Should Self-Sampling Be an Option for Women in the United States?

Building Capacity for Cervical Cancer Prevention in U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands: The Pacific Against Cervical Cancer Project

The U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) have higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates and lower screening coverage compared with the United States. This is likely because of economic, geographical, health care delivery, and cultural barriers for women living in these resource-constrained, isolated regions. The most recent U.S. and World Health Organization cervical cancer screening guidelines recommended primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as one screening option or the preferred screening modality. Primary HPV screening-based strategies offer several advantages over current screening methods in the USAPI. However, adoption of this newer screening modality has been slow in the United States and not yet incorporated into USAPI screening programs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and partners initiated the Pacific Against Cervical Cancer (PACe) project in 2019 to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of primary HPV testing-based strategies in Guam and in Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. This report provides an overview of the PACe project and outlines the approaches we took in implementing primary HPV testing as a new cervical cancer screening strategy (including the option of self-sampling in Yap), encompassing four core components: (1) community engagement and education, (2) medical and laboratory capacity building, (3) health information and system improvement, and (4) modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis. The PACe project provides examples of systematic implementation and resource appropriate technologies to the USAPI, with broader implications for never screened and under-screened populations in the United States and Pacific as they face similar barriers to accessing cervical cancer screening services.

"Barriers and Advantages of Self-Sampling Tests, for HPV Diagnosis: A Qualitative Field Experience Before Implementation in a Rural Community in Ecuador"

Introduction

Cervical cancer screening has demonstrated high efficacy in reducing cervical cancer mortality worldwide. However, clinician sampling is often perceived as an uncomfortable procedure that could reduce screening uptake. Self-sampling methods for HPV diagnosis have shown high sensitivity, which could increase acceptance and screening rates among women.

Purpose

This study aims to identify the perceived barriers and advantages of self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling for cervical cancer screening in a rural setting in Ecuador.

Patients and Methods

A qualitative study was conducted. Seven focus group discussions took place in the rural Parish of El Valle in Azuay Province, Cuenca, Ecuador. Women native to this rural area were included in the study. FGDs were recorded and transcribed, and content analysis was performed to categorize and analyze the data.

Results

A total of 45 women participated in the study. Clinician sampling was perceived as a painful and intrusive method. However, participants believed that it is more reliable compared to self-sampling methods, attributing this to the direct visualization of the cervix, which facilitates the detection of cervical pathologies. The perceived advantages of self-sampling included increased comfort, pain reduction, time savings, the ability to perform the test at home, and the potential for widespread availability through pharmacies or local traditional healers. Nevertheless, doubts about the test's reliability as well as the user's proficiency in self-testing posed barriers to the adoption of this technique.

Conclusion

Self-sampling methods offer several advantages over clinician sampling, such as enhanced privacy, comfort, and accessibility to cancer screening. Barriers primarily revolved around users' proficiency in performing the test and the reliability of the results. Providing training for using self-sampling tests could address these barriers.

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.

Diagnostic study of human papillomavirus DNA detection in cervical and vaginal samples using the filter paper card

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA samples on filter paper in comparison to specimen transport medium (STM).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 42 consecutive women who were prospectively recruited. Each had self-collected vaginal samples on filter paper, physician-collected cervical samples on filter paper, and physician-collected cervical samples in STM. HPV DNA testing was performed with a Hybrid Capture 2 system (Qiagen). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and agreement of filter paper methods with the standard procedure were calculated.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of HPV in STM was 67.5%. Detection of HPV DNA in the physician-collected cervical samples on filter paper had a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100%, and an NPV of 68.4%. The patient's self-sampling on filter paper had a sensitivity of 66.7%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100%, and an NPV of 59.1%. The agreement between STM method and physician-collected sample on filter paper was substantial, (κ = 0.695, P < 0.001), while the agreement between STM and self-collected samples on filter paper was moderate (κ = 0.565, P < 0.001). Most patients reported that self-collection was acceptable (100%), painless (95%), and not embarrassing (95%).

CONCLUSION

Filter paper, with dried self-collected vaginal samples, can be used to detect high-risk HPV with acceptable accuracy.

Reasons for non-attendance to cervical cancer screening and acceptability of HPV self-sampling among Bruneian women: A cross-sectional study

Objective

Uptake for cervical cancer screening remains well below the 80% target as recommended by Brunei’s National Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control plan. We conducted a pilot study to determine the reasons for non-attendance and explore their acceptance of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling as an alternative to the Pap test.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at a primary healthcare center in Brunei, from January to December 2019. We recruited screening non-attendees, defined as women who were eligible for Pap test but who either never, or did not have one within the recommended screening interval of 3 years. This recruitment was done conveniently among women attending outpatient care and/or child health services at the primary healthcare center. Participants were first asked to complete a self-administered paper-based questionnaire on their reasons for screening non-attendance, and then invited for HPV self-sampling. Among those who agreed to participate in HPV self-sampling, they were asked to complete a second questionnaire on the self-sampling procedure and their samples were tested for high-risk HPV (hr-HPV). Results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Result

We enrolled 174 screening non-attendees, out of which 97 (55.7%) also participated in HPV self-sampling. The main reasons for not attending Pap test screening were fear of bad results (16.1%, n = 28); embarrassment (14.9%, n = 26) and lack of time due to home commitments (10.3%, n = 18). When compared to those who agreed to participate in HPV self-sampling, those who declined were significantly older (p = 0.002) and less likely to agree that they are susceptible to cervical cancer (p = 0.023). They preferred to receive Pap test-related information from healthcare workers (59.0%, n = 155), social messaging platforms (28.7%, n = 51) and social media (26.4%, n = 47). HPV self-sampling kits were positively received among the 97 participants, where > 90% agreed on its ease and convenience. Nine (9.3%) tested positive for hr-HPV, out of which eight were non-16/18 HPV genotypes.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that promoting awareness on cervical cancer, clarifying any misconceptions of Pap test results, and highlighting that the disease is preventable and that early detection through screening can facilitate successful treatment would help increase screening uptake among Bruneian non-attendees. Response to HPV self-sampling was highly positive, suggesting the possibility of implementing this strategy in the local setting. Our high detection of non-16/18 HPV genotypes suggest high prevalence of other hr-HPV genotypes in Brunei. Larger studies should be conducted to further validate our findings.

Cervical cancer prevention: Human papillomavirus testing as primary screening

Low- and middle-income countries carry a high burden of preventable cervical cancer cases and deaths. Because human papillomavirus DNA-based testing is increasingly becoming the preferred method of screening for cervical cancer prevention, this commentary discusses next steps and key considerations for its expansion.

Cervical cancer screening in the United States: Challenges and potential solutions for underscreened groups

Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States are generally high, yet certain groups demonstrate disparities in screening and surveillance. Individuals at greatest risk for cervical cancer are often from marginalized or underserved groups who do not participate in regular screening for a variety of reasons. Using the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) Trans-Organ Conceptual Model, including concepts of individual-, provider-, facility-, system-, or policy-level factors, we provide a commentary to highlight reasons for low screening participation among subgroups in the U.S. These include racial and ethnic minorities, rural residents, sexual and gender minorities, those with limited English proficiency, those with particular religious beliefs, and various health conditions. We describe barriers and offer potential solutions for each group. In addition, we discuss cross-cutting barriers to screening including difficulty interacting with the healthcare system (limited knowledge and health literacy, lack of provider recommendation/contact), financial (cost, lack of insurance), and logistical barriers (e.g., lack of usual source of care, competing demands, scheduling issues). Solutions to address these barriers are needed to improve screening rates across all underscreened groups. Changes at state and national policy levels are needed to address health insurance coverage. Mobile screening, ensuring that interpreters are available for all visits, and targeted in reach at non-gynecological visits can further overcome barriers. Employing community outreach workers can increase community demand for screening, and patient navigators can improve adherence to both screening and follow-up diagnostic evaluation. HPV self-sampling can address multiple barriers to cervical cancer screening.

Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.