Patterns of anxiety and distress over 12 months following participation in HPV primary screening

Psychological Impact of the Galleri test (sIG(n)al): protocol for a longitudinal evaluation of the psychological impact of receiving a cancer signal in the NHS-Galleri trial

INTRODUCTION

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests look for cancer signals in cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid. These tests have the potential to detect cancers at an earlier (asymptomatic) stage, improving cancer outcomes. Any screening method needs careful consideration of the psychological harms prior to implementation. The aim of this research is to explore the psychological impact of having a cancer signal detected following an MCED blood test.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project is embedded in the NHS-Galleri trial (ISRCTN91431511; NCT05611632), a large clinical trial in eight Cancer Alliances in England. In the trial, over 140 000 members of the general population aged 50-77 have been randomised 1:1 to either the intervention (blood tested with MCED test) or control (blood stored) arm. The proposed project focuses on participants in the intervention arm, who have a cancer signal detected. All participants who have a cancer signal detected (expected to be around 700 assuming a 1% test positive rate) will be sent a questionnaire at three timepoints: soon after receiving their result, 6 months and approximately 12 months later. The primary outcome is anxiety, assessed using the short-form 6-item Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory. We will also assess the psychological consequences of screening (using the Psychological Consequences of Screening Questionnaire), reassurance/concern about the test result, understanding of results and help/health-seeking behaviour. A subsample of 40 participants (20 with a cancer diagnosis and 20 for whom no cancer was found) will be invited to take part in a one-to-one semistructured interview.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this work has been granted by the Wales Research Ethics Committee as part of the NHS-Galleri trial (Ref 21/WA/0141). Consent to be sent questionnaires is collected as part of the main trial. A separate consent form will be required for interview. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Testing key messages about extending cervical screening intervals

OBJECTIVES

We tested the impact of different messages about the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals on acceptability of an extension.

METHODS

Women in England aged 25-49 years (n = 2931) were randomised to a control group or one of 5 groups given different messages about extending cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years. Outcome measures were general acceptability and six components from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).

RESULTS

The groups who saw additional messages (47-63%) were more likely to find the change acceptable than controls (43%). Messages about interval safety, test accuracy and speed of cell changes resulted in more positive affective-attitudes, higher ethicality beliefs, a better understanding of the reasons for extended intervals and greater belief in the safety of 5-year intervals. Being up-to-date with screening and previous abnormal results were associated with finding 5-yearly screening unacceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Emphasising the slow development of cell changes following an HPV negative result and the safety of longer intervals, alongside the accuracy of HPV primary screening is important.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Campaigns explaining the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals are likely to improve acceptability. Though women who feel at increased risk, may remain worried even when the rationale is explained.

Extension of cervical screening intervals with primary human papillomavirus testing: observational study of English screening pilot data

OBJECTIVES

To provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Real world data from the English HPV screening pilot's first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019).

PARTICIPANTS

1 341 584 women.

INTERVENTIONS

Cervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Detection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test.

RESULTS

For women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50).

CONCLUSIONS

These data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.

Psychosocial impact of testing HPV positive in Australia’s HPV‐based cervical screening program: a cross‐sectional survey

Objective

To examine the impact of self‐reported human papillomavirus (HPV) test result (HPV negative, HPV positive, HPV result unknown) on a range of psychosocial outcomes.

Methods

Women and other people with a cervix in Australia aged 25–74 years who reported having participated in cervical screening since December 2017 were recruited through Facebook and Instagram to complete an online survey. The primary outcome measures were anxiety, emotional distress, and general distress.

Results

Nine hundred fifteen participants completed the online survey; 73.2% reported testing HPV negative (‘HPV−’), 15% reported testing HPV positive (‘HPV+’) and 11.8% reported that they did not know/remember their test result (‘HPV unknown’). Compared to participants testing HPV−, participants testing HPV+ had higher mean anxiety (41.67 vs. 37.08, p < 0.001) and emotional distress scores (11.88 vs. 7.71, p < 0.001). Concern about test result (34.3% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001), perceived risk compared to average women (55.4% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001), and cancer worry (27.8% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001) were also greater among HPV+ participants than participants testing HPV−. Participants testing HPV+ felt less reassured about their screening result than participants testing HPV− (16% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). Participants testing HPV+ had greater knowledge of HPV (11.96 vs. 10.36 out of 16, p < 0.001) and HPV testing (3.94 vs 3.28 out of 5, p < 0.001) than participants who reported testing HPV−.

Conclusions

Elevated levels of anxiety and emotional distress were found in those testing HPV+ compared with those testing HPV−. Future research should examine what strategies should be used to deliver test results and what additional information is provided, in order to alleviate anxiety among individuals testing HPV+.

Anxiety and emotional distress are significantly greater in individuals who report testing human papillomavirus positive (HPV+)

Knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) is high in individuals who report testing HPV+, but there are still some significant knowledge gaps

Future research is needed to examine how individuals should best receive HPV test results, and what resources should be provided