Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Among a National Sample of Women in the United States

Attitudes toward the American Cancer Society's 2020 cervical cancer screening guidelines: A qualitative study of a national sample of US clinicians

BACKGROUND

The 2020 American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for cervical cancer screening. These guidelines propose two major changes from current practice: initiating screening at age 25 years and using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, and therefore understanding clinician attitudes is important to facilitate practice change.

METHODS

Interviews with a national sample of clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening in a variety of settings explored attitudes toward the two major changes from the 2020 ACS cervical cancer screening guidelines. Clinicians participated in 30- to 60-min interviews exploring their attitudes toward various aspects of cervical cancer screening. Qualitative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seventy clinicians participated from across the United States. Few respondents were initiating screening at age 25 years, and none were using primary HPV testing. However, over half would be willing to adopt these practices if supported by scientific evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional societies, lack of laboratory availability and insurance coverage, limited autonomy within large health care systems, and concerns related to missed disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Few clinicians have adopted screening initiation or primary HPV testing, as recommended by the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to adopting these changes. Implementation may be facilitated via professional organization endorsement, clinician education, and laboratory, health care system, and insurance support.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The main changes to current practices were to initiate screening at age 25 years instead of age 21 years and to screen using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing rather than cytology alone or in combination with HPV testing. We performed in-depth interviews with 70 obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their attitudes toward these guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to changing practice if the changes were supported by evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional medical organizations, logistical issues, and concerns about missed disease.

Experiences and perspectives regarding human papillomavirus self-sampling in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of qualitative evidence

Introduction

Cervical cancer screening coverage remains low in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) due to limited access and low uptake of available services by women. The use of HPV-based self-sampling intervention for cervical cancer screening has the potential to increase screening coverage in the region. This study aimed to analyse qualitative evidence on the experiences and perspectives of women, healthcare workers, and policymakers regarding HPV self-sampling.

Methods

We reviewed qualitative studies from January 2011 to March 2023 in PubMed, Scopus, Medline Ovid, Cochrane, and WEB of Science databases for articles with qualitative data on HPV self-sampling from different countries in SSA. The socio-ecological model was used to guide data analysis and the study findings.

Results

Thirteen qualitative studies were included for analysis, and they revealed themes under the intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, and health systems constructs of the Socio-ecological model. Intrapersonal themes included the acceptability of self-sampling, self-efficacy, and the perceived value of self-sampling. The interpersonal construct had themes such as women's spousal relationships, peer support, and the health worker's relationship with the women. The community construct had two themes: social stigma and misinformation, and the influence of cultural norms and religion. Finally, the health systems construct had themes such as the setting for self-sampling, follow-up availability of treatment services and education and awareness.

Conclusion

This study highlights the factors influencing the acceptability and uptake of an HPV-based self-sampling intervention for cervical cancer screening in SSA. Considering these findings when designing interventions in SSA is crucial to ensure acceptance and demand among end-users. Self-sampling interventions offer the potential to reach many unscreened women and increase cervical cancer screening coverage in SSA, which is an essential strategy towards achieving the World Health Organisation's cervical cancer elimination targets by the close of the century.

Cervical cancer screening and vaccination acceptability and attitudes among Arab American women in Southeastern Michigan: a qualitative study

Among Arab-American women in Michigan, rates of cervical cancer screening are lower than those in non-Hispanic White and Black women in the state. A deep understanding of the Arab community's perspective on cervical cancer screening is needed to address the disparity in rates across populations in Michigan. Arab and Chaldean women across Michigan were invited to participate in Zoom-based focus groups to understand the attitudes, acceptability, and barriers of cervical cancer screening among this population. Four focus groups with a total of 19 women aged 30 to 61 were conducted. The focus groups were conducted in English, Arabic, or both languages. The guided discussion was focused on knowledge of cervical cancer and Human papillomavirus (HPV) and its transmission, attitudes towards HPV vaccination, and attitudes towards cervical cancer screening. HPV self-sampling as an alternative to traditional provider-based screening was specifically discussed as this has been proposed as a way to increase screening in hard-to-reach populations. The conversations revealed insights related to barriers at the individual and community levels for screening and vaccination, attitudes towards preventive health care including screening, a need for accessible women's health literature, and health education. The women also discussed vaccine hesitancy related to HPV and COVID-19, suggesting a need for targeted community interventions.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of self-sampling devices for human Papillomavirus detection: A systematic review

