Self-Collection and Molecular Diagnosis for Detection of Human Papillomavirus: Why Incorporate It?

  • Larissa Zatorre Almeida-Lugo
  • Camila Mareti Bonin-Jacob
  • Vanessa Terezinha Gubert de MatosEmail author
  • Inês Aparecida Tozetti
Female Genital Tract Infections (J Sobel, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Female Genital Tract Infections


Purpose of Review

Cervical cancer, the third cause of death by cancer among Brazil’s women, is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. In some countries of South America, North America, Europe, and Oceania, initial screening for HPV DNA and subsequent follow-up with HPV-positive patients using colposcopy and cytological testing are used as preventative measures.

Recent Findings

For HPV DNA detection, it is necessary to obtain cervical cells by conventional clinical collection method or self-collection of the cells that flake off from the uterine cervix and vaginal canal. Self-collection has been shown to be a viable option for obtaining samples and is a less invasive method that is more accepted by women. Thus, it can potentially decrease the limitations of the conventional clinical collection methods.


The efficiency of the self-collection method aligned with the implementation of HPV molecular testing, if adopted by public and private health care systems, may extend the reach of current cervical cancer prevention efforts. In addition, considering all phases from triage to treatment, this method may reduce health care costs and the time spent by patients and health care teams to conduct examinations and collect samples.


Cervical cancer HPV Prevention Diagnosis, self-collection method Molecular testing 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Larissa Zatorre Almeida-Lugo, Camila Mareti Bonin-Jacob, Vanessa Terezinha Gubert de Matos, and Inês Aparecida Tozetti declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86. 25220842. Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• INSTITUTO NACIONAL DO CÂNCER. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José de Alencar Gomes da Silva. Estimativa 2016-2017: Incidência de Câncer no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, 2016. This study presents the estimated number of cervical cancer in Brazil by region, highlighting the high incidence of this neoplasm among women. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oliveira ML, Amorim MMR, Souza ASR, Albuquerque LCB, Cota AAR. Infecção por chlamydia em pacientes com e sem lesões intra-epiteliais epiteliais cervicais. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2008;54(6):506–12.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Redgrove KA, Mclaughlin EA. The role of the immune response in chlamydia trachomatis infection of the male genital tract: a double-edged sword. Front Immunol 2014; 27 (5): .534. doi: 2014.
  5. 5.
    Sowjanya AP, Paul P, Vedantham H, Ramakrishna G, Vidyadhari D, Vijayaraghavan K, et al. Suitability of self-collected vaginal samples for cervical cancer screening in periurban villages in Andhra Pradesh, India. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(5):1373–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Othman NH, Zaki FHM. Self-collection tools for routine cervical Cancer screening: a review. Asian Pacific J Canc Prevent. 2014;15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Costa RFA, Longatto-Filho MA, Pinheiro C, Zeferino IC, Fregnani JH. Historical analysis of the Brazilian cervical cancer screening program from 2006 to 2013: a time for reflection. PLoS One. 2015. This study demonstrates the coverage and failures of cytopathological examination in Brazil, especially in underdeveloped regions. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Igidbashian S, Boveri S, Spolti N, Radice D, Sandri MT, Sideri M. Self-collected hman papillomavirus testing acceptability: comparison of two self-sampling modalities. J Wom Health (Larchmt). 2011;20:397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sancho-Garnier H, Tamalet C, Halfon P, Leandri FX, Le Retraite L, Djoufelkit K, et al. HPV self-sampling or the Pap-smear: a randomized study among cervical screening nonattenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France. Intern J Canc. 2013;133(1):2681–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhatla N, Moda N. The clinical utility of HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening strategies. Ind J Med. 2009;130:261–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eperon I, Vassilakos P, Navarria I, Menoud PA, Gauthier A, Pache JC, et al. Randomized comparison of vaginal self-sampling by standard vs dry swabs for human papillomavirus testing. BMC Cancer. 2013;353.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delere Y, Schuster M, Vartazarowa E, Hansel T, Hagemann I, Borchardt S, et al. Cervicovaginal self-sampling is a reliable method for determination of prevalence of human papillomavirus genotypes in women aged 20 to 30 years. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49:3519–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahn JA, Slap GB, Huang B, Rosenthal SL, Wanchick AM, Kollar LM, et al. Comparison of adolescent and young adult self-collected and clinician-collected samples for human papillomavirus. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:952–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramèr MR, Franco EL, Coutlée F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campos KLM, Machado AP, Almeida FGD, Bonin CM, Prata TTM, Almeida LZ, Padovani CTJ, Ferreira, AMT, Fernandes CEDS, Tozetti IA. Good agreements between self and clinician-collected specimens for the detection of human papillomavirus in Brazilian patients. Mem do Inst Osw Cruz (Impresso) 2014; 109.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Safaeian M, Kiddugavu M, Gravitt PE, Ssekasanvu J, Murokora D, Sklar M, et al. Comparability of self-collected vaginal swabs and physician-collected cervical swabs for detection of human papillomavirus infections in Rakai, Uganda. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:429–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunne EF, Markowitz LE. Genital human papillomavirus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43:624–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Lavigne AW, Triedman SA, Randall TC, Trimble EL, Viswanathan AN. Cervical cancer in low and middle income countries: addressing barriers to radiotherapy delivery. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;1(22):16–20. This study demonstrates the difficulty of access to preventive care for cervical cancer and the lack of choice for the management of the disease in underdeveloped regions. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter SD, Hanley J, Ferenczy A, Ratnam S, Coutlée F, Franco EL; Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial Study Group. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 18: 357(16):1579–1588.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, Franco E. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 21: 96(8):604–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larissa Zatorre Almeida-Lugo
    • 1
  • Camila Mareti Bonin-Jacob
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vanessa Terezinha Gubert de Matos
    • 3
    Email author
  • Inês Aparecida Tozetti
    • 2
  1. 1.Postgraduate Program of Infectious and Parasitary Diseases from Medicine SchoolFederal University of Mato Grosso do SulCampo GrandeBrazil
  2. 2.Bioscience Institute from Federal University of Mato Grosso do SulCampo GrandeBrazil
  3. 3.Medicine SchoolFederal University of Mato Grosso do SulCampo GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations