Self-sample HPV Tests As an Intervention for Nonattendees of Cervical Cancer Screening in Finland: a Randomized Trial

Sociodemographic characteristics associated with cervical cancer screening participation by send-to-all and opt-in HPV self-sampling: Who benefits? Results from a randomized controlled trial among long-term non-attending women in Norway

With the objective to investigate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and participation in interventions designed to increase participation in cervical cancer screening among under-screened women, we randomized a random sample of 6000 women in Norway aged 35-69 years who had not attended cervical screening for ≥10 years to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self-sampling kit (opt-in), or (iii) a self-sampling kit unsolicited (send-to-all). We analyzed how sociodemographic characteristics were associated with screening participation within and between screening arms. In the send-to-all arm, increased screening participation ranged from 17.1% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 10.3% to 23.8%) to 30.0% (95% CI = 21.5% to 38.6%) between sociodemographic groups. In the opt-in arm, we observed smaller, and at times, non-significant increases within the range 0.7% (95% CI = -5.8% to 7.3%) to 19.1% (95% CI = 11.6% to 26.7%). In send-to-all versus control comparisons, there was greater increase in participation for women in the workforce versus not (6.1%, 95% CI = 1.6% to 10.6%), with higher versus lower income (7.6%, 95% CI = 2.2% to 13.1%), and with university versus primary education (8.5%, 95% CI = 2.4% to 14.6%). In opt-in versus control comparisons, there was greater increase in participation for women in the workforce versus not (4.6%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 8.5%), with higher versus lower income (6.3%, 95% CI = 1.5% to 11.1%), but lower increase for Eastern European versus Norwegian background (-12.7%, 95% CI = -19.7% to -5.7%). Self-sampling increased cervical screening participation across all sociodemographic levels, but inequalities in participation should be considered when introducing self-sampling, especially with the goal to reach long-term non-attending women.

The potential benefits of "community champions" in the healthcare system

In a study to understand acceptability and uptake of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) self-sampling, we engaged community champions to lead recruitment and other study activities. This article describes qualitative findings relevant to the role of the community champion. We found that community champions were critical to promoting awareness about and encouraging cervical screening and HPV self-sampling. They were well-connected community members who had healthcare backgrounds, which created trust in their messages. They were highly effective at encouraging screening because of their education and cultural congruency, combined with the time for thorough and clear explanations. Women had an inherent level of comfort with the community champions that often did not exist with their physician. The community champions were seen as being able to address some of the barriers that exist within the healthcare system. We encourage health leaders to consider how this role can be sustainably and meaningfully incorporated into the healthcare system.

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.

Implementation of a Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention for Under- or Never-Screened Women in Ontario, Canada: Understanding the Acceptability of HPV Self-Sampling

With appropriate screening, cervical cancer can be prevented. In Ontario, Canada, some groups of women have low screening rates. South Asian, Middle Eastern and North African women are particularly at risk of under-screening. Currently, cytology-based screening is used in Ontario, although the growing evidence and adoption of HPV testing for cervical screening has encouraged many jurisdictions around the world to move towards HPV testing, with the option of self-sampling. We conducted an intervention beginning in June 2018, where we recruited over 100 under- or never-screened (UNS) women who identify as South or West Asian, Middle Eastern or North African from the Greater Toronto Area, to understand the uptake and acceptability of HPV self-sampling as an alternative to a Pap test. Participants self-selected if they tried the kit or not and completed both quantitative and qualitative research activities. This paper focuses on the qualitative arm of the study, where follow-ups and five focus groups were conducted with those who tried the kit (three groups) and those who did not (two groups), as well as eight key informant interviews with community champions and others who were involved in our recruitment. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide our data collection and analysis. Major themes around convenience, privacy and comfort came from the data as important drivers of the uptake of the intervention. The role of community champions and peers in engaging and educating UNS women, as well as having self-confidence to collect the sample, also came out as factors impacting uptake and plans for continued use. Overall, the intervention showed that HPV self-sampling is an acceptable alternative to a Pap test for some but not all UNS women in Ontario.

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.

Human papillomavirus self-sampling with mRNA testing benefits routine screening

High risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) based screening provides the possibility of vaginal self-sampling as a tool to increase screening attendance. In order to evaluate the impact and feasibility of opt-in self-sampling in the Finnish setting, we invited a randomized population of 5350 women not attending screening after age group invitation or after reminder, to attend HPV self-sampling-based screening in the autumn of 2018 in Helsinki. Out of those, 1282 (24.0%) expressed their interest and ordered the sampling package. Eventually 787 women (14.7% of the total invited population) took part in screening, 770 women by providing a vaginal sample within 2 months from invitation and 17 by providing a pap smear in the laboratory. Self-taken samples were collected in Aptima Multitest vials and tested using the Aptima HPV mRNA assay. A high proportion, 158/770 (20.5%) of the samples were positive in the Aptima HPV assay. One hundred and forty-one samples were further submitted to Aptima HPV Genotyping and extended genotyping by a Luminex based assay. Of those, 23 samples (16.3%) were HPV 16 positive and 7 (5.0%) were positive for HPV 18/45; extended genotyping revealed multiple high-risk and low-risk HPV genotypes. At follow-up seven cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) were diagnosed, which represents 4.4% of HPV positive women and 0.9% of screened women, whereas the rate was 0.5% in routine screening. Our findings suggest that self-sampling with HPV mRNA testing is a feasible approach to improve screening efficacy in a high-risk population among original nonattendees.

Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling if offered as an alternative to clinician-based screening at the point of invitation for cervical screening.

SETTING AND METHODS

An online questionnaire was completed by screening-eligible women living in England (n = 3672). Logistic regressions explored associations between demographic characteristics and screening preferences, stratified by previous screening attendance. Reasons for preferences were also assessed.

RESULTS

Half of participants (51.4%) intended to choose self-sampling, 36.5% preferred clinician screening, 10.5% were unsure, and <2% preferred no screening. More irregular and never attenders chose self-sampling, compared with regular attenders (71.1% and 70.1% vs. 41.0% respectively). Among regular attenders, self-sampling was preferred more frequently by the highest occupational grade, older and lesbian, gay and bisexual women, and those with experience of blood self-tests. In the irregular attender group, older women and those with experience of blood self-tests were more likely to choose self-sampling. In 'never attenders', self-sampling was less popular in ethnic minority groups.

CONCLUSIONS

If offered a choice of screening, around half of women in England may choose self-sampling, but a substantial proportion would still opt for clinician screening. Screening providers will need to manage a high take-up of self-sampling if many regular attenders switch to self-sampling.

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.

Operational experiences from the general implementation of HPV self-sampling to Danish screening non-attenders

The Danish cervical cancer screening program is a cost-free cancer prevention program for all Danish resident women aged 23-64 years. The coverage is 73%, but screening attendance is slowly declining. Notwithstanding, almost half of all newly diagnosed cervical cancers are found amongst screening non-attenders. To increase screening attendance, the Capital Region of Denmark implemented HPV self-sampling as an alternative offer to women not attending the regular screening offer. This was an opt-in offer to 57,717 screening non-attending women in 2017-2018. They received an invitation letter and could opt-in by letter, phone, e-mail, or website. Invitation and return-of-kit reminders were used in the set-up. HPV positive women were recommended to go to their General Practitioner (GP) for a follow-up sample. HPV negative women returned to the ordinary screening program. Of all invited women, 15,501 opted-in (27%). The purpose designed website was the most frequent used method of response, 63% opted in by the HPV-self sampling website. Use of invitation and return-of-kit reminders generated 8.6% and 6.1% additional responses and participation, respectively, underlining the importance of timely communication. Overall, 17% returned the HPV self-sampling kit for analysis. In addition, 14% had a regular clinician collected screening sample after receiving the invitation for self-sampling, leading to a total screening of 31% of the invited women. HPV prevalence was 15% and 92% of the women positive for HPV adhered to the recommended follow-up.

Family-Centered Sexual Health Intervention to Promote Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake Among Low-income Rural Women in India: A Community-Based Mixed-Method Pilot study (Preprint)

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

Human papillomavirus self-sampling for long-term non-attenders in cervical cancer screening: A randomised feasibility study in Estonia

OBJECTIVE

Organised cervical cancer screening was started in Estonia in 2006, but participation is still low. Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling has proved to increase screening uptake. This study addressed the feasibility of HPV self-sampling and the acceptance of this method among long-term screening non-attenders.

METHODS

A randomised intervention study was conducted in Estonia in 2020. Women born in 1958-1983 without a Pap smear in 2013-2019 were identified in the Estonian Health Insurance Fund database. From them, 12,000 women were randomly allocated to three equal-sized study groups. The opt-out group received a questionnaire and a Qvintip® sampling device by regular mail. Two opt-in groups received a questionnaire and an e-mail invitation to order a self-sampler online; one received Qvintip and the other Evalyn® Brush. Participantś background characteristics were obtained from the Population Register. The effect of covariates on participation rate was estimated with multivariate Poisson regression. Acceptance of self-sampling was analysed according to agreement with statements in the questionnaire.

RESULTS

The overall participation rate was 16% with significant differences between opt-out (26%) and opt-in (11%) groups. Compared to the opt-out Qvintip group, adjusted relative risks for the Qvintip and Evalyn Brush opt-in groups were 0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.45) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.40-0.49), respectively. Participation was associated with living place, citizenship, and education. Self-sampling was well accepted: 98% agreed that it was easy to use, 88% preferred it as a screening method in future.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show the feasibility and good acceptance of HPV self-sampling among long-term screening non-attenders in Estonia.

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.

Understanding the Acceptability and Uptake of HPV Self-Sampling Amongst Women Under- or Never-Screened for Cervical Cancer in Toronto (Ontario, Canada): An Intervention Study Protocol

Cervical cancer remains a global public health concern, even though scientific advancements have made the disease almost entirely preventable. With the link between human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer, and the subsequent improvement in screening technology, there is potential to improve access and coverage of cervical screening with the introduction of HPV self-sampling. In Ontario, Canada, a province with a cytology-based screening program (i.e., Pap test), women who identify as South Asian, West Asian, Middle Eastern and North African have some of the lowest rates of screening, and research suggests they have a higher burden of cervical cancer. In this study, we will use both quantitative and qualitative methods to understand the acceptability and uptake of a take-home HPV self-sampling kit. Working with community champions—people with pre-existing connections with local groups—we will recruit women from these groups who are under- or never-screened for cervical cancer. Women will self-select whether they are in the group that tries HPV self-sampling or in the group that does not. We will aim for 100 women in each group. All participants will provide feedback on the feasibility, acceptability and preferences for cervical screening through a survey and phone follow-up. Women who self-select the HPV self-sampling group, will be followed up to find out if they followed through with self-sampling and to understand their experience using the device. Women who do not want to try self-sampling will be followed up to see if they went on to get a Pap test. The qualitative phase of this study consists of five focus groups with participants and semi-structured interviews with key informants in the community.

Female health-care providers' advocacy of self-sampling after participating in a workplace program for cervical cancer screening in Ghana: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among Ghanaian women and screening coverage is low. ACCESSING is a cross-sectional study investigating human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence via self-sampling in rural communities of the North Tongu district in Ghana. Female health-care providers (HCPs) were invited to self-collect a cervicovaginal sample with a commercial sampler in order to acquaint themselves with the sampling method.

OBJECTIVE

This study set out to explore female HCPs' perceptions, advocacy for, and implications of self-sampling with the aim of enhancing self-sampling acceptability in the targeted screening population.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used, consisting of (a) a survey among 52 female HCPs working in a district hospital and (b) 10 one-to-one semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled HCPs.

RESULTS

The quantitative analysis of the survey (n = 52) showed that, among HCPs who took the sample themselves (50/52), all found it 'Easy' or 'Very Easy' and felt 'Very Comfortable' or 'Comfortable'. 82.7% indicated that they would undertake screening more often, and 98.1% indicated they would prefer self-sampling, if cervical cancer risk is as reliably determined as by clinician-directed cytobrush sampling. All interview participants (n = 10) indicated that they appreciated the program and would recommend the screening to their patients and/or family members and neighbours. Common reasons for preferring self-sampling were less (anticipated) pain compared to speculum examination and more privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling for cervical cancer screening is highly acceptable to female HCPs. Setting up a workplace screening program that entails the option of self-sampling could create greater awareness and positive attitudes among HCPs to educating their patients, families, and neighbours on cervical cancer risks and motivate HCPs to advocate for women's participation in screening.

Clinical performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared with clinician-taken cervical samples for HPV testing among women referred for colposcopy. A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To increase effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening program, self-sampling can be an option. Both self-collected vaginal samples (SCV) and urine samples may be useful alternatives to clinician-taken cervical samples (CS).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Colposcopy clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Women (n=305) referred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical screening result or conditions like postcoital bleeding.

INTERVENTION

All women self-collected a urine and a vaginal sample prior to colposcopy, where a CS and biopsies were taken. All samples were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) using the Cobas HPV assay. The gold standard was histology diagnoses (CIN2+/CIN3+) from biopsies obtained at the same examination.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing on SCV and urine to detect CIN2+/CIN3+ compared with the CS.

SECONDARY OUTCOME

The acceptability by women of self-sampling.

RESULTS

Both the vaginal and urine sample were comparable to the CS in identifying severe intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+). Absolute sensitivity ranged from 93% for urine samples to 96% for SCV for detecting CIN2+, which is comparable to the sensitivity of CS (overlapping 95% CI).The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) for SCV and 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) for urine samples. At CIN3+, the relative sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.07) for SCV and urine samples, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the self-collected samples and the CS (McNemar's test >0.05). The relative specificity was also similar (1.03 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) for SCV and 0.98 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.09) for urine samples) (McNemar's test >0.05).The acceptability of self-sampling was evaluated by questionnaire. The women found the instructions on sample collection easy to understand and were positive about self-sampling with a preference for the urine sample.

CONCLUSION

Self-sampling by SCV and urine is a clinically safe alternative to CS with a high degree of acceptability.

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.

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).

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.

Screening history and FIGO-stages among Danish women with cervical cancer in 2012-2014: a register-based study

The objective was to examine whether attendance in the mass cervical screening programme has implications for the prognosis when cervical cancer is diagnosed. We performed a retrospective analysis of all cases of cervical cancer between 1st of January 2012 and 31st of December 2014 in the Region of Southern Denmark. The cases were retrieved from the Danish National Pathology Registry, PatoBank. Odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for attendees versus non-attendees of the screening programme by using χ2-test. 216 patients were included in the study. 61.6% of the study population had not attended the screening programme. Patients who had attended the programme were characterised by disease in low stage (OR = 3.14, 95% CI; 1.66 to 5.92), treatment with surgery alone (OR = 2.63, 95% CI; 1.49 to 4.64) and a lower risk of death (OR = 0.36, 95% CI; 0.15 to 0.87). Adenocarcinomas were more often detected among attendees of the programme compared to squamous cell carcinomas (OR = 4.06, 95% CI; 2.03 to 8.14). Statistically significant results regarding relapse of cancer (OR = 0.62, 95% CI; 0.23 to 1.68, p = 0.47) and lymph node metastases (OR = 0.62, 95% CI; 0.32 to 1.21, p = 0.19) were not found. Cervical cancer detected in women who had attended the mass cervical screening programme prior to the diagnosis, was shown to have a statistically significant lower FIGO stage (p = 0.0004) and was therefore linked to less extensive treatment options. Continued focus on increasing the participation rate of the programme is of importance, as the nonattendance rate continues to be high.

Effect of Mailed Human Papillomavirus Test Kits vs Usual Care Reminders on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake, Precancer Detection, and Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

In the United States, more than 50% of cervical cancers are diagnosed in underscreened women. Cervical cancer screening guidelines now include primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a recommended strategy. Home-based HPV self-sampling is a viable option for increasing screening compliance and effectiveness; however, US data are needed to inform health care system implementation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness of mailed HPV self-sampling kits vs usual care reminders for in-clinic screening to increase detection and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and uptake of cervical cancer screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Women aged 30 to 64 years with health plan enrollment for 3 years and 5 months or more, a primary care clinician, no Papanicolaou test within 3 years and 5 months, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic medical records and enrolled from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 26, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