Objective

Cervical cancer screening coverage remains low in many countries worldwide. Self-sampling approach for cervical cancer screening has a good potential to improve the screening coverage. This study aims to compare different types of HPV self-sampling devices for cervical cancer screening to identify the most accurate and acceptable device(s).

Methods

A systematic review was performed on data extracted from all studies specific to HPV self-sampling devices by searching relevant articles in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO published from 2013 to October 2023. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022375682).

Results

Overall, 70 papers met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review and were included in the analysis: 22 studies reported self-sampling devices diagnostic accuracy, 32 studies reported self-sampling devices acceptability and 16 studies reported both (accuracy and acceptability). The most popular self-sampling devices were Evalyn Brush, FLOQ Swab, Cervex-Brush, and Delphi Screener. Out of overall 38 studies analyzing self-sampling devices' diagnostic accuracy, 94.7% of studies reported that self-collected specimens provided sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples; acceptability of Evalyn Brush, FLOQ Swab, Delphi Screener, and Colli-Pee, varied between 84.2% and 100%.

Conclusion

The self-sampling approach has a good potential to increase cervical cancer screening coverage. Evalyn Brush, Cervex-Brush, FLOQ Swab, and Delphi Screener self-sampling devices for HPV detection were the most commonly utilized and found to be the most accurate, and patient-acceptable. HPV detection accuracy using these self-sampling devices had no significant difference compared to the sampling performed by healthcare providers.

HPV self-sampling among women in the United States: preferences for implementation

PURPOSE

With the inclusion of primary HPV testing in 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce guidelines, at-home HPV self-sampling may provide a future option for cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations in the U.S. This study evaluated the association of implementation preferences with the willingness of at-home HPV self-sampling.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in 2018 among U.S. women ages 30-65 years, without a hysterectomy (n = 812). The outcome was willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling (yes/no). Primary predictor variables (i.e., information source, methods of payment, methods of sending or receiving self-sampling kits) measured self-sampling implementation preferences. Adjusted logistic regression identified associations with willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling.

RESULTS

Participants who preferred receiving information from healthcare providers (OR = 2.64; 95% CI 1.54,4.52) or from media or other sources (OR = 2.30; 95% CI 1.51,3.48) had higher HPV self-sampling willingness than participants who did not prefer those sources. Participants who did not want to pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.21; 95% CI 0.14,0.32) or did not know if they would pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.22,0.54) had lower odds of HPV self-sampling willingness compared to participants willing to pay. Participants who did not know which method they preferred for receiving a self-sampling kit (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07,0.31) or preferred delivering the sample to the lab themselves (OR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.36,0.96) had lower odds for self-sampling willingness compared to participants who preferred the mail.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the preferences of women regarding the implementation of HPV self-sampling can improve uptake in cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations.

Preferred Location for Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations among women's preferred locations for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in relation to their demographic, social, and health characteristics and their perceived benefits and concerns regarding this procedure.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, descriptive survey.

SETTING

Online distribution between March 2022 and April 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

People who were assigned female sex at birth and were eligible for cervical cancer screening (N = 367: cis-gender women, n = 364; another gender identity, n = 3).

METHODS

We used quota sampling to obtain a racially and ethnically diverse sample. We conducted bivariate analyses to examine differences in participants' preferred locations for HPV self-sampling by sociodemographic and health characteristics. We used a multinomial logistic regression model to examine the associations between preferred HPV self-sampling location, characteristics of participants, and perceived benefits and concerns regarding this procedure.

RESULTS

In our sample, 43% (n = 158) of participants preferred HPV self-sampling at the office of a health care provider, 50% (n = 182) preferred HPV self-sampling anywhere (office or home), and 7% (n = 27) did not feel comfortable with HPV self-sampling anywhere. Participants 39 to 45 years of age were more likely to prefer HPV self-sampling anywhere (office or home) than participants 27 to 32 years of age, OR = 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.21, 5.06]. Participants who preferred HPV self-sampling anywhere perceived greater benefit related to limited geographic access to a clinic compared to those who preferred office only, OR = 1.82, 95% CI [1.08, 3.07]. Participants who preferred HPV self-sampling anywhere had less concern related to performing the procedure accurately than those who preferred office only, OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.31, 0.62].

CONCLUSION

HPV self-sampling is an alternative strategy to increase cervical cancer screening. As providers consider implementation of HPV self-sampling, our findings suggest that office and home-based collection strategies should be considered to increase access to cervical cancer screening.

Innovations in healthcare delivery: Human papilloma virus self sampling diagnostics and participatory innovations for CCS

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major contributor to the development of cervical cancer, resulting in over 500,000 cases and 266,000 deaths annually worldwide. Previous cervical cancer screening programs have been successful in reducing cervical cancer rates, but have faced challenges such as low acceptance and adherence rates. Innovations in screening technology, such as the HerSwab self-sampling test, have the potential to increase awareness, acceptance, and participation in cervical cancer screening programs.

AIM

This literature review examines the effectiveness of HerSwab and participatory innovations in increasing adherence to cervical cancer screening.

METHOD

This manuscript comprised a comprehensive narrative literature review encompassing the years 2006-2022. The review process adhered to the PRISMA diagram as a guiding framework. Among the search terms utilized, a total of 200 articles were initially retrieved. However, after applying the predefined inclusion criteria, only 57 articles were included.

RESULTS

The HerSwab self-sampling test is described, including how it is performed, challenges, and facilitators, and evaluation and assessment of its effectiveness. While the HerSwab diagnostic test is not currently widely available, studies should assess its feasibility in less developed countries where cervical cancer mortality rates are high.

CONCLUSION

By increasing awareness and availability of innovative screening techniques, such as HerSwab, we can work toward reducing the incidence of cervical cancer and improving outcomes for women worldwide.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Screening Delays

PURPOSE

To examine delays in cancer screenings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Participants from previous studies (N = 32,989) with permissions to be recontacted were invited to complete a survey between June and November 2020. Participants (n = 7,115) who met the age range for cancer screenings were included. Participants were asked if they planned to have and then if they postponed a scheduled mammogram, Pap test, stool blood test, colonoscopy, or human papillomavirus (HPV) test. Logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with cancer screening delays for each planned test.

RESULTS

The average age was 57.3 years, 75% were female, 89% were non-Hispanic White, 14% had public insurance, and 34% lived in rural counties. Those who planned cancer screenings (n = 4,266, 60%) were younger, more likely to be female, with higher education, had private insurance, and lived in rural counties. Specifically, 24% delayed a mammogram (n = 732/2,986), 27% delayed a Pap test (n = 448/1,651), 27% delayed an HPV test (n = 59/220), 11% delayed a stool blood test (n = 44/388), and 36% delayed a colonoscopy (n = 304/840). Age, race/ethnicity, education, and health insurance were associated with delays in cancer screenings (all P < .05). Compared with non-Hispanic White women, non-Hispanic Black women had lower odds of delaying a mammogram (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.94), Hispanic women had higher odds of delaying Pap test (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.34 to 4.55), and women with other race/ethnicity had higher odds of delaying both Pap test (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.41 to 4.02) and HPV test (OR, 5.37; 95% CI, 1.44 to 19.97).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlighted the urgency for health care providers to address the significant delays in cancer screenings in those most likely to delay. Strategies and resources are needed to help those with barriers to receiving guideline-appropriate cancer screening.

Leveraging COVID-era innovation for cervical cancer screening: Clinician awareness and attitudes toward self-sampling and rapid testing for HPV detection

Cervical cancer screening rates are declining in the US, with persistent disparities among vulnerable populations. Strategies to better reach under-screened communities are needed. The COVID pandemic sparked major shifts in healthcare delivery, including the accelerated development and adoption of rapid diagnostic testing, broadened access to remote care, and growing consumer demand for self-testing, which could be leveraged for cervical cancer. Rapid tests for the detection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) have the potential to improve cervical cancer screening coverage, and if coupled with patient-collected cervicovaginal samples, create an opportunity for self-testing. The objectives of this study were: 1) to examine whether COVID influenced clinician perspectives of rapid testing as a screening modality; and 2) to assess clinician awareness, perceived benefits and limitations, and willingness to adopt point-of-care HPV testing, patient self-sampling, and rapid HPV self-testing with self-collected samples. The methodology adopted consisted of an online cross-sectional survey (n = 224) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) were conducted with clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening in Indiana, ranked in the top ten states for cervical cancer mortality and with marked disparities across socio-demographic groups. The main findings show that about half the clinicians reported that the COVID pandemic had influenced their views on rapid testing as a screening modality both positively (greater public acceptability of rapid testing and impact on patient care) and negatively (concerns regarding accuracy of rapid tests). The majority of clinicians (82%) were willing to adopt rapid HPV testing at the point-of-care, while only 48% were willing to adopt rapid HPV self-testing with self-collected samples. In-depth interviews revealed provider concerns around patients' ability to collect their own sample, report results correctly, and return to the clinic for follow-up and other preventive care. Addressing clinician concerns about self-sampling and rapid HPV testing, such as ensuring that rapid tests include sample adequacy controls, is necessary to mitigate barriers to adoption for cervical cancer screening.

Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear

The newest high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection techniques were included for cervical cancer primary screening under the Spanish National Health System in 2019. These analyses allow changing population approaches to foster adherence to screening. Therefore, the validity of self versus conventional sampling for HPV and cytology analyses was appraised. Women's preferences concerning samples and devices were also evaluated. This is a diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study among 120 women recruited from a colposcopy clinic at a general hospital in Illes Balears, Spain. Participants were given written information and asked for a self-sample. One of two sets containing two devices each were handed. One set was transported dry and the second in liquid medium. Next, clinicians collected vaginal samples that were our gold standards. The agreement between both techniques was examined with the Kappa coefficient (κ). Self-sampling evaluation and preferences for different vaginal devices were also surveyed. The agreement between self and conventional samples concerning HPV positivity was very good (κ 0.86 for Mía by XytoTest® and 0.83 for Viba-Brush®) or reasonable (κ 0.73 for Iune and 0.68 for viscose swab). Pap smears from self-samples exhibited moderate agreement (κ 0.41 for Mía® and 0.51 for Viba-Brush® respectively) for negative versus ASC-US and worse results. Most of the participants considered self-sampling as beneficial (110 or 91.7%) and the advantages were, in decreasing order, scheduling, comfort, intimacy and less fear for pain or disturbance. The priority of choice for the devices was Mía® and viscose swab (chosen in first or second place) in opposition to Iune and Viba-Brush® (chosen in third or fourth place). If Viba-Brush® was to collect the best quality samples, 108 women (94.7%) switched their decisions. Our agreement between self and conventional samples was very good or reasonable for HPV, with the best values for devices in a liquid medium, and moderate for cytology. Even so, reflex cytology on self-samples is a valuable tool in promoting adherence. Self-sampling was widely accepted for smooth and thin devices. However, there is no resistance to change to others if a higher quality of the sample is obtained.

Clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-methods study in Indiana

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, in which a high-risk HPV test is administered without cytology, was first included in 2018 US cervical cancer screening guidelines. Subsequent guidelines endorsed primary HPV testing as the preferred method for cervical cancer screening following evidence of its clinical and economic benefits, although many sources still indicate it as an option along with cytology and HPV/Pap co-testing. Primary HPV testing could be key to improving the declining cervical cancer screening rates in the US; however its adoption has been slow as clinicians are hesitant to make the change. Indiana ranks in the top ten states for cervical cancer mortality, with marked race-ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and low HPV vaccination rates. To examine clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary HPV testing, in 2021 we conducted an online cross-sectional survey (n = 224) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) with Indiana clinicians practicing cervical cancer screening. Only 3 % reported using primary HPV testing for eligible patients, and only 50 % were willing to adopt it as the preferred cervical cancer screening method for the recommended patient group. In a multivariable logistic regression model, knowledge of the effectiveness (aOR 2.58 [1.41-4.72]) and perceived benefit (aOR 7.35 [3.65-14.81]) of primary HPV testing predicted willingness to adopt. In-depth interviews revealed knowledge gaps, uncertainty, and perceived limitations of this method as the reasons for limited uptake of primary HPV testing. Targeted messages about the benefits and effectiveness may enhance clinician knowledge, acceptance, and adoption.

Qualitative assessment of attitudes toward cervical cancer (CC) screening and HPV self-sampling among African American (AA) and Sub Saharan African Immigrant (SAI) women

OBJECTIVES

Despite the availability of preventive methods for cervical cancer (CC), uptake has been low among African American and Sub-Saharan Immigrant (AA/SAI) women. The purpose of this study was to understand AA/SAI women's values and beliefs of CC screening and explore willingness, acceptability, and concerns related to the HPV self-sampling method for CC.

DESIGN

Thirty AA/SAI women participated in one of six focus groups, each lasted 60-90 min, and were held over Zoom video conferencing. The sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and checked for accuracy by research staff prior to data analysis. Transcripts were content analyzed by two qualitatively trained research staff. NVivo software was used for data management and analysis.

RESULTS

The average age of participants was 33.67 ± 9.03, more than half were not married (53.3%), and less than half reported having health insurance coverage (46.7%). Participants included 16 AA and 14 SAI. Three main themes emerged from data analysis. (1) Beliefs and values related to CC Screening, (2) perceived barriers to attending CC screening, (3) recommendations to motivate regular CC screening. In addition, three factors emerged in the discussion on the HPV self-sampling method: confidence in ability to self-sample for CC, willingness to use HPV self-sampling kit, and result delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified a variety of reasons for the disproportionately low utilization of CC prevention services among AA/SAI women. Multidimensional approaches including educational and community engagement programs for this population could improve CC screening uptake and adoption of HPV self-sampling among AA/SAI women.

Changes in Cancer Screening in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IMPORTANCE

Health care was disrupted in the US during the first quarter of 2020 with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early reports in selected samples suggested that cancer screening services decreased greatly, but population-based estimates of cancer screening prevalence during 2020 have not yet been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To examine changes in breast cancer (BC), cervical cancer (CC), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence with contemporary national, population-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study included respondents from the 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 BRFSS surveys who were eligible for BC (women aged 50-74 years), CC (women aged 25-64 years), and CRC (women and men aged 50-75 years) screening. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to February 2022.

EXPOSURES

Calendar year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported receipt of a recent (defined as in the past year) BC, CC, and CRC screening test. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) comparing 2020 vs 2018 prevalence and 95% CIs were computed.

RESULTS

In total, 479 248 individuals were included in the analyses of BC screening, 301 453 individuals were included in CC screening, and 854 210 individuals were included in CRC screening, In 2020, among respondents aged 50 to 75 years, 14 815 (11.4%) were Black, 12 081 (12.6%) were Hispanic, 156 198 (67.3%) were White, and 79 234 (29.9%) graduated from college (all percentages are weighted). After 4 years (2014-2018) of nearly steady prevalence, past-year BC screening decreased by 6% between 2018 and 2020 (from 61.6% in 2018 to 57.8% in 2020; aPR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96), and CC screening decreased by 11% (from 58.3% in 2018 to 51.9% in 2020; aPR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.91). The magnitude of these decreases was greater in people with lower educational attainment and Hispanic persons. CRC screening prevalence remained steady; past-year stool testing increased by 7% (aPR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12), offsetting a 16% decrease in colonoscopy (aPR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.82-0.88) between 2018 and 2020.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study, stool testing increased and counterbalanced a decrease in colonoscopy during 2020, and BC and CC screening modestly decreased. How these findings might be associated with outcomes is not yet known, but they will be important to monitor, especially in populations with lower socioeconomic status, who experienced greater screening decreases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Low rates of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening: Challenges and opportunities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

This invited commentary discusses the article by Richards et al. describing differences in rates of on-time HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening in 2018 among enrollees in different insurance plans. The commentary focuses on the larger problem of low vaccination HPV rates and decreasing cervical cancer screening rates seen across all sectors. We outline challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic on HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening, and discuss opportunities to improve cervical cancer prevention.

Perspectives on self-sampling for cancer screening among rural and urban women: Multilevel factors related to acceptability

PURPOSE

Self-sampling tests may be used to overcome barriers to screening that are more prevalent in rural populations compared to urban populations. This study aims to qualitatively examine the attitudes toward established and novel self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer among women, comparing themes from rural versus urban areas.

METHODS

We recruited women (ages 45-65) from 28 counties in Pennsylvania. Four focus groups were conducted with women from metropolitan counties, and 7 focus groups were conducted with women from nonmetropolitan counties. A brief survey was conducted prior to the focus group regarding general health and willingness to complete self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer.

FINDINGS

We identified 3 themes about the potential for self-sampling for cancer screening: advantages and disadvantages of self-sampling compared to traditional testing, impact of self-sampling on patient interactions with their health care providers/clinics, and implications for improving/worsening access to quality health care services. We detected differences in responses from rural versus urban participants in the potential impact of self-sampling for cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that influence the feasibility of implementing self-sampling for cancer screening in routine clinical practice. Rural participants face unique barriers to cancer screening across all levels. These findings can be used to guide interventions aimed at increasing the use of self-sampling methods.

Comparison of Different Self-Sampling Devices for Molecular Detection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs): A Pilot Study

Background: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, and it is well known that high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infections are the necessary carcinogenic factors for the development of cervical tumors. Moreover, the interaction between HPV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) may increase the risk of cancer progression. Self-sampling has been demonstrated to represent a valid and well-accepted alternative, favoring women’s participation in screening programs. This study aimed to investigate the use of FLOQSwabs^® (FS) as compared to two other vaginal self-collection devices for the detection of hrHPV and other sexually transmitted infections. Methods: Cervical and vaginal self-samples were collected, using two different combinations of vaginal self-sampling devices, from 40 women referred to colposcopy for a documented abnormal Pap smear. All samples were tested for hrHPV and seven STI pathogens using two commercial molecular assays. Results: Data on hrHPV detection from the first group of women showed an almost perfect agreement (kappa: 0.89) between cervical vs. FS vaginal self-samples, and a substantial agreement (kappa: 0.79) between cervical and HerSwab™ (HS) samples. In the second group of women, an almost perfect agreement (kappa: 0.90) was demonstrated in the detection of hrHPV between cervical samples vs. FS, and a moderate agreement (kappa: 0.60) for cervical vs. Evalyn^®Brush (EB) self-collected samples. STI detections showed a very good agreement (kappa: 0.89 and kappa: 1.00) both among FS vs. HS and FS vs. EB, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the different devices used. The most frequently detected hrHPV genotypes in the studied population were HPV 16, 31, 35, 51, and 56; whilst the most frequently identified STI pathogens were Ureaplasma parvum and Mycoplasma hominis. Overall, investigated women did not report any discomfort in using the different vaginal self-collection devices. Conclusion: Evaluation of the three different vaginal self-collection devices confirmed their overall good acceptability by the studied population, as well as a similar agreement for hrHPV detection as compared to cervical samples. Our study indicated that the use of self-collected samples offers an alternative strategy to improve women’s participation in cervical cancer screening programs, but also underlined the importance of evaluating the concordance in hrHPV detection of collection devices in combination with the molecular hrHPV assay.

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.

Special ambulatory gynecologic considerations in the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and implications for future practice

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has altered medical practice in unprecedented ways. Although much of the emphasis in obstetrics and gynecology to date has been on the as yet uncertain effects of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy and on changes to surgical management, the pandemic has broad implications for ambulatory gynecologic care. In this article, we review important ambulatory gynecologic topics such as safety and mental health, reproductive life planning, sexually transmitted infections, and routine screening for breast and cervical cancer. For each topic, we review how care may be modified during the pandemic, provide recommendations when possible on how to ensure continued access to comprehensive healthcare at this time, and discuss ways that future practice may change. Social distancing requirements may place patients at higher risk for intimate partner violence and mental health concerns, threaten continued access to contraception and abortion services, affect prepregnancy planning, interrupt routine screening for breast and cervical cancer, increase risk of sexually transmitted infection acquisition and decrease access to treatment, and exacerbate already underlying racial and minority disparities in care and health outcomes. We advocate for increased use of telemedicine services with increased screening for intimate partner violence and depression using validated questionnaires. Appointments for long-acting contraceptive insertions can be prioritized. Easier access to patient-controlled injectable contraception and pharmacist-provided hormonal contraception can be facilitated. Reproductive healthcare access can be ensured through reducing needs for ultrasonography and laboratory testing for certain eligible patients desiring abortion and conducting phone follow-up for medication abortions. Priority for in-person appointments should be given to patients with sexually transmitted infection symptoms, particularly if at risk for complications, while also offering expedited partner therapy. Although routine mammography screening and cervical cancer screening may be safely delayed, we discuss society guideline recommendations for higher-risk populations. There may be an increasing role for patient-collected human papillomavirus self-samples using new cervical cancer screening guidelines that can be expanded considering the pandemic situation. Although the pandemic has strained our healthcare system, it also affords ambulatory clinicians with opportunities to expand care to vulnerable populations in ways that were previously underutilized to improve health equity.

Self-Sampling as a Plausible Alternative to Screen Cervical Cancer Precursor Lesions in a Population with Low Adherence to Screening: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the world. A raised incidence and mortality parallel a low participation rate in screening, namely screening in poor countries and among specific populations of developed countries. Cervical or vaginal self-sampling may increase adherence to screening due to its low costs and elevated sensibility and specificity. Our main goal was to compare self-sampling with physician sampling and to evaluate the participation rate of women formerly non-adherent to cervical cancer screening.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified relevant studies from PubMed. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled the following criteria: women aged between 16 and 80 years, poor and developed countries that use self-sampling, women with a low participation rate in screening and studies published since 2013. After fully reading the articles, data were extracted to an Excel sheet to -display all relevant information in an organized manner. -Results: We identified 18 studies, which altogether enrolled 22,118 women. Self-sampling and physician sampling are quite similar regarding the HPV detection rate. Women have a low participation rate mainly because of limited access to health services, religious and culture beliefs, and lack of time due to several demanding tasks in daily life. Self-sampling shows a significant increase in acceptability and preference compared to physician sampling.

CONCLUSION

Self-sampling is a reliable method to involve women in opportunistic or organized screening programs for cervical cancer prevention.