Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program

Evaluation of a Self-collected Device for Human Papillomavirus Screening to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

The authors compared the performance of a novel self-collect device with clinician-collected samples for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-two (82) participants were recruited from 5 clinical sites in the United States. Each participant performed self-collect sampling using the self-collect device followed by a standard of care clinician-collected sample. Both samples were evaluated for hrHPV using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV assays. A subset of HPV-positive samples underwent dual staining (p16/Ki-67), and concordance was evaluated. Biopsy results collected per standard of care were recorded.

RESULTS

On the Roche cobas assay, the preliminary positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) was 91%. Agreement for hrHPV using the BD OnClarity in PreservCyt was 100% PPA (n = 10), and 100% PPA, 93% NPA in SurePath. Dual-stain concordance was 93% (n = 16) overall, and 100% for HPV other genotypes. Seventy-one participants (n = 71; 89%) indicated they would feel confident using the self-collect device for screening if they knew they could get equal results, and 86% (n = 69) indicated that they would be more likely to get screened with this option.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-collect device shows high (>92%) positive and negative agreement for detection of HPV when compared with reference clinician-collected samples, with very high acceptability and preference. Furthermore, the self-samples collected with the self-collect device showed highly concordant results by dual stain, which is a novel and emerging application for a self-collected sampling device, thus enabling potential triage from 1 sample.

Effectiveness of self-sampling human papillomavirus test on precancer detection and screening uptake in Japan: The ACCESS randomized controlled trial

Japan is lagging in cervical cancer prevention. The effectiveness of a self-sampling human papillomavirus (HPV) test, a possible measure to overcome this situation, has not yet been evaluated. A randomized controlled trial was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-sampling HPV test on detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and screening uptake. Women between 30 and 58 years old who did not participate in the cervical cancer screening program for ≥3 years were eligible and assigned to the intervention group (cytology or self-sampling HPV test) or control group (cytology). Participants assigned to the intervention group were sent a self-sampling kit according to their ordering (opt-in strategy). A total of 7337 and 7772 women were assigned to the intervention and control groups, respectively. Screening uptake in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (20.0% vs. 6.4%; risk ratio: 3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.82, 3.42). The compliance rate with cytology triage for HPV-positive women was 46.8% (95% CI: 35.5%, 58.4%). CIN2+ was detected in five and four participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively; there was no difference for intention-to-screen analysis (risk ratio: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.36, 4.93). Self-sampling of HPV test increased screening uptake; however, no difference was observed in the detection of CIN2+, probably due to the low compliance rate for cytology triage in HPV-positive women. Efforts to increase cytology triage are essential to maximize precancer detections.

Identifying optimum implementation for human papillomavirus self-sampling in underserved communities: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the existing evidence to identify the optimum methods for implementing human papillomavirus self-sampling to increase screening uptake for underserved groups.

SETTING

Specific groups are less likely to participate in cervical screening. These include individuals from low socioeconomic status groups, ethnic minority groups, younger age groups (25-29), older age groups (≥50), with a physical disability, with a learning disability and with an LGBTQ+ identity. The advent of human papillomavirus self-sampling for cervical screening presents an opportunity to promote equitable access to screening. Implementation for human papillomavirus self-sampling can vary, for example, opt-out or opt-in approaches. However, it is unclear which of these is the best method of offering human papillomavirus self-sampling to underserved groups.

METHODS

Six databases were searched through May 2023. Studies comparing cervico-vaginal human papillomavirus self-sampling provision using different implementation strategies with the standard screening pathway in underserved groups were identified. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 4574 studies were identified; 25 studies were included, of which 22 were from high-income countries. Greater uptake was found for offering human papillomavirus self-sampling compared to standard clinician-based sampling. Directly mailing human papillomavirus self-sampling kits to participants resulted in higher uptake of screening than using an 'opt-in' approach or standard recall in low socioeconomic status and ethnic minority groups, and older women. Strategies that used community health workers or educational materials increased uptake in ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Directly mailing human papillomavirus self-sampling kits to low socioeconomic status groups, ethnic minority groups and older women has the potential to increase uptake of human papillomavirus self-sampling. Using community health workers to offer human papillomavirus self-sampling should be considered for ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status groups. Further research exploring the preferences of younger women is needed.

Novel Strategy of Training the Accredited Social Health Activists via Application-Based Telemedicine for Cervical Cancer Screening by Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling: The TRACK Study

PURPOSE

This pilot study is aimed to analyze a novel strategy of cervical cancer screening by training of Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) workers via telemedicine to counsel women for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a pilot, community-based, prospective, single-arm study. Physicians trained the ASHA workers regarding self-sampled HPV testing via a mobile application and telephonically using videos and e-pamphlets, who in turn trained the clients in community. The HPV kits were transported via prepaid courier service.

RESULTS

Four hundred and sixty-five women of age group 30-65 years were tested by 47 teletrained ASHA workers. The mean age of ASHA worker and clients was 39.47 ± 6.45 and 37.26 ± 8.38 years, respectively. Of the ASHA workers, 91.7% were satisfied with the information provided during telecounseling, 95.7% could understand the contents of mobile app easily, and 93.6% could fill the data of clients in app easily. Of the clients, 99.6% were satisfied with counseling by ASHA workers and 98% found it easy to self-sample. The acceptability of this strategy among clients was 58.2%. The feasibility of this strategy (percentage of clients who find it easy/those who did self-sampling) was around 99%. Among those screened, 11.8% were high-risk HPV-positive and 85.5% had follow-up at the study center.

CONCLUSION

The current study highlights a novel strategy of cervical cancer screening by incorporating the role of telemedicine in training ASHA workers and their role in improving the screening by home-based delivery of HPV kits with promising results.

Evaluating human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among Latinas in the United States: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Latinas experience the greatest cervical cancer incidence compared with other ethnic/racial groups in the United States (US) due in part to significant disparities in screening uptake. Social and structural conditions that impede access to and participation in screening include language barriers, concerns about documentation status, logistical issues (e.g., transportation, limited clinic hours), and cultural beliefs regarding modesty and promiscuity. To overcome these challenges, self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has emerged as a potentially promising method for promoting cervical cancer screening among this population. Thus, this systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of HPV self-sampling among US Latinas.

METHODS

Using EBSCOhost and PubMed databases, we searched for studies published in the past two decades (2003-2023) that described participation in HPV self-sampling among Latinas. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The majority of studies were conducted in Florida, California, and Puerto Rico, were single-arm designs, and involved the use of community health workers and Spanish-language materials (e.g., brochures). Across studies, the majority of participants reported that self-sampling was acceptable with respect to ease of use, comfort (lack of pain), privacy, and convenience; however, some women were concerned about the accuracy of self-sampling or whether they had performed sample collection correctly.

CONCLUSION

Given the high acceptability, self-collection of cervicovaginal samples for HPV testing may offer a feasible option for enhancing participation in cervical cancer screening in this population that encounters significant barriers to screening.

Evaluation of self-sampling-based cervical cancer screening strategy using HPV Selfy CE-IVD test coupled with home-collection kit: a clinical study in Italy

BACKGROUND

Primary human papillomaviruses (HPV) cervical cancer screening can be strengthened by offering home-collection of biological specimen as a valuable option to increase screening coverage. As recommended by World Health Organization (WHO), screening programs should consider whether the inclusion of HPV self-sampling as a complementary option within their existing screening algorithms could address the gaps in current coverage. However, few HPV screening tests are validated for self-sampling according to international guidelines. This study aimed to test a self-sampling-based screening strategy, complementary to the main screening program based on clinician-collected cervical samples. The study took place in Trieste, Italy, and it aimed to evaluate the feasibility of self-testing at home under an opt-in system during COVID-19 pandemic in order to exploit self-sampling to reduce the screening delay generated by the lockdown.

METHODS

500 women, who should have received the screening call in 2020, were asked, via phone call, to participate in the study. To whom agreed, a home-collection kit, including a vaginal dry swab for specimen collection, was sent. The recipients performed the sample self-collection and sent back the swab through traditional mail using a prepaid envelope. Once received by the hospital, the samples were analyzed with HPV Selfy (Ulisse BioMed, Italy), a CE-IVD HPV screening test specifically validated for self-collection. Results were further compared using cobas® 4800 HPV (Roche, Switzerland).

RESULTS

80% women sent back their swab, showing one of the highest return rate obtained in comparable studies. 34 HPV-positive women were followed up and underwent the Pap test, that revealed 8 low squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) cases, later triaged to colposcopy. HPV Selfy was confirmed to be an adequate test for self-sampling-based screening.

CONCLUSIONS

This study further confirmed the feasibility of self-test at home screening strategy based on self-sampling with an opt-in system as a support method to enhance cervical cancer screening coverage in Italy. Enrolled women showed a high appreciation for this approach. HPV Selfy test demonstrated to be a valuable assay for cervical cancer screening based on home self-collection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ASUGI Trieste n. 16008/2018 and amendment 02-11/09/2020.