The control group received usual care (annual patient reminders and ad hoc outreach from primary care clinics). The intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Two primary outcomes were (1) CIN2+ detection within 6 months of screening and (2) treatment within 6 months of CIN2+ detection. Screening uptake within 6 months of randomization was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years) were included, with 9960 randomized to the intervention group and 9891 randomized to the control group. All women randomized were included in analysis. In the intervention group, 12 participants with CIN2+ were detected compared with 8 in the control group (relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.61-3.64) and 12 cases were treated vs 7 in the control group (relative risk, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.67-4.32). Screening uptake was higher in the intervention group (2618 participants [26.3%] vs 1719 participants [17.4%]; relative risk, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43-1.60).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Mailing HPV kits to underscreened women increased screening uptake compared with usual care alone, with no significant differences in precancer detection or treatment. Results support the feasibility of mailing HPV kits to women who are overdue for screening as an outreach strategy to increase screening uptake in US health care systems. Efforts to increase kit uptake and follow-up of positive results are warranted to maximize detection and treatment of CIN2+.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02005510.

Organised Versus Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening in Urban and Rural Regions of Lithuania

Background and Objectives: In 2004, Lithuania started the Nationwide Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. However, screening is more opportunistic than population-wide and the programme’s coverage is insufficient. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of systematic personal invitation on coverage of cervical cancer (CC) screening in urban and rural regions of Lithuania. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in an urban primary healthcare centre (PHCC) and in a rural PHCC, where prevailing CC screening practice was highly opportunistic. Over the first year, all women aged 25–60 who had not received a Pap smear test within the last three years in urban (n = 1591) and rural (n = 1843) PHCCs received a personal invitation letter to participate in the screening. Over the second year, the reminder letter was sent to the non-attendees (n = 1042 in urban and n = 929 in rural PHCCs). A random sample of women (n = 93), who did not attend for screening after two letters, was contacted by phone in order to identify the barriers of non-attendance. Results: Before the study, only 9.6% of the target population in urban and 14.7% in rural PHCCs participated in CC screening. After the first invitation letter, the participation in CC screening increased up to 24.6% in urban and 30.8% in rural areas (p < 0.001). After the reminder letter, the attendance was 16.4% in urban and 22.2% in rural PHCCs (p < 0.001). The most common barriers for the non-attendance were lack of time, long waiting time for family doctor’s appointment, worries that a Pap test might be unpleasant and preventive gynaecological examination outside of the screening program. Conclusions: A systematic personal invitation with one reminder letter significantly increased the coverage of CC screening and was more effective in rural regions than in urban regions. The assessed barriers for non-attendance can be used to improve the coverage of screening.

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.

Predictors of Cervical Cancer Screening Among Infrequently Screened Women Completing Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection: My Body My Test-1

Background: Approximately one-half of cervical cancer cases in the United States occur in underscreened or never-screened women. We examined predictors to completing Papanicolaou (Pap) testing and whether a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection result affects Pap testing adherence among underscreened women. Materials and Methods: Low-income women aged 30-65 years who reported no Pap testing in ≥4 years were recruited in North Carolina. Knowledge, attitudes, and barriers regarding cervical cancer and Pap testing were assessed by telephone questionnaires. We mailed self-collection kits for HPV testing and provided information regarding where to obtain affordable Pap testing. Participants received $45 for completing all activities. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the predictors of longer reported time since last Pap (≥10 vs. 4-9 years) and of completion of Pap testing following study enrollment (follow-up Pap). Results: Participants (n = 230) were primarily black (55%), uninsured (64%), and with ≤high school education (59%). Cost and finding an affordable clinic were the most commonly reported barriers to screening. White women and those with ≤high school education reported longer intervals since last Pap test. Half of the participants reported completing a follow-up Pap test (55%). Women with a positive HPV self-collection were five times more likely to report completing a follow-up Pap test than those with negative self-collection (odds ratio = 5.1, 95% confidence interval 1.4-25.7). Conclusions: Improving awareness of resources for affordable screening could increase cervical cancer screening in underserved women. Home-based HPV self-collection represents an opportunity to re-engage infrequently screened women into preventive screening services.

Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening in Ethiopia by Self-Sampling HPV DNA Compared to Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid: A Cluster Randomized Trial

In Ethiopia, the standard method of cervical cancer screening is using Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA). Self-collection-based human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is assumed to improve the uptake of screening, especially for hard to reach populations. We investigated whether HPV DNA testing with the self-collection of cervical samples would be associated with increased uptake and adherence to procedures at the population level compared with VIA within defined rural population in Ethiopia. A total of 22 clusters (comprising 2,356 women ages 30-49 years) were randomized in two arms. Following the community mobilization, women of the clusters were invited to go either to the local health post for a self-collection-based HPV DNA testing (arm A) or Butajira Hospital for VIA screening (arm B). In the HPV arm, of the 1,213 sensitized women, 1,020 (84.1%) accessed the health post for self-sampling compared with the VIA arm, where 575 of 1,143 (50.5%) visited the hospital for VIA (P < 0.0001). Of those women who attended the VIA and HPV arms, 40% and 65.4% adhered to all procedures expected after screening, respectively. Out of women positive for high risk HPV, 122 (85%) attended VIA as a follow-up test. The trial demonstrated significantly higher levels of population-based uptake and adherence for self-collection HPV testing. Women were more receptive for VIA after their HPV testing result was positive. Self-collection HPV testing can be done at the local health facility and may significantly improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening in Ethiopia.

