Search

AIM The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of self-collected vaginal samples compared with physician-collected cervical samples for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in Japanese women with abnormal cervical cytology. We also assessed the acceptability of self-collected HPV (sHPV) testing using a questionnaire. METHODS Women aged 20-69 years (n = 136) attending Yokohama City University Hospital because of abnormal cervical cytology between April 2014 and January 2015 were enrolled in this study. Cervical samples for conventional cytology and physician-collected HPV (pHPV) testing were obtained before colposcopic examination. After this examination, patients were asked to provide a self-sampled vaginal specimen (sHPV) at home, some time between the following day and the next week and to complete a self-sampling acceptability questionnaire. RESULTS The overall positive rates of HPV detection with pHPV and sHPV testing were 61.0% (83/136) and 40.4% (55/136), respectively (P < 0.001). sHPV testing had a lower sensitivity compared to pHPV for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 or worse (CIN2+: 59.4% vs 100%, P < 0.001; CIN3: 66.7% vs 100%, P = 0.248). There were no statistically significant differences in the sensitivity to detect CIN3 among pHPV testing, sHPV testing, and cytology. The self-collecting device had good acceptability. CONCLUSION sHPV testing is a possible technique with which to improve poor cervical cancer screening uptake rates in Japan; however, the sensitivity to detect CIN2+ lesions must improve before it can be a substitute for conventional cytology or pHPV testing. Further large-scale acceptability studies involving non-responders are also needed before practical application.

Figure S1. ROC curve and AUC for each amino acid concentration before (pre) and after (post) complete surgery. ROC curve analysis was performed for each plasma amino acid concentration in healthy controls and patients before and after surgery. The same healthy control group was used for analysis of all patients (a), cervical cancer patients (b), endometrial cancer patients (c), and ovarian cancer patients (d). The AUC was calculated and is indicated in each graph. (PDF 765Â kb)

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of self-collected vaginal samples compared with physician-collected cervical samples for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in Japanese women with abnormal cervical cytology. We also assessed the acceptability of self-collected HPV (sHPV) testing using a questionnaire.Women aged 20-69 years (n = 136) attending Yokohama City University Hospital because of abnormal cervical cytology between April 2014 and January 2015 were enrolled in this study. Cervical samples for conventional cytology and physician-collected HPV (pHPV) testing were obtained before colposcopic examination. After this examination, patients were asked to provide a self-sampled vaginal specimen (sHPV) at home, some time between the following day and the next week and to complete a self-sampling acceptability questionnaire.The overall positive rates of HPV detection with pHPV and sHPV testing were 61.0% (83/136) and 40.4% (55/136), respectively (P0.001). sHPV testing had a lower sensitivity compared to pHPV for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 or worse (CIN2+: 59.4% vs 100%, P0.001; CIN3: 66.7% vs 100%, P = 0.248). There were no statistically significant differences in the sensitivity to detect CIN3 among pHPV testing, sHPV testing, and cytology. The self-collecting device had good acceptability.sHPV testing is a possible technique with which to improve poor cervical cancer screening uptake rates in Japan; however, the sensitivity to detect CIN2+ lesions must improve before it can be a substitute for conventional cytology or pHPV testing. Further large-scale acceptability studies involving non-responders are also needed before practical application.

Uterine superficial serous carcinoma (SSC) and serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (SEIC) are unique malignancies found primarily in postmenopausal women. SSC and SEIC lesions measuring 1 cm or less are categorized as minimal uterine serous carcinoma (MUSC). Less well understood, however, the clinical behavior of SSC and SEIC lesions measuring more than 1 cm. We investigated 6 postmenopausal patients, aged 69-83 years, with SSC or SEIC and without hyperestrogenism. All but 1 patient had tumors originating from the surface of polyps, including 3 patients who each had an enormous polyp occupying the entire uterine cavity. Two patients had extensive SEICs measuring more than 1 cm; the others had SSCs, including 1 MUSC. The mesenchymal cells of the cancer-bearing polyps lacked the morphologic characteristics of endometrial stroma, and the cancer glands often immunostained negatively for estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors. Diffuse immunostaining for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 was detected in 3 patients, and p53 was detected in all. Cyclin E, a downstream molecule of the F-box and WD repeat domain-containing 7 (FBXW7), was detected in all patients. Microdissected cancer glands showed p53 mutations in 2 patients and a FBXW7 mutation in 1 patient. These findings suggest that mutations of FBXW7 and p53 may contribute to the carcinogenesis of less invasive tumor subtypes. Pathologists and physicians should carefully evaluate SSC and SEIC lesions involving large polyps but lacking myometrial invasion.