Exploring factors associated with preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among racially- and ethnically-diverse women in Minnesota: A cross-sectional study

Pap tests are still underutilized by minority women due to limited awareness of cervical cancer screening (CCS), inadequate health care access, and cultural or religious beliefs. Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling, a new CCS tool, has demonstrated potential to overcome some of these barriers. In 2021, women aged 30-65 years old were recruited across Minnesota to complete an online survey. The survey assessed five outcome measures related to HPV self-sampling: (1) awareness of test; (2) self-efficacy to conduct test; (3) location preference of test (clinic vs. home); 4) collector preference (self vs. clinician); and (5) preference of CCS strategy (HPV self-sampling vs. Pap test). Modified Poisson regressions tested associations between sociodemographic variables and outcomes. A total of 420 women completed the survey, of which 32.4% identified as Non-Hispanic white, 22.2% as Hispanic, 12.6% as Black/African-American, 28.3% as Asian, 1.9% as American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1.4% as more than two races. Few women had heard of HPV self-sampling (6.5%), but a majority reported high self-efficacy to perform self-sampling (75.3%). Women also reported higher preferences for completing an HPV test in the clinic (52.2%) and for performing a self-collected HPV test themselves (58.7%), yet would choose a traditional Pap test over HPV self-sampling (56.0%). The low level of HPV self-sampling awareness, across all racial/ethnic groups, suggests a strong opportunity to promote widespread educational efforts around this new tool. Future HPV self-sampling research efforts should examine educational interventions targeted at healthcare providers to educate and encourage women on the importance of self-collection options.

Acceptability of self-sampling human papillomavirus test for cervical cancer screening in Japan: A questionnaire survey in the ACCESS trial

PURPOSE

In terms of medical policy for cervical cancer prevention, Japan lags far behind other industrialized countries. We initiated a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the self-sampling human papillomavirus (HPV) test as a tool to raise screening uptake and detection of pre-cancer. This study was conducted to explore the acceptability and preference of self-sampling using a subset of the data from this trial.

METHODS

A pre-invitation letter was sent to eligible women, aged 30-59 years who had not undergone cervical cancer screening for three or more years. After excluding those who declined to participate in this trial, the remaining women were assigned to the self-sampling and control groups. A second invitation letter was sent to the former group, and those wanting to undergo the self-sampling test ordered the kit. A self-sampling HPV kit, consent form, and a self-administered questionnaire were sent to participants who ordered the test.

RESULTS

Of the 7,340 participants in the self-sampling group, 1,196 (16.3%) administered the test, and 1,192 (99.7%) answered the questionnaire. Acceptability of the test was favorable; 75.3-81.3% of participants agreed with positive impressions (easy, convenient, and clarity of instruction), and 65.1-77.8% disagreed with negative impressions (painful, uncomfortable, and embarrassing). However, only 21.2% were confident in their sampling procedure. Willingness to undergo screening with a self-collected sample was significantly higher than that with a doctor-collected sample (89.3% vs. 49.1%; p<0.001). Willingness to undergo screening with a doctor-collected sample was inversely associated with age and duration without screening (both p<0.001), but that with a self-collected sample was not associated.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women who used the self-sampling HPV test, high acceptability was confirmed, while concerns about self-sampling procedures remained. Screening with a self-collected sample was preferred over a doctor-collected sample and the former might alleviate disparities in screening rates.

A comparative study on behavior, awareness and belief about cervical cancer among rural and urban women in Vietnam

Cervical cancer is the second most common gynecologic cancer in Vietnam but based on the literature, only ~25% of Vietnamese women reported ever being screened for cervical cancer. To inform strategies to reduce the cervical cancer burden in Southern Vietnam where disease incidence is higher than the national average, this study examined behaviors, awareness, barriers, and beliefs about cervical cancer screening among rural and urban women in this geographical region. In October-November 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional study among 196 rural and 202 urban women in Southern Vietnam; participants completed a cervical cancer screening questionnaire. Descriptive analyses and rural-urban differences in screening behavior, awareness, barriers, and beliefs are presented. About half of the rural and urban participants reported ever being screened for cervical cancer. Most participants showed high perceived severity of cervical cancer and benefits of screening. Further, they reported that they would screen if it was recommended by doctors and/or friends/family. However, most women showed low awareness and perceived susceptibility to cervical cancer. Logistical and psychosocial barriers to physician-based screening methods were reported. Based on our results, the World Health Organization 2030 goals for cervical cancer screening are not currently met in Southern Vietnam. Increasing health literacy and engaging doctors and family members/social networks emerged as important avenues to improve screening. HPV (Human papillomavirus) self-sampling is also a potential approach to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening given the identified psychosocial and logistical barriers.

Offering HPV self-sampling kits: an updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-samples represents a great opportunity to increase cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to update the evidence on the efficacy of strategies for offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing compared to conventional invitations and to compare different self-sampling invitation scenarios. Four experimental invitational scenarios were considered. Women in the control group were invited for screening according to existing practice: collection of a cervical specimen by a healthcare professional. Random-effects models were used to pool proportions, relative participation rates and absolute participation differences.

RESULTS

Thirty-three trials were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, all self-sampling invitation scenarios were more effective in reaching under-screened women compared to controls. Pooled participation difference (PD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for experimental vs. control was 13.2% (95% CI = 11.0-15.3%) for mail-to-all, 4.4% (95% CI = 1.2-7.6%) for opt-in, 39.1% (95% CI = 8.4-69.9%) for community mobilisation & outreach and 28.1% (23.5-32.7%) for offer at healthcare service. PD for the comparison opt-in vs. mail-to-all, assessed in nine trials, was -8.2% (95% CI = -10.8 to -5.7%).

DISCUSSION

Overall, screening participation was higher among women invited for self-sampling compared to control, regardless of the invitation strategy used. Opt-in strategies were less effective than send-to-all strategies.

Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials

Objectives

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling proposal on cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake when compared with an invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. Secondary outcomes were acceptability and preference of self-sampling compared to clinician-collected samples.

Methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies examining the CCS uptake comparing self-sampling over invitation to be sampled by an healthcare professional and examining the proportion of women accepting or preferring self-sampling vs. clinician-collected sampling were included. The CCS uptake was also explored according to strategy of self-samplers' distribution, collection device type and screening status. Peters' test and Funnel Plot inspection were used to assess the publication bias. Quality of the studies was assessed through Cochrane Risk of Bias and NIH Quality Assessment tools.

Results

One hundred fifty-four studies were globally identified, and 482,271 women were involved. Self-sampling procedures nearly doubled the probability (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.7-2.0) of CCS uptake when compared with clinician-collected samples. The opt-out (RR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.9-2.4) and the door-to-door (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.6-2.0) did not statistically significant differ (p = 1.177) in improving the CCS uptake. A higher relative uptake was shown for brushes (RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5-1.7) and swabs (RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9-3.1) over clinician-collected samples. A high between-studies variability in characteristics of sampled women was shown. In all meta-analyses the level of heterogeneity was consistently high (I 2 > 95%). Publication bias was unlikely.

Conclusions

Self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of under-screened women in the CCS, in addition to the standard invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. For small communities door-to-door distribution could be preferred to distribute the self-sampler while; for large communities opt-out strategies should be preferred over opt-in. Since no significant difference in acceptability and preference of device type was demonstrated among women, and swabs and brushes exhibited a potential stronger effect in improving CCS, these devices could be adopted.

Implementation of a self-sampling HPV test for non-responders to cervical cancer screening in Japan: secondary analysis of the ACCESS trial

A self-sampling human papillomavirus (HPV) test could improve the morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer in Japan. However, its effectiveness and feasibility have not been demonstrated sufficiently. Hence, we launched a randomized controlled trial, which is ongoing, and report the results of a secondary analysis. To ensure autonomous participation with a minimum selection bias, opt-out consent was obtained from women who met the inclusion criteria, and written consent was obtained from those who underwent a self-sampling test. The number of women who met the inclusion criteria was 20,555; 4283 and 1138 opted out before and after the assignment, respectively. Of the 7340 women in the self-sampling arm, 1372 (18.7%) ordered and 1196 (16.3%) underwent the test. Younger women in their 30 s and 40 s tended to undertake the test more frequently than older women in their 50 s (P for trend < 0.001). Invalid HPV test results were rare (1.3%), and neither adverse events nor serious complaints were reported. Despite adopting the opt-out procedure, more women than expected declined to participate, suggesting the need for a waiver of consent or assignment before consent to reduce selection bias. A self-sampling HPV test can be implemented in Japan and would be more accessible to young women, the predominant group affected by cervical cancer.

HPV Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening among Women Living with HIV in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What Do We Know and What Can Be Done?

INTRODUCTION

Self-sampling has the potential to increase cervical cancer (CC) screening among women with HIV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, our understanding of how HPV self-collection studies have been conducted in women with HIV is limited. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the extent to which the HPV self-sampling has been applied among women with HIV in LMICs.

METHOD

We conducted multiple searches in several databases for articles published between 2000 and January 2022. With the combination of keywords relating to HPV self-sampling, LMICs, and women with HIV, we retrieved over 9000 articles. We used pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria to select relevant studies for this review. Once a study met the inclusion criteria, we created a table to extract each study's characteristics and classified them under common themes. We used a qualitative descriptive approach to summarize the scoping results.

RESULTS

A total of 12 articles were included in the final review. Overall, 3178 women were enrolled in those studies and 2105 (66%) of them were women with HIV. The self-sampling participation rate was 92.6%. The findings of our study show that 43% of the women with HIV in 8 of the studies reviewed tested positive for high-risk HPV (hr-HPV) genotypes, indicating 4 out of 10 women with HIV in the studies are at risk of cervical cancer. The prevalence of the hr-HPV in women with HIV was 18% higher than that of HIV-negative women. Most women in the study found the self-sampling experience acceptable, easy to use, convenient, and comfortable. Self-sampling performance in detecting hr-HPV genotypes is comparable to clinician-performed sampling. However, limited access (i.e., affordability, availability, transportation), limited knowledge about self-screening, doubts about the credibility of self-sampling results, and stigma remain barriers to the wide acceptance and implementation of self-sampling. In conclusion, the findings of this review highlight that (a) the prevalence of hr-HPV is higher among women with HIV than HIV-negative women, (b) self-sampling laboratory performance is similar to clinician-performed sampling, (c) the majority of the women participated in self-sampling, which could likely increase the cervical cancer screening uptake, and (d) women with HIV reported a positive experience with self-sampling. However, personal, environmental, and structural barriers challenge the application of self-sampling in LMICs, and these need to be addressed.

Detection of Host Cell Gene/HPV DNA Methylation Markers: A Promising Triage Approach for Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer is the most prevalent gynecologic malignancy, especially in women of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). With a better understanding of the etiology and pathogenesis of cervical cancer, it has been well accepted that this type of cancer can be prevented and treated via early screening. Due to its higher sensitivity than cytology to identify precursor lesions of cervical cancer, detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA has been implemented as the primary screening approach. However, a high referral rate for colposcopy after HR-HPV DNA detection due to its low specificity in HR-HPV screening often leads to overtreatment and thus increases the healthcare burden. Emerging evidence has demonstrated that detection of host cell gene and/or HPV DNA methylation represents a promising approach for the early triage of cervical cancer in HR-HPV-positive women owing to its convenience and comparable performance to cytology, particularly in LMICs with limited healthcare resources. While numerous potential markers involving DNA methylation of host cell genes and the HPV genome have been identified thus far, it is crucial to define which genes or panels involving host and/or HPV are feasible and appropriate for large-scale screening and triage. An ideal approach for screening and triage of CIN/ICC requires high sensitivity and adequate specificity and is suitable for self-sampling and inexpensive to allow population-based screening, particularly in LMICs. In this review, we summarize the markers of host cell gene/HR-HPV DNA methylation and discuss their triage performance and feasibility for high-grade precancerous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+ and CIN3+) in HR-HPV-positive women.

HPV self-sampling and follow-up over two rounds of cervical screening in Australia - the iPap trial

OBJECTIVES

Previously, based on 6 months of follow-up, we showed that HPV self-sampling improved participation in cervical screening compared to a reminder letter for Pap testing for never- and under-screened women. Here, we report follow-up and related screening outcomes for women who participated in the initial self-sampling over two screening rounds.

SETTING

The randomised controlled trial was conducted in Australia.

METHODS

Never- and under-screened women were randomly allocated to the HPV self-sampling or the reminder for Pap test arm and followed at 6 and 36 months since the kits were first mailed.

RESULTS

The first round of HPV self-sampling kits were mailed from May-July 2014 to 12 572 women. After 36 months, 19% of never-screened and 9% of under-screened women returned a kit for HPV testing; 2.7% were HPV 16/18 and 5.8% non-16/18 HPV positive. Compliance with first round follow-up was 84% (95% CI: 77.1-89.5%). Non-compliant and cytology triage negative women were mailed another kit at 12 months. Compliance at 12-month follow-up was 59.3% (49.4 to 68.6%). Of 37 women with a 12-month repeat HPV, 70% were positive. Of women who tested negative for HPV in the first round (n = 1573), 25% attended regular screening in the next round and none had CIN2 + detected. The overall prevalence of CIN2 + was 8.5 per 1000 screened (4.8 to 13.9 per 1000).

CONCLUSION

While self-sampling can successfully engage women, compliance with repeat testing may require monitoring. The clinician-supported self-collection pathway now in use in Australia will likely improve women's engagement with follow-up.

Study protocol of the ACCESS trial: a randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling in cervical cancer screening uptake and precancer detection

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the incidence of cervical cancer has increased in Japan, probably because of an interruption in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and a low cervical cancer screening rate. There is a lack of evidence for self-sampling HPV testing as a cervical cancer screening tool in Japan. The Accelerating Cervical Cancer Elimination by Self-Sampling test trial aims to compare the effectiveness of screening using the self-sampling HPV test with that of routine screening concerning screening uptake and precancer detection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial has a single-municipality, open-label, parallel, superiority and randomised design. Approximately 20 000 women who have not undergone cervical cancer screening for at least 3 years will be assigned randomly to the self-sampling arm and the control arm using a 1:1 ratio. Participants assigned to the control arm will undergo routine cervical cancer screening (cytology test) provided by Ichihara City, while those assigned to the self-sampling arm will choose the routine screening or self-sampling HPV test. HPV tests will be performed using the cobas 8800 system (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland). Participants who will undergo the self-sampling HPV testing will be recommended to undergo routine screening. The results of the cytology test and further tests, such as colposcopy and biopsy, will be collected and used for this trial. The risk ratio and risk difference in the proportion of participants with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia two or worse between the two arms will be calculated. The test for the null hypothesis (the detection rates are equal between the two arms) will be performed using Pearson's χ² test.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the Research Ethics Committees of the Chiba Foundation for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention and the collaborating research institutes. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCT1030200276. Pre-results.

High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-collected vaginal samples compared with healthcare worker collected cervical samples among women attending gynecology clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the South African National Department of Health (NDoH) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Policy was revised. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples may offer improved screening uptake. The objectives of the study were to compare the positivity of high-risk (hr)-HPV deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and hrHPV viral messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) between healthcare worker-collected cervical and self-collected vaginal samples and investigate the accuracy of the applicator-tampon-based self-collected samples in detecting hrHPV DNA and hrHPV mRNA.

METHODS

A total of 527 women aged 18 years and older and seeking gynecology services at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa, were enrolled. Vaginal samples were self-collected using SelfCerv applicator tampon, followed by cervical samples collected by a healthcare worker using a Cervex Brush® Combi. Both samples were tested with the Abbott m2000 analyzer for 14-hrHPV types and 285 paired samples were tested for hrHPV E6/E7 mRNA using the Aptima HR-HPV mRNA assay. The prevalence of hrHPV DNA and hrHPV E6/E7 mRNA was estimated and the positivity between the two collection methods was compared for the total group as well as per age group.

RESULTS

HrHPV prevalence was 48.0% (95% CI 43.7-52.4) among healthcare worker collected samples and 47.6% (95% CI 43.3-52.0) among self-collected samples. There was no difference in positivity between healthcare worker collection (48.0%) and applicator-tampon-based self-collection, 47.6% (p-value = 0.90). The proportions of hrHPV were equal between the age groups as shown by the McNemar test (p = 0.9036) results for correlated proportions. The prevalence of hrHPV mRNA was 78.6% (95% CI 73.4-83.2) and 58.6% (95% CI 52.6-64.4) for healthcare worker- and self-collection, respectively. The McNemar test for correlated proportions was highly significant (p < 0.0001), indicating that the hrHPV mRNA proportions are not comparable, although this differed between age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Applicator-tampon-based self-collection has a comparable hrHPV DNA positivity rate as healthcare worker collection but different positivity rates for hrHPV mRNA. Self-sampling showed high concordance with healthcare worker-collected sampling for hrHPV DNA detection, especially regarding HPV 16/18 detection. HrHPV DNA was equally detected between the total group as well as per age group. Implementation of self-sampling using an applicator tampon as a primary screening tool may be considered.

Cervical Cancer Screening Postpandemic: Self-Sampling Opportunities to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer

The persisting burden of cervical cancer in underserved populations and low-resource regions worldwide, worsened by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, requires proactive strategies and expanded screening options to maintain and improve screening coverage and its effects on incidence and mortality from cervical cancer. Self-sampling as a screening strategy has unique advantages from both a public health and individual patient perspective. Some of the barriers to screening can be mitigated by self-sampling, and resources can be better allocated to patients at the highest risk of developing cervical cancer. This review summarizes the implementation options for self-sampling and associated challenges, evidence in support of self-sampling, the available devices, and opportunities for expansion beyond human papillomavirus testing.

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV. In the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Comprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies). Low-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake. One trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). The use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.

Equal prevalence of severe cervical dysplasia by HPV self-sampling and by midwife-collected samples for primary HPV screening: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

HPV self-sampling is an option for cervical screening. The aim of this randomised study was to investigate the compliance, prevalence of HPV, and prevalence of severe dysplasia in a vaginal self-sampling group in comparison to cervical samples collected by midwives (control arm). The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between vaginal self-sampling and cervical sampling to find high-grade cervical dysplasia or cancer.

METHODS

Vaginal HPV self-sampling kits were sent by regular mail to 14 765 randomly selected women aged 30-64 years old in the screening programme. HPV-positive women were invited for a follow-up examination by their midwife in which they provided a cervical sample for cytological and HPV co-testing. The control arm consisted of 14 839 women who met the same inclusion criteria and were invited to have cervical sampling by midwives for primary HPV screening. All HPV samples were analysed by the Aptima HPV assay (Hologic Inc.).

MAIN RESULTS

The participation rate was 33.5% in the self-sampling arm and 47.5% in the cervical sampling arm, (P < 0.0001). HPV was detected in 17.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 16.1-18.23%) in the self-sampling arm and 4.5% (95% CI, 4.0-5.0%) in the cervical sampling arm. Histological, severe dysplasia was observed among 0.48% (95% CI, 0.3-0.72%) and 0.47% (95% CI, 0.3-0.66%) of the self-sampling and the cervical sampling groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The self-sampling approach detects a similar proportion of severe dysplasia as regular screening. Thus, our study indicates that self-sampling could replace primary HPV screening of cervical samples.

Comparison of vaginal self-sampling and cervical sampling by medical professionals for the detection of HPV and CIN2+: A randomized study

Primary screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) test is more effective in reducing cervical cancer incidence than cytology and it also offers the opportunity to self-sample. We conducted a randomized study to compare vaginal self-sampling with cervical sampling by medical professionals for HPV testing concerning prevalence of HPV and detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in primary screening. In total, 11 951 women aged 30-60 years were randomized into two groups, 5961 for self-sampling (SS arm) and 5990 for sampling by medical professionals (SMP arm). Sampling was performed with a RoversViba-brush in the SS arm and a cytobrush in the SMP arm. All samples were applied to an indicating FTA elute card and analyzed for HPV using a clinically validated real-time PCR test (hpVIR). All HPV-positive women performed repeated sampling about 6 months later using the same procedure as used initially. All HPV-positive women in the second sampling were referred to colposcopy. The prevalence of HPV in the first test did not differ between the SS arm (6.8%, 167/2466) and the SMP arm (7.8%, 118/1519) (P = .255). The prevalence of CIN2+ per 1000 screened women was 17 (43/2466 × 1000) (95%CI 13-24) in the SS arm and 21 (32/1519 × 1000) (95%CI 15-30) in the SMP arm. For CIN3+, the prevalence per 1000 screened women was 14 (35/2466 × 1000) (95%CI 10-20) in the SS arm and 15 (23/1519 × 1000) (95%CI 10-23) in the SMP arm. In conclusion, self-sampling and sampling by medical professionals showed the same prevalence of HPV and detection rate of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in histology.

Current Status and Future Perspectives of Molecular Prevention Strategies for Cervical Cancers

Cervical cancer continues to be a global health problem; despite the potential for prevention through organised screening programmes that can detect and treat pre-cancerous lesions and also more recently, the availability of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccines. While routine screening with Pap smear testing has reduced the burden of cervical cancer in the high-income countries, the implementation of organised Pap-based screening programmes has not been found feasible in low-resource settings due to a lack of health care delivery infrastructure and limited health budgets. The well-established causal relationship between cervical cancer development and high-risk-HPV (HR-HPV) infection and the subsequent appreciation of the greater sensitivity of HPV testing over Pap smear cytology eventually lead to HPV testing being incorporated in the primary cervical cancer prevention programmes. An organised cervical cancer screening programme incorporating HR-HPV testing and HPV vaccine administration are currently considered to be the two major interventions for a comprehensive cervical cancer control programme worldwide. However, there are concerns that the requirement of a sophisticated infrastructure with its associated costs may make cervical cancer screening using molecular prevention by HPV testing impracticable to be implemented, especially in resource-poor, low-income countries. Visual Inspection with Acetic acid (VIA) represents one of the alternative methods for cervical cancer screening proposed for the countries with low- to middle-income resources and has gained popularity in India following the successful completion of two randomised controlled trials, but this method but has low sensitivity to detect cervical pre-cancers. More recently, the cost-effectiveness analysis of many studies including randomised controlled trials, even from the low-resource settings, has found that HPV testing is followed by treatment for HPV-positive women to be an effective and cost-effective screening strategy as compared to other screening methods including VIA. The incorporation of self-sampling and HPV testing by partial genotyping has the potential to significantly add to the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness. The current status and future perspectives of molecular prevention strategies for cervical cancer prevention is further discussed.

Acceptability of vaginal self-sampling with high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: a French questionnaire-based study

In France, cervical cancer screening based on cervical smear has a participation rate of around 60%. New screening strategies are encouraged to increase the participation of under-screened women, including vaginal self-sampling with high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing. This study was based on the distribution of an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to assess the acceptability of vaginal self-sampling with HR-HPV testing by women aged 25 to 65 years in two French Departments of the South of France, Aude, and Hérault, showing low participation in cervical cancer screening. Factors influencing this acceptability were also analyzed. From May to July 2017, 349 completed questionnaires were collected. Women declared high acceptability for vaginal self-sampling (81%) preferably at home (82.6%). Acceptability was statistically higher in the Department of Herault (p = .001) and for women older than 50 years (p = .018). There was no difference according to educational level or attendance to cervical cancer screening. Knowledge about cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening was significantly influenced by educational level. This study confirmed that vaginal self-sampling with HR-HPV testing was highly accepted, including by under-screened women, encouraging further interventional studies. Education about cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening should be part of these programs, especially for women with lower educational level.

Mailed self-sample HPV testing kits to improve cervical cancer screening in a safety net health system: protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Almost 20% of U.S. women remain at risk for cervical cancer due to their inability or unwillingness to participate in periodic clinic-based screening. Self-sampling has been shown to be an effective strategy for screening women for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection in specific contexts. However, its effectiveness among medically underserved women in safety net health systems has not been evaluated. Furthermore, it is also unclear whether implementation strategies such as patient navigation can be used to improve the success of self-sample screening programs by addressing patient-level barriers to participation.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Prospective Evaluation of Self-Testing to Increase Screening (PRESTIS) trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation pragmatic randomized controlled trial of mailed self-sample HPV testing. The aim is to assess the effectiveness of mailed self-sample HPV testing kits to improve cervical cancer screening participation among patients in a safety net health system who are overdue for clinic-based screening, while simultaneously assessing patient navigation as an implementation strategy. Its setting is a large, urban safety net health system that serves a predominantly racial/ethnic minority patient population. The trial targets recruitment of 2268 participants randomized to telephone recall (enhanced usual care, n = 756), telephone recall with mailed self-sample HPV testing kit (intervention, n = 756), or telephone recall with mailed self-sample HPV testing kit and patient navigation (intervention + implementation strategy, n = 756). The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of primary screening, defined as completion and return of mailed self-sample kit or completion of a clinic-based Pap test. Secondary effectiveness outcomes are predictors of screening and attendance for clinical follow-up among women with a positive screening test. Implementation outcomes are reach, acceptability, fidelity, adaptations, and cost-effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Hybrid designs are needed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of self-sample HPV testing in specific populations and settings, while incorporating and evaluating methods to optimize its real-world implementation. The current manuscript describes the rationale and design of a hybrid type 2 trial of self-sample HPV testing in a safety net health system. Trial findings are expected to provide meaningful data to inform screening strategies to ultimately realize the global goal of eliminating cervical cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03898167 . Registered on 01 April 2019.

TRIAL STATUS

Study start data: February 13, 2020. Recruitment status: Enrolling by invitation. Estimated primary completion date: February 15, 2023. Estimated study completion date: May 31, 2024. Protocol version 1.6 (February 25, 2020).

Participation in interventions and recommended follow-up for non-attendees in cervical cancer screening -taking the women's own preferred test method into account-A Swedish randomised controlled trial

Background

Cervical cancer is a highly preventable disease. To not attend an organized cervical cancer screening program increases the risk for cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer. The aim was to investigate the participation rate in three different intervention groups for non- attendees in the Swedish national program for cervical screening. The participation in the recommended follow up, and the histology found were also examined.

Method

Population-based randomized control trial. It included10,614 women that had not participated in the cervical cancer screening programme during the last six years (ages 30–49) and the last eight years (ages 50–64) were randomised 1:1:1(telephone call from a midwife (offering the choice between a visit for a pap smear or an HPV self-sampling test); an HPV self-sampling test only; or the routine procedure with a yearly invitation).

Results

In the intention to treat analysis the participation rates were 25.5% (N = 803/3146) vs 34.1% (N = 1047/3068) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p<0.001) for telephone, HPV self-test and control groups respectively. In the by protocol analysis including women that answered the phone call the participation rates were 31.7% (N = 565/1784) vs 26.1% (N = 788/3002) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p<0.001) for telephone, HPV self-test and control groups. The corresponding results in the by protocol analysis including women that did not answer the phone call was 19.7% (N = 565/2870) vs 26.1% (N = 788/3002) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p< 0.001). The majority of the women 63,4% (1131/1784) who answered the telephone wanted to participate either by booking a visit for pap smear (38,5%) or to be sent a HPV self- sampling test (24,9%) (p<0.001). Women who chose an HPV self-test were older and gave anxiety/ fear as a reason to decline participation, and they were also less likely to participate in the follow-up if found to be HPV-positive compared to the women who chose a Pap smear. The attendance to the recommended follow-up after abnormality was in total 87%. The non-attendees had a three or eight times higher risk of having a cytology result of HSIL or suspected SCC respectively, in the index sample compared to women screened as recommended (OR 3.3 CI 95% 1.9–5.2, OR 8.6 CI 1.6–30). A total of ten SCC and one adenocarcinoma were found in the histopathology results from the non-attendee group with a study intervention, while there was only one SCC in the non-attendee group without any study intervention (p = 0.02, OR 8.1 CI 95% 1.2–350).

Conclusions

Our study suggests, according to intention to treat analysis, that the best intervention to get as many non-attendees as possible to participate is to send an HPV self-sampling test together with an invitation letter. Almost 90% of women in the study with an abnormal index sample attended follow-up. This is high enough to indicate that interventions to increase the participation among non-attendees are meaningful.

Registry

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN)

Registration number ISRCTN78719765.

Detection of HPV E6 oncoprotein from urine via a novel immunochromatographic assay

Cervical cancer is a significant public health problem, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where women have little access to cervical cancer screening; consequently 80% of cervical cancer related mortality occurs in these regions. The development of screening methods that need less infrastructure thus represents an urgent medical need. The study aims to compare the detection rates of high-risk human papillomavirus 16 and 18 E6 oncoprotein in urine, vaginal self-collected, and cervical scrapes of women using the OncoE6^™ Cervical Test and compare the HPV16 and/or HPV18 E6 detection rates with the HPV DNA testing. Paired urine, vaginal self-collected and cervical specimens were collected from 124 women who participated in cervical cancer screening or treatment in this proof-of-concept study and underwent to HPV16/18-E6 testing and high-risk HPV DNA testing prior to treatment of cervical neoplasia or cancer. Concordance between urinary, vaginal and cervical HPV16/18-E6 and HPV-DNA testing was evaluated for patients classified as negative group (<CIN2) and histological positive group (CIN2, CIN3 and invasive carcinoma). Overall, HPV16/18-E6 oncoprotein was detected in 30.6% of cervical samples, 20.3% of self-collected vaginal samples and 21% of urine samples. Regarding the clinical sensitivity, the HPV16/18-E6 oncoprotein was not detected in CIN2 cases, and was detected at low rates in CIN3 cases. The clinical sensitivity of the HPV16/18-E6 oncoprotein for detecting invasive cervical cancer was 70% for cervical scrapes, 55% for self-collected vaginal samples and 52% for urine samples. This study reports the urinary detection of E6 oncoprotein in vivo for the first time and our results suggest that this detection is only for invasive/microinvasive lesions. Then, further protocol development and standardization to achieve a clinical sensitivity for CIN2/3 detection close to what can be achieved for invasive lesions using the physician collected cervical is needed.

Evaluation of satisfaction with three different cervical cancer screening modalities: clinician-collected Pap test vs. HPV test by self-sampling vs. HPV test by urine sampling

OBJECTIVE

Human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling and urine sampling might be alternatives to Papanicolaou test (Pap test) for cervical cancer screening (CCS), and may increase compliance and adherence thereto. The present study aimed to explore satisfaction and preferences for cervical screening modalities among Korean women.

METHODS

In total, 732 women aged between 20 and 69 years responded to a questionnaire designed to survey the women's perceived satisfaction for the 3 CCS modalities: clinician-collected Pap test, self-collected vaginal sampling (self-sampling) and urine sampling.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction was significantly higher with both the self-sampling and urine sampling than the clinician-collected Pap test (odds ratio [OR]=2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.48-3.00 and OR=2.47; 95% CI=1.75-3.48, respectively). Psychological distress, including embarrassment, pain, anxiety, discomfort, and stress, with self-sampling and urine sampling were significantly lower than that with the Pap test. 52% of participants reported preferences for self-sampling in the next screening round.

CONCLUSIONS

Korean women were more likely to report satisfaction with alternative modalities (self-sampling and urine sampling) for CCS in comparison to the Pap test. This suggests that self-collected modalities may help with improving CCS uptake rates by eliminating burden related with the Pap test. However, further studies for test accuracy and cost-effective analysis of the alternative modalities should be conducted in order to apply CCS.

Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review

HPV self-sampling (HPV-SS) can increase cervical cancer screening participation by addressing barriers in high- and low- and middle-income settings. Successful implementation of HPV-SS programs will depend on understanding potential costs and health effects. Our objectives were to summarize the methods and results of published HPV-SS cost and cost-effectiveness studies, present implications of these results for HPV-SS program implementation, and identify knowledge gaps. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. One reviewer searched online databases for articles published through June 12, 2019, identified eligible studies, and extracted data; a second reviewer checked extracted data for accuracy. Eligible studies used an economic model to compare HPV-SS outreach strategies to standard-of-care tests. Of 16 eligible studies, 14 reported HPV-SS could be a cost-effective strategy. Studies differed in model type, HPV-SS delivery methods, triage strategies for positive results, and target populations. Most (9/16) modeled HPV-SS in European screening programs, 6/16 targeted women who were underscreened for cervical cancer, and 5/16 modeled HPV-SS in low- and middle-income countries. The most commonly identified driver of HPV-SS cost-effectiveness was the level of increase in cervical cancer screening attendance. Lower HPV-SS material and testing costs, higher sensitivity to detect cervical precancer, and longer duration of underscreening among HPV-SS users were also associated with increased cost-effectiveness. Future HPV-SS models in high-income settings should explore the effect of widespread vaccination and new triage strategies such as partial HPV genotyping. Knowledge gaps remain about the cost-effectiveness of HPV-SS in low- and middle-income settings.

Impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection on subsequent cervical cancer screening completion among under-screened US women: MyBodyMyTest-3 protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Screening substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. More than half of invasive cervical cancers are attributable to infrequent screening or not screening at all. The current study, My Body My Test (MBMT), evaluates the impact of mailed kits for self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on completion of cervical cancer screening in low-income, North Carolina women overdue for cervical cancer screening.

Methods/design

The study will enroll at least 510 US women aged 25–64 years who report no Pap test in the last 4 years and no HPV test in the last 6 years. We will randomize participants to an intervention or control arm. The intervention arm will receive kits to self-collect a sample at home and mail it for HPV testing. In both the intervention and control arms, participants will receive assistance in scheduling an appointment for screening in clinic. Study staff will deliver HPV self-collection results by phone and assist in scheduling participants for screening in clinic. The primary outcome is completion of cervical cancer screening. Specifically, completion of screening will be defined as screening in clinic or receipt of negative HPV self-collection results. Women with HPV-negative self-collection results will be considered screening-complete. All other participants will be considered screening-complete if they obtain co-testing or Pap test screening at a study-affiliated institution or other clinic. We will assess whether the self-collection intervention influences participants’ perceived risk of cervical cancer and whether perceived risk mediates the relationship between HPV self-collection results and subsequent screening in clinic. We also will estimate the incremental cost per woman screened of offering at-home HPV self-collection kits with scheduling assistance as compared to offering scheduling assistance alone.

Discussion

If mailed self-collection of samples for HPV testing is an effective strategy for increasing cervical cancer screening among women overdue for screening, this method has the potential to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality in medically underserved women at higher risk of developing cervical cancer.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02651883, Registered on 11 January 2016.

Experience with HPV self-sampling and clinician-based sampling in women attending routine cervical screening in the Netherlands

Several countries offer HPV self-sampling for screening non-attendees. It is assumed that screening attendees also prefer self-sampling to clinician-based sampling, however, little research has been conducted with respect to this. Women participating in the IMPROVE-study were randomised (1:1) to self- or clinician-collected HPV testing, and HPV-positive women were retested using the other collection method. Three different questionnaires were sent out among a subset of participating women: Q1) HPV-positive women from both study groups were asked about their experiences with self-sampling and clinician-based sampling (n = 497); Q2) HPV-negative women from the self-sampling group were asked about their experiences with self-sampling (n = 2366); and Q3) HPV-negative women in the clinician-collection group were asked about their experiences with clinician-based sampling (n = 2092). Response rates ranged from 71.6 to 79.4%. Women reported significantly lower levels of shame, nervousness, discomfort and pain during self-sampling compared to clinician-based sampling. However, trust in correct sampling was significantly higher during clinician-based sampling. The majority of women in group Q1 preferred self-sampling (76.5%) to clinician-based sampling (11.9%) in future screening, while 11.6% of women reported to have no preference for either method. To conclude, women from a regular screening population have a positive attitude towards self-sampling but express some concerns with respect to accuracy. The majority prefers self-sampling to clinician-based sampling in future screening. Based on these results, a screening approach where women can choose for either self-sampling or clinician-based sampling seems highly justifiable.

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling test kits may increase screening for and early detection of cervical cancer and reduce its burden globally. To inform WHO self-care guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling among adult women on cervical (pre-)cancer screening uptake, screening frequency, social harms/adverse events and linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.

Methods

The included studies compared women using cervical cancer screening services with HPV self-sampling with women using standard of care, measured at least one outcome, and were published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CNIAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Embase through October 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).

Results

33 studies in 34 articles with 369 017 total participants met the inclusion criteria: 29 RCTs and 4 observational studies. All studies examined HPV self-sampling; comparison groups were standard of care (eg, Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, clinician-collected HPV testing). 93% of participants were from high-income countries. All 33 studies measured cervical cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis found greater screening uptake among HPV self-sampling participants compared with control (RR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.40). Effect size varied by HPV test kit dissemination method, whether mailed directly to home (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.71), offered door-to-door (RR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) or requested on demand (RR: 1.28, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.82). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in linkage to clinical assessment/treatment between arms (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.57). No studies measured screening frequency or social harms/adverse events.

Conclusion

A growing evidence base, mainly from high-income countries and with significant heterogeneity, suggests HPV self-sampling can increase cervical cancer screening uptake compared with standard of care, with a marginal effect on linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.

Systematic review registration number

PROSPERO CRD42018114871.

Prevention of Cervical Cancer: Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3 Level, AWMF Register Number 015/027OL, December 2017) - Part 2 on Triage, Treatment and Follow-up

Aims Annual opportunistic screening for cervical carcinoma has been done in Germany since 1971. The creation of this S3 guideline meets an important need, outlined in the National Cancer Plan, with regard to screening for cervical cancer, as this guideline aims to provide important information and support for planned organized screening for cervical cancer in Germany. Methods With the financial support of German Cancer Aid, 21 professional societies developed evidence-based statements and recommendations (classified using the GRADE system) for the screening, management and treatment of precancerous conditions of the cervix. Two independent scientific institutes compiled systematic reviews for this guideline. Recommendations The second part of this short summary deals with the triage, treatment and follow-up care of cervical dysplasia. With regard to those women who do not participate in screening, the guideline authors recommend sending out repeat invitation letters or an HPV self-collection kit. Colposcopy should be carried out for further investigation if cytology findings are Pap II-p and HPV test results are positive or if the results of an HPV 16 or HPV 18 screening test are positive. A single abnormal Pap smear should be triaged and investigated using HPV testing or p16/Ki67 dual staining.

HPV-based cervical screening: Rationale, expectations and future perspectives of the new Dutch screening programme

Based on scientific data showing that HPV testing provides better protection against cervical precancer and cancer than cytology, in 2011 the Dutch Health Council advised the Minister of Welfare, Health and Sports to replace cytology by HPV testing in the Dutch population-based screening programme. After a successful evaluation of the feasibility of HPV-based screening in 2014, primary HPV testing for cervical screening was implemented in 2017. The Netherlands has been one of the first countries worldwide to implement nationwide HPV-based screening and its experience with the new programme is therefore followed with great interest. In this manuscript, we present an overview of the studies that were instrumental in the choice of HPV assay and triage strategy, the adjustment of screening starting and exit ages and intervals, and the implementation of HPV self-sampling. Finally, we review the cost-effectiveness of the proposed new screening algorithm and we explore future perspectives. The rationale behind the new Dutch HPV-based screening programme, which is based on risk management, could serve as a guidance to other countries that are planning to implement HPV-based screening in the near future.

Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women.

DESIGN

Updated meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review).

REVIEW METHODS

Accuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women.

RESULTS

56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman's home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I²>95%).

CONCLUSIONS

When used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.

Home Self-Collection by Mail to Test for Human Papillomavirus and Sexually Transmitted Infections

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity and acceptability of at-home self-collection to test for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and sexually transmitted infections among women overdue for cervical cancer screening by national guidelines.

METHODS

Low-income, infrequently screened women were recruited from the general population in North Carolina to participate in an observational study. Participants provided two self-collected cervicovaginal samples (one at home and one in the clinic) and a clinician-collected cervical sample. Samples were tested for high-risk HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Mycoplasma genitalium. Cervical samples were also tested by liquid-based cytology.

RESULTS

Overall, 193 women had conclusive high-risk HPV results for all three samples and cytology results. Prevalence of high-risk HPV within self-home samples (12.4%) was not different from that within clinician samples (11.4%; P=.79) and from that within self clinic samples (15.5%; P=.21). Positivity for high-risk HPV in all sample types increased with increasing grades of cervical abnormality (P<.001). Self-home samples detected high-risk HPV in all identified cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse. Detection was comparable across sample types for T vaginalis (range 10.2-10.8%), M genitalium (3.3-5.5%), C trachomatis (1.1-2.1%), and N gonorrhoeae (0-0.5%). Kappa values between sample types ranged from 0.56 to 0.66 for high-risk HPV, 0.86-0.91 for T vaginalis, and 0.65-0.83 for M genitalium. Most participants reported no difficulty understanding self-collection instructions (93.6%) and were willing to use self-collection in the future (96.3%).

CONCLUSION

Mail-based, at-home self-collection for high-risk HPV and sexually transmitted infection detection was valid and well accepted among infrequently screened women in our study. These findings support the future use of high-risk HPV self-collection to increase cervical cancer screening rates among higher risk women in the United States.

Randomised study of HPV prevalence and detection of CIN2+ in vaginal self-sampling compared to cervical specimens collected by medical personnel

We conducted a randomised study to compare vaginal self-sampling with assisted sampling by medical personnel on the cervix for HPV testing in primary screening. The first aim was to determine if the HPV prevalence is independent of sampling location (vagina versus cervix) and the person performing the sampling. The second aim was to evaluate if the two sampling strategies differed in the detection rate of CIN2+. In total, 19,523 women were randomised into two groups, with 9926 invited to perform self-sampling (SS arm) using the Rover VIBA-brush and 9597 offered assisted sampling using the cytobrush (AS arm). All samples were applied to the indicating FTA elute card and analysed for high-risk HPV using the hpVIR real-time PCR assay. The outcome for the first aim was HPV prevalence and for the second aim the number of CIN2+ based on histology. In the SS arm, 52.7% of invited women participated in the study, as compared to 34.2% in the AS arm. All samples contained sufficient amount of nuclear DNA for a valid HPV result, with vaginal samples having a higher DNA amount than cervical samples (p < 4.62 × 10^-11 ). HPV prevalence was 4.6% in the SS arm and 4.1% in the AS arm (p = 5.5 × 10^-2 ), and the distribution of HPV types similar between arms. There was no difference in the prevalence of CIN2+ per 1000 women screened between arms (p = 0.86). The results show that vaginal self-sampling is an equivalent alternative to sampling by medical personnel for HPV typing and identification of CIN2+.

Randomised trial of HPV self-sampling among non-attenders in the Slovenian cervical screening programme ZORA: comparing three different screening approaches

Background

To overcome obstacles within the Slovenian organised cervical cancer screening programme, a randomised pilot study of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among non-attenders was performed, aiming to assess three different screening approaches.

Participants and methods

Non-attenders aged 30–64 years from two Slovenian regions were randomised to two HPV self-sampling groups–the opt-in (I1, n = 14.400) and the opt-out (I2, n = 9.556), with a control group (P, n = 2.600). Self-collected samples were analysed using the Hybrid Capture 2 assay. HPV-positive women were invited to a colposcopy. The overall and type-specific intention-to-screen response rates and histological outcomes with a positive predictive value (PPV) according to the women’s age, the screening approach, the level of protection resulting from previous screening history, and the region of residence were assessed.

Results

Of the 26.556 women enrolled, 8.972 (33.8%) responded with self-sample for HPV testing and/or traditional cytology within one year of enrolment. Response rates were 37.7%, 34.0% and 18.4% (p < 0.050) for opt-out, opt-in and control groups. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ was diagnosed in 3.9/1.000, 3.4/1.000, and 3.1/1.000 women (p > 0.050), respectively. PPV of the HPV self-sampling was 12.0% and 9.6% for CIN2+ and CIN3+. The highest PPV was obtained in non-attenders in screening programme for more than 10-years and concordant results of HPV testing with 40.8% for CIN2+ and 38.8% for CIN3+.

Conclusions

The results of our study show that a high response to HPV self-sampling can be achieved also in an opt-in approach, if women are encouraged to choose between self-sampling at home and screening with gynaecologist. In addition, clinically important risk difference for a high-grade cervical lesion exists in the case of a positive result of HPV testing on self-collected samples, depending on the length of the interval since last screening. Stratified management of these women should be strongly considered. Women who were not screened with cytology for at least 10 years should be referred to immediate colposcopy for histology verification instead to delayed re-testing.

Feasibility, validity and acceptability of self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in rural Malawi

Aim

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently endorsed human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a cervical cancer screening method in countries without established programs. Self-collection for HPV testing may be an effective way to expand screening. Our objective was to assess the feasibility, validity, and acceptability of self-collection for HPV testing in a population of care-seeking, unscreened women in rural Malawi.

Methods

We enrolled women reporting to a rural Malawian clinic from January to August 2015. Participants were offered the option to self-collect a vaginal sample and the study clinician collected a cervical sample for HPV testing. Using the clinician-collected sample as the reference standard, we calculated a kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity by hr-HPV type. Participants also received a brief survey assessing acceptability of the procedure.

Results

Among the 199 enrolled women, 22% had any high risk-HPV. Comparing self- and clinician-collected samples for HPV testing, we found generally high agreement (ϰ = 0.66-0.90) and high specificity (98%-100%), but varied sensitivity (50%-91%) for different types of hr-HPV. We also found that self-collection was acceptable, with 98% of women reporting it was easy to do and 99% reporting willingness to do so again.

Conclusions

WHO guidelines recommend that treatment is available immediately after a positive screening test for clinic-based cervical cancer screening programs. Our findings demonstrate that self-collection of samples for HPV testing is a feasible and acceptable method of cervical cancer screening in this rural Malawian population. High agreement between the self- and clinician-collected samples and high levels of acceptability among women in the study suggest that self-collection of vaginal samples for HPV testing may be effectively incorporated into screening programs among rural, largely unscreened populations.

A randomized, controlled trial of two strategies of offering the home-based HPV self-sampling test to non- participants in the Flemish cervical cancer screening program

We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate different strategies of offering an HPV-self sampling program, and compared this with two control groups. All total of 35,354 women who did not participate in the Flemish cancer screening program were included in the study: 9,118 received a HPV self-collection brush (RIATOL qPCR HPV genotyping test (qPCR [E6/E7]); 9,098 were offered the opportunity to order an HPV-selfsampling brush, 8,830 received the recall letter; 8,849 received no intervention. Within 12 months after the mailing, 18.7% of the women who had received the brush, participated by returning a self-sample sample, while 10.6% women allocated to the opt- in group did so. 10.5% women who received the standard recall letter, had a PAP smear taken within a period of 12 months; while 8% women did so without receiving an intervention at all. Participation in postmenopausal women was higher than in women younger than 50 in both self-sampling arms. Screening by means of the self-sample kit increased by age, contradictory when screening is performed by a PAP smear. Of those testing hrHPV positive (9.5%), 88.9% attended for follow up cytology. The mean DNA concentration, found in the self-sampler, decreased by age, causing a higher number of inconclusive results. Our results support the efficacy of a self-sampling strategy to increase participation in the Flemish screening program. Self-sampling seems particularly acceptable to postmenopausal non-responders. Future research should focus on the performance of different self-sampling devices in post-menopausal women as low DNA concentrations exponentially increased over age.

Identification and Validation of a 3-Gene Methylation Classifier for HPV-Based Cervical Screening on Self-Samples

Purpose: Offering self-sampling of cervico-vaginal material for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is an effective method to increase the coverage in cervical screening programs. Molecular triage directly on hrHPV-positive self-samples for colposcopy referral opens the way to full molecular cervical screening. Here, we set out to identify a DNA methylation classifier for detection of cervical precancer (CIN3) and cancer, applicable to lavage and brush self-samples.Experimental Design: We determined genome-wide DNA methylation profiles of 72 hrHPV-positive self-samples, using the Infinium Methylation 450K Array. The selected DNA methylation markers were evaluated by multiplex quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP) in both hrHPV-positive lavage (n = 245) and brush (n = 246) self-samples from screening cohorts. Subsequently, logistic regression analysis was performed to build a DNA methylation classifier for CIN3 detection applicable to self-samples of both devices. For validation, an independent set of hrHPV-positive lavage (n = 199) and brush (n = 287) self-samples was analyzed.Results: Genome-wide DNA methylation profiling revealed 12 DNA methylation markers for CIN3 detection. Multiplex qMSP analysis of these markers in large series of lavage and brush self-samples yielded a 3-gene methylation classifier (ASCL1, LHX8, and ST6GALNAC5). This classifier showed a very good clinical performance for CIN3 detection in both lavage (AUC = 0.88; sensitivity = 74%; specificity = 79%) and brush (AUC = 0.90; sensitivity = 88%; specificity = 81%) self-samples in the validation set. Importantly, all self-samples from women with cervical cancer scored DNA methylation-positive.Conclusions: By genome-wide DNA methylation profiling on self-samples, we identified a highly effective 3-gene methylation classifier for direct triage on hrHPV-positive self-samples, which is superior to currently available methods. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3456-64. ©2018 AACR.

Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing: Increased Cervical Cancer Screening Participation and Incorporation in International Screening Programs

In most industrialized countries, screening programs for cervical cancer have shifted from cytology (Pap smear or ThinPrep) alone on clinician-obtained samples to the addition of screening for human papillomavirus (HPV), its main causative agent. For HPV testing, self-sampling instead of clinician-sampling has proven to be equally accurate, in particular for assays that use nucleic acid amplification techniques. In addition, HPV testing of self-collected samples in combination with a follow-up Pap smear in case of a positive result is more effective in detecting precancerous lesions than a Pap smear alone. Self-sampling for HPV testing has already been adopted by some countries, while others have started trials to evaluate its incorporation into national cervical cancer screening programs. Self-sampling may result in more individuals willing to participate in cervical cancer screening, because it removes many of the barriers that prevent women, especially those in low socioeconomic and minority populations, from participating in regular screening programs. Several studies have shown that the majority of women who have been underscreened but who tested HPV-positive in a self-obtained sample will visit a clinic for follow-up diagnosis and management. In addition, a self-collected sample can also be used for vaginal microbiome analysis, which can provide additional information about HPV infection persistence as well as vaginal health in general.

Preventing cervical cancer using HPV self-sampling: direct mailing of test-kits increases screening participation more than timely opt-in procedures - a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cervical cancer screening participation remains insufficient in most countries. Our aim was to evaluate whether offering a HPV self-sampling kit, either mailed directly to the woman’s home or using timely opt-in procedures for ordering the kit, increased screening participation compared with a standard second reminder.

Methods

In this randomized, controlled effectiveness trial, 9791 Danish women aged 30–64 who were due to receive the second reminder were equally randomized to either: 1) direct mailing of a second reminder and a self-sampling kit (directly mailed group); 2) mailing of a second reminder that offered a self-sampling kit to be ordered by e-mail, text message, phone, or webpage (opt-in group); or 3) mailing of a second reminder to attend regular cytology screening (control group). In an intention-to-treat analysis, we estimated the participation rate at 180 days post intervention, by returning a self-sample or attending regular cytology screening. We calculated the proportion of women with a positive HPV self-sample who attended for cervical cytology triage at the general practitioner within 90 days.

Results

Participation was significantly higher in the directly mailed group (38.0%) and in the opt-in group (30.9%) than in the control group (25.2%) (participation difference (PD): 12.8%, 95% CI: 10.6–15.0% and PD: 5.7%, 95% CI: 3.5–7.9%, respectively). Within 90 days, 107 women (90.7%, 95% CI: 83.9–95.3%) with a HPV-positive self-sample attended follow-up.

Conclusions

Offering the opportunity of HPV self-sampling as an alternative to regular cytology screening increased participation; the direct mailing strategy was the most effective invitation strategy. A high compliance with follow-up was seen.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials NCT02680262. Registered 10 February 2016.

Randomised study shows that repeated self-sampling and HPV test has more than two-fold higher detection rate of women with CIN2+ histology than Pap smear cytology

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.85.

A cluster randomised trial of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC)

BACKGROUND

Falling participation by young women in cervical screening has been observed at a time that has seen an increase in the incidence of cervical cancer in the UK in women aged < 35 years. Various barriers to screening have been documented, including fear, embarrassment and inconvenience.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the feasibility, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a range of interventions to increase the uptake of cervical screening among young women.

DESIGN

A cluster randomised trial based on general practices performed in two phases.

SETTING

Primary care in Greater Manchester and the Grampian region in Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

Phase 1: 20,879 women receiving their first invitation for cervical screening. Phase 2: 10,126 women who had not attended by 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Phase 1: pre-invitation leaflet or not, and access to online booking (Manchester only). Phase 2: (1) vaginal self-sampling kits (SSKs) sent unrequested (n = 1141); or (2) offered on request (n = 1290); (3) provided with a timed appointment (n = 1629); (4) offered access to a nurse navigator (NN) (n = 1007); or (5) offered a choice between a NN or a SSK (n = 1277); and 3782 women in control practices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Uplift in screening compared with control practices, cost-effectiveness of interventions, and the women's preferences explored in a discrete choice experiment.

RESULTS

The pre-invitation leaflet and offer of online booking were ineffective when compared with control practices at 3 months, 18.8% versus 19.2% [odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.06; p = 0.485] and 17.8% versus 17.2% (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; p = 0.802), respectively. The uptake of screening at 3 months was higher among previously human papillomavirus (HPV)-vaccinated women than unvaccinated women, 23.7% versus 11% (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.53; p < 0.001). Among non-attenders, the SSK sent intervention showed a statistically significant increase in uptake at 12 months post invitation, 21.3% versus 16.2% (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.91; p = 0.001), as did timed appointments, 19.8% versus 16.2% (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.74; p = 0.001). The offer of a NN, a SSK on request, and a choice between timed appointments and NN were ineffective. Overall, there was a gradual rather than prompt response, as demonstrated by uptake among control practices. A discrete choice experiment indicated that women invited who had not yet attended valued the attributes inherent in self-sampling. The health economic analysis showed that both timed appointments and unsolicited SSK sent were likely to be cost-effective at a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £7593 and £8434, respectively, if extended across the national 25-year-old cohort throughout the duration of screening. The certainty of these being cost-effective at a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per QALY gained was > 90%.

CONCLUSION

Women receiving their initial screening invitation frequently delay taking up the offer and the net impact of interventions was small. Timed appointments and SSKs sent to non-attenders at 6 months are likely to be a cost-effective means of increasing uptake and should be considered further. HPV vaccination in the catch-up programme was associated with an increased uptake of cervical screening. Future work should focus on optimising self-sampling in terms of age range, timing of offer for non-attenders and use of urine testing instead of vaginal samples.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52303479.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing among rural young women of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a major problem in women and it is important to find a suitable and acceptable screening method, especially among young in low-resource areas for future human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine follow-up investigations. The study sought to test the acceptability of self-sampling as well as the suitability of the specimen collecting devices.

METHODS

Ninety-eight young women from rural KwaZulu-Natal were enrolled between March and July 2014. Collected genital specimens were transferred to colour indicator cards for HPV detection. Participants answered a questionnaire where they described their experiences with self-sampling. Samples were tested for high-risk HPV using GP5/6+ PCR.

RESULTS

Of the enrolled participants, 91 answered questionnaires and indicated that self-sampling was preferred by 51/91 (56%) women while 40/91 (44%) indicated preference for sampling by a doctor (p = 0.023). The majority, 64% were comfortable using a swab, 22% preferred a brush while 11% were comfortable with both devices. Of the 98 self-sampled specimens 61 were negative for HPV in both specimens while 37 were HPV-positive in either brush or swab. Of the 37, 26 (70%) were HPV-positive in both brush and swab (kappa = 0.743) and 11 (30%) were discordant.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling was acceptable to the majority of participants in this rural area. The Dacron swab was the preferred device, and can be used in combination with colour indicator cards for comfortable self-sampling, easy storage and transport of specimens plus detection.

Rationale and design of the HOME trial: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in a U.S. healthcare system

Women who delay or do not attend Papanicolaou (Pap) screening are at increased risk for cervical cancer. Trials in countries with organized screening programs have demonstrated that mailing high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to under-screened women increases participation, but U.S. data are lacking. HOME is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial set within a U.S. integrated healthcare delivery system to compare two programmatic approaches for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in under-screened women (>3.4years since last Pap) aged 30-64years: 1) usual care (annual patient reminders and ad hoc outreach by clinics) and 2) usual care plus mailed hrHPV self-screening kits. Over 2.5years, eligible women were identified through electronic medical record (EMR) data and randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control arm. Women in the intervention arm were mailed kits with pre-paid envelopes to return samples to the central clinical laboratory for hrHPV testing. Results were documented in the EMR to notify women's primary care providers of appropriate follow-up. Primary outcomes are detection and treatment of cervical neoplasia. Secondary outcomes are cervical cancer screening uptake, abnormal screening results, and women's experiences and attitudes towards hrHPV self-sampling and follow-up of hrHPV-positive results (measured through surveys and interviews). The trial was designed to evaluate whether a programmatic strategy incorporating hrHPV self-sampling is effective in promoting adherence to the complete screening process (including follow-up of abnormal screening results and treatment). The objective of this report is to describe the rationale and design of this pragmatic trial.

Acceptability and ease of use of mailed HPV self-collection among infrequently screened women in North Carolina

OBJECTIVES

Self-collection of cervico-vaginal samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has the potential to make cervical cancer screening more accessible to underscreened women. We evaluated the acceptability and ease of use of home-based HPV self-collection within a diverse population of low-income, infrequently screened women.

METHODS

Participants were low-income women from North Carolina who had not received Pap testing in 4 or more years. Eligible women received a self-collection kit containing instructions and a brush for home-based sample collection. A total of 227 women returned a self-collected sample by mail and completed a questionnaire to assess their experiences with HPV self-collection. We described acceptability measures and used logistic regression to identify predictors of overall positive thoughts about the self-collection experience.

RESULTS

Nearly all women were willing to perform HPV self-collection again (98%) and were comfortable receiving the self-collection kit in the mail (99%). Overall, 81% of participants reported positive thoughts about home-based self-collection. Women with at least some college education and those who were divorced, separated or widowed were more likely to report overall positive thoughts. Aspects of self-collection that participants most commonly reported liking included convenience (53%), ease of use (32%) and privacy (23%). The most frequently reported difficulties included uncertainty that the self-collection was done correctly (16%) and difficulty inserting the self-collection brush (16%).

CONCLUSIONS

Home-based self-collection for HPV was a highly acceptable screening method among low-income, underscreened women and holds the promise to increase access to cervical cancer screening in this high-risk population.

High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-sampling compared to physician-taken smear in a responder population of the Dutch cervical screening: Results of the VERA study

In 2017 the cervical cancer screening program in The Netherlands will be revised. Cervical smears will primarily be tested for the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) instead of cytology, and vaginal self-sampling will be offered to non-responders. This includes a potential risk that part of the women who would otherwise opt for a cervical smear will wait for self-sampling. However, self-sampling for hrHPV in a responder population has never been studied yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the applicability and accuracy of self-sampling in detecting hrHPV in a screening responder population. A total of 2049 women, aged 30-60years, participating in the screening program in The Netherlands were included from April 2013 to May 2015. After they had their cervical smear taken, women self-collected a cervicovaginal sample with a brush-based device, the Evalyn Brush. Both the cervical smear and self-sample specimen were tested with the COBAS 4800 HPV platform. The hrHPV prevalence was 8.0% (95% CI 6.9-9.2) among the physician-taken samples, and 10.0% (95% CI 8.7-11.3) among the self-samples. There was 96.8% (95% CI 96.0-97.5) concordance of hrHPV prevalence between self-samples and physician-taken samples. Women in our study evaluated self-sampling as convenient (97.1%), user-friendly (98.5%), and 62.8% preferred self-sampling over a physician-taken sampling for the next screening round. In conclusion, self-sampling showed high concordance with physician-taken sampling for hrHPV detection in a responder screening population and highly acceptable to women. Implementation of HPV-self-sampling for the responder population as a primary screening tool may be considered.

Comparing self- and provider-collected swabbing for HPV DNA testing in female-to-male transgender adult patients: a mixed-methods biobehavioral study protocol

Background

Cervical cancer, nearly all cases of which are caused by one of several high-risk strains of the human papillomavirus (hr-HPV), leads to significant morbidity and mortality in individuals with a cervix. Trans masculine (TM) individuals were born with female reproductive organs and identify as male, man, transgender man, or another diverse gender identity different from their female assigned sex at birth. Routine preventive sexual health screening of TM patients is recommended, including screening for cervical cancer and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs); however, as many as one in three TM patients are not up-to-date per recommended U.S. guidelines. Among cisgender (non-transgender) women, self-swab hr.-HPV DNA testing as a primary cervical cancer screening method and self-swab specimen collection for other STIs have high levels of acceptability. No study has yet been conducted to compare the performance and acceptability of self- and provider-collected swabs for hr.-HPV DNA testing and other STIs in TM patients.

Methods

This article describes the study protocol for a mixed-methods biobehavioral investigation enrolling 150 sexually active TM to (1) assess the clinical performance and acceptability of a vaginal self-swab for hr.-HPV DNA testing compared to provider cervical swab and cervical cytology, and (2) gather acceptability data on self-collected specimens for other STIs. Study participation entails a one-time clinical visit at Fenway Health in Boston, MA comprised of informed consent, quantitative assessment, venipuncture for syphilis testing and HIV (Rapid OraQuick) testing, randomization, collection of biological specimens/biomarkers, participant and provider satisfaction survey, and qualitative exit interview. Participants are compensated $100. The primary study outcomes are concordance (kappa statistic) and performance (sensitivity and specificity) of self-collected vaginal HPV DNA specimens vs provider-collected cervical HPV swabs as a gold standard.

Discussion

This study addresses critical gaps in current clinical knowledge of sexual health in TM patients, including comparing alternative strategies for screening and diagnosis of cervical cancer, hr.-HPV, and other STIs. Findings have implications for improving the delivery of sexual health screening to this often overlooked and underserved patient population. Less-invasive patient-centered strategies may also generalize to other at-risk cisgender female populations that face barriers to timely and needed STI and cervical cancer screening.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02401867

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2539-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.