Age-related acceptability of vaginal self-sampling in cervical cancer screening at two university hospitals: a pilot cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

To determine whether age is a barrier against acceptability of cervicovaginal self-sampling in screening for cervical cancer at two gynecology outpatient clinics.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study involving 116 women over 21 years of age with an abnormal Pap smear. Clinical and laboratorial data were recorded in electronic files. Women received detailed self-collection instructions. After the self-sampling procedure (Evalyn Brush®), women were instructed to answer a questionnaire about vaginal self-sampling acceptability that consisted of seven multiple-choice items. The participants were divided into three age brackets: 21 to 29 years, 30 to 49 years, and 50 years and over. Chi-square, Fischer exact, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used.

RESULTS

The analysis of the participants' perception of the procedure stratified according to age groups showed a decline in the fear of hurting oneself during the procedure as age increased. Most participants reported that it was very easy to understand how to use the self-sampling brush and that it was easy to use it. Most of them were neither embarrassed nor afraid of getting hurt during the procedure. The majority preferred self-sampling to collection by a healthcare professional. The main reason was practicality: the possibility of choosing the place and time for sampling.

CONCLUSIONS

The participating women found self-collection simple to understand and easy to accept regardless of age. The younger women indicated more fear and discomfort in self-sampling, which points to the need for attraction strategies that are more appealing to the younger generations.

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.

Self-Collected Samples in Cervical Cancer Screening: Results of HPV and Pap Self-Collected Samples Compared to Physician-Obtained Specimens

OBJECTIVE

In order to increase overall participation in cervical cancer screening, several investigators propose a concept of introducing self-tests. The study presented here compared test results of the Pap test and 4 different HPV test systems of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal specimens.

STUDY DESIGN

208 patients of a colposcopy clinic had physician-taken and self-taken vaginal samples. All cell samples enabled a liquid-based Pap test and testing for carcinogenic HPV genotypes. In addition, all patients had a colposcopy with or without cervical biopsy and/or conisation.

RESULTS

99 patients had the histological diagnosis of CIN2+. The HPV test sensitivity of self-collected samples differed significantly in this patient group depending on the test system performed. The sensitivity of the self-collected Pap test was significantly lower than HPV testing, but the positive predictive value of the Pap self-test was very high.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that under the circumstances of self-testing HPV test systems differ in test sensitivity and specificity. Self-collected Pap tests can provide a test result with a very high positive predictive value and introduce therapeutic strategies. In order to improve screening strategies, it could be an opportunity to combine HPV and Pap tests in self-taken vaginal samples, especially in countries with a low income level. In countries with a good medical infrastructure, self-testing has to be introduced with caution.

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.

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.

HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups - a randomized controlled trial

Background

Participation in cervical cancer screening varies by socioeconomic status. The aims were to assess if offering human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling kits has an effect on screening participation among various socioeconomic groups and to determine if two invitation strategies for offering self-sampling influence the participation rate equally.

Methods

The study was based on registry data that were applied to data from a randomized controlled trial (n=9,791) measuring how offering HPV self-sampling affected screening participation. The women received either 1) a self-sampling kit mailed directly to their homes (directly mailed group); 2) an invitation to order the kit (opt-in group); or 3) a standard second reminder to attend regular cytology screening (control group). The participation data were linked to registries containing socioeconomic information.

Results

Women in the directly mailed group participated significantly more than women in the control group, regardless of their socioeconomic status, but the largest effects were observed in Western immigrants (participation difference [PD]=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%–26.0%) and social welfare recipients (PD=15.2%, 95% CI=9.7%–20.6%). Compared with the control group, opt-in self-sampling only had an insignificant effect on participation among women who were immigrants, retired, or less educated. Western immigrants had a significantly higher increase in participation than native Danish women when kits were mailed directly compared with the opt-in strategy (PD=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%–26.2% and PD=5.5%, 95% CI=2.9%–8.1%, respectively, P=0.01).

Conclusion

All socioeconomic groups benefited from the directly mailed strategy in terms of higher screening participation, but Western immigrants and lower socioeconomic groups seemed to benefit the most. Immigrants and some lower socioeconomic groups only had insignificant benefits of opt-in self-sampling. The directly mailed strategy might be preferable to opt-in self-sampling because it ensures that ethnic minority groups obtain benefits of introducing HPV self-sampling in an organized cervical cancer screening program.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials NCT02680262. Registered February 10, 2016.

Prevalence and determinants in cytology testing for cervical cancer screening in Spain (2006-14)

Background

Cervical cancer has decreased in developed countries thanks to cytology screening programmes. The aims of this study were To analyse the frequency and evolution of performing cytology tests and to determine the variables that influence their use.

Methods

Cross-sectional study of non-institutionalized women who participated in the national health survey (2006, 2011/12) and the European Health Survey in Spain (2009, 2014). Study variables: cytology-testing, time since last cytology-test, reason for performing the test, age, nationality, marital status, social status, education level and place of residence.

Results

The study evaluated 53 628 women in Spain over 15 years old, with a mean age of 52.68 (SD ± 19.12). About 94.1% were Spanish, 49.2% were married and 77.2% lived with a partner. In 2014, 72% had a cytology test, a number that increased significantly. Women aged 25-65 were 5.13 times more likely to undergo a cytology test than those aged 15-24 years old (odds ratio (OR): 5.13; P < 0.001); women with university educations were 9.23 times more likely to undergo a cytology test than those without university educations (P > 0.001); those of social classes I and II (high) were 1.2 more likely to undergo a cytology test than those of low social class (P = 0.026); and Spanish women were 1.74 times more likely to undergo a cytology test than foreigners living in Spain (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Frequency of cytology testing has increased in the last few years. Screening for cervical cancer is associated with higher social status, education level, age, and not being foreign.

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.

Implementation considerations using HPV self-collection to reach women under-screened for cervical cancer in high-income settings

The success of cytology (Pap screening) programs is undeniable and has drastically reduced cervical cancer rates in high-income settings where it has been implemented [...]

HPV self-sampling: A promising approach to reduce cervical cancer screening disparities in Canada

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the primary cause of cervical, anal, and other genital cancers, which are preventable through screening and early treatment. [...]

Socio-economic and demographic determinants affecting participation in the Swedish cervical screening program: A population-based case-control study

Background

Cervical screening programs are highly protective for cervical cancer, but only for women attending screening procedure.

Objective

Identify socio-economic and demographic determinants for non-attendance in cervical screening.

Methods

Design: Population-based case-control study.

Setting: Sweden.

Population: Source population was all women eligible for screening. Based on complete screening records, two groups of women aged 30–60 were compared. The case group, non-attending women, (N = 314,302) had no smear registered for 6–8 years. The control group (N = 266,706) attended within 90 days of invitation.

Main outcome measures: Risk of non-attendance by 9 groups of socioeconomic and demographic variables.

Analysis: Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and OR after adjustment for all variables in logistic regression models were calculated.

Results

Women with low disposable family income (adjOR 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01–2.11), with low education (adjOR 1.77; CI 1.73–1.81) and not cohabiting (adjOR 1.47; CI 1.45–1.50) were more likely to not attend cervical screening. Other important factors for non-attendance were being outside the labour force and receiving welfare benefits. Swedish counties are responsible for running screening programs; adjusted OR for non-participation in counties ranged from OR 4.21 (CI 4.06–4.35) to OR 0.54 (CI 0.52–0.57), compared to the reference county. Being born outside Sweden was a risk factor for non-attendance in the unadjusted analysis but this disappeared in certain large groups after adjustment for socioeconomic factors.

Conclusion

County of residence and socio-economic factors were strongly associated with lower attendance in cervical screening, while being born in another country was of less importance. This indicates considerable potential for improvement of cervical screening attendance in several areas if best practice of routines is adopted.

Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection With Papanicolaou Test Referral for Infrequently Screened Women in the United States

BACKGROUND

Testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection using mailed, self-collected samples is a promising approach to increase screening in women who do not attend clinic screening at recommended intervals.

METHODS

To assess this intervention among high-risk women in the United States, 429 women without a Papanicolaou (Pap) test in 4 or more years (overdue by US guidelines) were recruited from the general population. Participants aged 30 to 65 years were mailed a kit to self-collect a cervicovaginal sample at home, return the sample by mail, and receive HPV results by telephone, with referral to follow-up cytological Pap testing at a local clinic. Cervicovaginal self-samples were collected with a Viba brush, stored in Scope mouthwash, and tested by Hybrid Capture 2. Data were collected in 2010 to 2011 and analyzed in 2017.

RESULTS

Two-thirds (64%) of participants returned a self-collected sample, of whom 15% tested HPV DNA positive. Human papillomavirus self-test-positive women reported higher rates of follow-up Pap tests (82%) than did those with self-test negative results (51%). No demographic differences were found in self-test return rate or HPV positivity. High acceptability was reported in participant surveys: most women (81%) had "mostly positive" overall thoughts about the self-test, and most reported being comfortable receiving the kit in the mail (99%), returning their self-collected sample by mail (82%), and receiving their test results by telephone (97%).

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting HPV self-testing through population-based recruitment, mailed kit delivery and return by mail, and results delivery by telephone has the potential to reach a broad segment of US underscreened women.

Study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial to compare human papillomavirus based cervical cancer screening in community-health campaigns versus health facilities in western Kenya

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource countries, a very small proportion of women in these settings undergo screening, and even fewer women are successfully treated. Using pilot data from western Kenya and World Health Organization recommendations, we developed a protocol to implement evidence-based cervical cancer screening and linkage to treatment strategies to the rural communities. We describe the protocol for a cluster-randomized trial to compare two implementation strategies for human-papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening program using metrics described in the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adaption, implementation and maintenance) framework.

METHODS

The study is a three-year, two-phase cluster-randomized trial in 18 communities in western Kenya. During Phase 1, six control communities were offered screening in health facilities; and six intervention communities were offered screening in community health campaigns. Screening was done with human-papillomavirus testing through self-collected specimens. Phase 1 ended and we are working in partnership with communities to further contextualize the implementation strategy for screening, and develop an enhanced linkage to treatment plan. This plan will be tested in an additional six communities in Phase 2 (enhanced intervention). We will compare the reach, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and adaptability of the implementation strategies.

DISCUSSION

Effective low-cost cervical cancer prevention technologies are becoming more widely available in low- and middle-income countries. Despite increasing government support for cervical cancer prevention, there remains a sizeable gap in service availability. We will use implementation science to identify the most effective strategies to fill this gap through development of context-specific evidence-based solutions. This protocol design and results can help guide implementation of cervical cancer screening in similar settings, where women are most underserved and at highest risk for disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02124252 .

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.

Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Although cervical cancer is largely preventable through screening, detection and treatment of precancerous abnormalities, it remains one of the top causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality globally.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to understand the evidence of the effect of cervical cancer education compared to control conditions on cervical cancer screening rates in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer. We also sought to understand the effect of provider recommendations for screening to eligible women on cervical cancer screening (CCS) rates compared to control conditions in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer.

Methods

We used the PICO (Problem or Population, Interventions, Comparison and Outcome) framework as described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook to develop our search strategy. The details of our search strategy has been described in our systematic review protocol published in the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The protocol registration number is CRD42016045605 available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?src=trip&ID=CRD42016045605. The search string was used in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials to retrieve study reports that were screened for inclusion in this review. Our data synthesis and reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). We did a qualitative synthesis of evidence and, where appropriate, individual study effects were pooled in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 Review Manager. The Higgins I² was used to assess for heterogeneity in studies pooled together for overall summary effects. We did assessment of risk of bias of individual studies included and assessed risk of publication bias across studies pooled together in meta-analysis by Funnel plot.

Results

Out of 3072 study reports screened, 28 articles were found to be eligible for inclusion in qualitative synthesis (5 of which were included in meta-analysis of educational interventions and 8 combined in meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling interventions), while 45 were excluded for various reasons. The use of theory-based educational interventions significantly increased CCS rates by more than double (OR, 2.46, 95% CI: 1.88, 3.21). Additionally, offering women the option of self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing increased CCS rates by nearly 2-fold (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.22). We also found that invitation letters alone (or with a follow up phone contact), making an appointment, and sending reminders to patients who are due or overdue for screening had a significant effect on improving participation and CCS rates in populations at risk.

Conclusion

Our findings supports the implementation of theory-based cervical cancer educational interventions to increase women’s participation in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly when targeting communities with low literacy levels. Additionally, cervical cancer screening programs should consider the option of offering women the opportunity for self-sample collection particularly when such women have not responded to previous screening invitation or reminder letters for Pap smear collection as a method of screening.

A tailored within-community specimen collection strategy increased uptake of cervical cancer screening in a cross-sectional study in Ghana

Background

The implementation of cervical cancer screening strategies has reported different rates of success in different countries due to population specific factors that limit women’s participation. We report observations and the development of a community-based specimen collection strategy which resulted from interactions with women in the study communities, following an initial low response to a hospital based cervical cancer screening strategy.

Method

Women were recruited by a house survey and invited to report at a hospital either within a week or after a week for self and health-personnel specimen collections. However, due to the very low response and subsequent interactions with the women of the communities, another strategy was developed that required recruited women report at a central location within their respective communities for specimen collections at times that did not interfere with their daily routines.

Results

For specimen collection, of the 156 participants who opted to report after a week at the hospital, 60 (38.5%) reported. Of the 118 participants who opted to report within 1 week at the hospital, 55 (46.6%) reported. Of the 103 participants were invited to report at a specified location within the community, 98 (95.1%) reported. An overall response rate of 60.4% was attained. Almost 89.7% (226 of 253) of the women performed both self and health personnel sample collection.

Conclusion

The community-based strategy with self-specimen collection and HPV testing holds great potential for increasing women’s participation in cervical cancer screening in Ghana as compared to the hospital based strategy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4631-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus in Self-Taken Samples from Screening Nonattenders

The Copenhagen Self-Sampling Initiative (CSi) has shown how human papillomavirus (HPV)-based self-sampling can be used to increase screening participation among 23,632 nonattenders in the Capital Region of Denmark. In this study, we describe HPV prevalence and genotype frequency in 4,824 self-samples as determined by three HPV assays (the CLART, Onclarity, and Hybrid Capture 2 [HC2] assays) and compare the results with those for physician-taken follow-up samples. The HPV self-sample findings were also compared to the findings for a reference population of 3,347 routinely screened women from the Horizon study, which had been undertaken in the same screening laboratory. Nonattenders had an HPV prevalence of 11.3% as determined by the CLART assay, which was lower than that for women from the Horizon study (18.5%). One-third of the CSi women who tested HPV positive by self-sampling tested HPV negative on the physician-taken follow-up sample. The CLART and Onclarity assays agreed on 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60 to 68%) of the HPV-positive self-taken samples. When the HC2 assay results were added into a three-way comparison, the level of agreement decreased to 27% (95% CI, 24 to 29%). Our findings suggest that further validation of HPV assays on self-taken samples is needed for optimal HPV detection and correct clinical management of HPV-positive women.

Exploring the acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling among Muslim immigrant women

BACKGROUND

With appropriate screening (ie, the Papanicolaou [Pap] test), cervical cancer is highly preventable, and high-income countries, including Canada, have observed significant decreases in cervical cancer mortality. However, certain subgroups, including immigrants from countries with large Muslim populations, experience disparities in cervical cancer screening. Little is known about the acceptability of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling as a screening strategy among Muslim immigrant women in Canada. This study assessed cervical cancer screening practices, knowledge and attitudes, and acceptability of HPV self-sampling among Muslim immigrant women.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 30 women was recruited over a 3-month period (June-August 2015) in the Greater Toronto Area. All women were between 21 and 69 years old, foreign-born, and self-identified as Muslim, and had good knowledge of English. Data were collected through a self-completed questionnaire.

RESULTS

More than half of the participants falsely indicated that Pap tests may cause cervical infection, and 46.7% indicated that the test is an intrusion on privacy. The majority of women reported that they would be willing to try HPV self-sampling, and more than half would prefer this method to provider-administered sampling methods. Barriers to self-sampling included confidence in the ability to perform the test and perceived cost, and facilitators included convenience and privacy being preserved.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that HPV self-sampling may provide a favorable alternative model of care to the traditional provider-administered Pap testing. These findings add important information to the literature related to promoting cancer screening among women who are under or never screened for cervical cancer.

Evaluation of the Impact of Human Papillomavirus DNA Self-sampling on the Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening

Background:

The rate of uptake of the Papanicolaou (Pap) smear is generally low. Its causal relationship with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA allows HPV DNA self-sampling to be used as an alternative screening tool for cervical cancer.

Objectives:

This study explored the acceptability of HPV DNA self-sampling and its impact on the rate of compliance with cervical cancer screening.

