Among the examinations conducted by clinicians, there were 33 patients with positive HPV results, whereas through self-sampling, there were 28 patients with positive HPV (p=0.00). High risk HPV was the most commonly observed, with HPV type 16 appearing the most (15%). Based on these data, the self-sampling sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 85%, 100%, 100%, and 75%, respectively, with a concordance rate of 89.6%. The Cohen’s Kappa coefficient between samples taken by the clinician and self-sampling resulted in K=0.778, which is considered a good agreement (K=0.61-0.80). All patients concluded that the procedure was easy (100%), and the majority (60.5%) expressed a preference for the self-sampling method.

Conclusion: There is a good agreement between the results of self-sampling and clinician sampling for detecting HPV DNA, with patients positively accepting the self-sampling method, indicating its potential as an effective cervical cancer screening method.

Keywords: Cervical Cancer Screening, Clinician Sampling, Human Papillomavirus, Self-Sampling.