<?xml version="1.0"?><rdf:RDF xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:edm="http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/" xmlns:wgs84_pos="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:rdaGr2="http://rdvocab.info/ElementsGr2" xmlns:oai="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ore="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O/f45cb496-7c6d-4d09-b420-489cb8b35290/PDF"><dcterms:extent>713 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O/11d260ab-6bd9-4727-b743-a51a2fbdc4a2/TEXT"><dcterms:extent>0 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:TimeSpan rdf:about="1992-2025"><edm:begin xml:lang="en">1992</edm:begin><edm:end xml:lang="en">2025</edm:end></edm:TimeSpan><edm:ProvidedCHO rdf:about="URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O"><dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:spr-FNIFVE9S" /><dcterms:issued>2021</dcterms:issued><dc:creator>Arko, Darja</dc:creator><dc:creator>Bokan, Teodora</dc:creator><dc:creator>Ivanuš, Urška</dc:creator><dc:creator>Jerman, Tine</dc:creator><dc:creator>Takač, Iztok</dc:creator><dc:format xml:lang="sl">številka:2</dc:format><dc:format xml:lang="sl">letnik:55</dc:format><dc:format xml:lang="sl">str. 187-195</dc:format><dc:identifier>DOI:10.2478/raon-2021-0001</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>ISSN:1318-2099</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISSID_HOST:43067395</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O</dc:identifier><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:publisher xml:lang="sl">Association of Radiology and Oncology</dc:publisher><dcterms:isPartOf xml:lang="sl">Radiology and oncology (Ljubljana)</dcterms:isPartOf><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">citologija</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">cytology</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">high-grade intraepithelial lesion</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">HPV self-sampling</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">intraepithelialne lezije</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">presejalni programi</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">screening programmes</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">testi HPV</dc:subject><dcterms:temporal rdf:resource="1992-2025" /><dc:title xml:lang="sl">Long term results of follow-up after HPV self-sampling with devices Qvintip and HerSwab in women non-attending cervical screening programme|</dc:title><dc:description xml:lang="sl">We are presenting the results of the Slovenian human papillomaviruses (HPV) self-sampling pilot study in colposcopy population of National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme ZORA for the first time. One-year and four-year follow-up results are presented for two different self-sampling devices. Participants and methods. A total of 209 women were enrolled in the study at colposcopy clinic. Prior to the gynaecological examination, all women performed self-collected vaginal swab at the clinic; 111 using Qvintip and 98 using HerSwab self-sampling device. After self-sampling, two cervical smears were taken by a clinician; first for conventional cytology and second for HPV test. After that, all women underwent colposcopy and a cervical biopsy if needed. We compared sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of cytology (at the cut-off atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more ASC-US+) and HPV test (on self- and clinician-taken samples) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) after one and four years of follow-up. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay was used for all HPV testing. Results. The mean age of 209 women was 37.6 years and HPV positivity rate 67.0% (140/209), 36.9 years and 70.3% (78/111) in the Qvintip group and 38.4 years and 63.3% (62/98) in the HerSwab group, respectively. Overall, percent agreement between self and clinician-taken samples was 81.8% (kappa 0.534) in the Qvintip and 77.1% (kappa 0.456) in the HerSwab group. In the Qvintip group, the longitudinal sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 71.8%, 75.0%, 83.6%, 60.0% for cytology; 83.1%, 51.3%, 75.6% and 62.5% for HPV test of self-taken samples and 94.4%, 57.5%, 79.8% and 85.2% for HPV test on clinician-taken samples. In the HerSwab group, the corresponding results were 71.7%, 46.7%, 61.3%, 58.3% for cytology; 75.0%, 47.7%, 62.9% and 61.8% for HPV test on self-taken samples and 94.3%, 44.4%, 66.7% and 87.0% for clinician-taken samples, respectively. Conclusions. The results confirm that HPV self-sampling is not as accurate as clinician sampling when HC2 is used. All HPV tests showed a higher sensitivity in detecting CIN2+ compared to cytology. Due to non-inferior longitudinal sensitivity of HPV self-sampling compared to cytology, HPV self-sampling might be an option for non-attenders to the National Cancer Screening Programme</dc:description><edm:type>TEXT</edm:type><dc:type xml:lang="sl">znanstveno časopisje</dc:type><dc:type xml:lang="en">journals</dc:type><dc:type rdf:resource="http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q361785" /></edm:ProvidedCHO><ore:Aggregation rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O"><edm:aggregatedCHO rdf:resource="URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O" /><edm:isShownBy rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O/f45cb496-7c6d-4d09-b420-489cb8b35290/PDF" /><edm:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" /><edm:provider>Slovenian National E-content Aggregator</edm:provider><edm:intermediateProvider xml:lang="en">National and University Library of Slovenia</edm:intermediateProvider><edm:dataProvider xml:lang="sl">Društvo radiologije in onkologije</edm:dataProvider><edm:object rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O/maxi/edm" /><edm:isShownAt rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A7156H8O" /></ore:Aggregation></rdf:RDF>