Methods:

A crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted in community-based clinics. Participants were allocated to 1 of the following 2 arms: arm 1: self-sampling before a Pap smear; and arm 2: a Pap smear before self-sampling. After completing the 2 screening methods, participants in each arm took part in face-to-face interviews using standardized, structured questionnaire.

Results:

The participants accepted both self-sampling (7.7/10) and a Pap smear (7.8/10) for cervical cancer screening. However, participants without previous experience of Pap smears or who had more than 2 sexual partners preferred self-sampling (P < .05). The participants expressed overall positive feelings toward self-sampling, and there was good agreement in HPV detection between the 2 screening methods (κ = 0.65). We estimate that the introduction of HPV DNA self-sampling could increase the future rate of uptake of cervical cancer screening by 6.5% and would entail lower costs.

Conclusion:

Human papillomavirus DNA self-sampling could be an alternative screening method to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening.

Implications for Practice:

Human papillomavirus DNA self-sampling could overcome the barriers raised by Pap smears and enhance the coverage of cervical cancer screening. Promotional publicity and education are essential.

[Health agents' perspective on the incorporation of self-collected samples in HPV screening programs]

The objective of this study was to analyze health agents' perception of self-collecting of samples for HPV testing among women and the degree of agreement by the agents to incorporate this approach into their daily tasks. A self-administered questionnaire was applied to 127/191 health agents that participated in the EMA Project (Proyecto Evaluación Modalidad Autotoma) in the province of Jujuy, Argentina, in 2012-2013. The health agents with and without the experience of offering self-collected sampling expressed a high degree of agreement towards adoption of the strategy (78.7%), given its potential to prevent cervical cancer and its contribution to health care for the women under their coverage. However, the health agents identified the extra work and problems linking to the formal health system as the main barriers to offering this modality in the future. The study found that self-collecting of samples is a practice that can be adopted by health agents in the province of Jujuy, but that it should be accompanied by support measures from the formal health system.

Ebola exposure, illness experience, and Ebola antibody prevalence in international responders to the West African Ebola epidemic 2014-2016: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare and other front-line workers are at particular risk of infection with Ebola virus (EBOV). Despite the large-scale deployment of international responders, few cases of Ebola virus disease have been diagnosed in this group. Since asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection has been described, it is plausible that infections have occurred in healthcare workers but have escaped being diagnosed. We aimed to assess the prevalence of asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection, and of exposure events, among returned responders to the West African Ebola epidemic 2014-2016.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used snowball sampling to identify responders who had returned to the UK or Ireland, and used an online consent and questionnaire to determine their exposure to EBOV and their experience of illness. Oral fluid collection devices were sent and returned by post, and samples were tested using an EBOV IgG capture assay that detects IgG to Ebola glycoprotein. Blood was collected from returnees with reactive samples for further testing. Unexposed UK controls were also recruited. In all, 300 individuals consented, of whom 268 (89.3%) returned an oral fluid sample (OFS). The majority had worked in Sierra Leone in clinical, laboratory, research, and other roles. Fifty-three UK controls consented and provided samples using the same method. Of the returnees, 47 (17.5%) reported that they had had a possible EBOV exposure. Based on their free-text descriptions, using a published risk assessment method, we classified 43 (16%) as having had incidents with risk of Ebola transmission, including five intermediate-risk and one high-risk exposure. Of the returnees, 57 (21%) reported a febrile or diarrhoeal illness in West Africa or within 1 mo of return, of whom 40 (70%) were not tested at the time for EBOV infection. Of the 268 OFSs, 266 were unreactive. Two returnees, who did not experience an illness in West Africa or on return, had OFSs that were reactive on the EBOV IgG capture assay, with similar results on plasma. One individual had no further positive test results; the other had a positive result on a double-antigen bridging assay but not on a competitive assay or on an indirect EBOV IgG ELISA. All 53 controls had non-reactive OFSs. While the participants were not a random sample of returnees, the number participating was high.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study, to our knowledge, of the prevalence of EBOV infection in international responders. More than 99% had clear negative results. Sera from two individuals had discordant results on the different assays; both were negative on the competitive assay, suggesting that prior infection was unlikely. The finding that a significant proportion experienced "near miss" exposure events, and that most of those who experienced symptoms did not get tested for EBOV at the time, suggests a need to review and standardise protocols for the management of possible exposure to EBOV, and for the management of illness, across organisations that deploy staff to outbreaks.

Offering self-sampling to cervical screening non-attenders in primary care

Objectives To assess the feasibility and acceptability of offering self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing to cervical screening non-attenders when they consult primary care for any reason. Methods In a pilot implementation study, six general practices in London, UK, offered self-sampling kits during consultation to women aged 25-64 who were at least six months overdue for cervical screening (no cytology test recorded in the past 3.5 years if aged 25-49, or 5.5 years if aged 50-64). Eligible women were identified using an automated real-time search (during consultation) of the general practice electronic medical record system. Women collected samples either in clinic or at home (dry flocked swabs analysed using Roche Cobas®4800). Results Of approximately 5000 eligible women, 3131 consulted primary care between January and December 2014 (mean recruitment period 9.5 months). Of these, 21% (652) were offered kits, 14% (443) accepted, and 9% (292) returned a self-sample. The proportion of eligible women offered kits varied considerably among practices (11-36%). Sample return rates increased with kit offered rates ( r = 0.8, p = 0.04). Of 39 HPV positive women 85% (33) attended follow-up, including two with invasive cancers (stage 2A1 and 1A1). Conclusions Offering self-sampling to cervical screening non-attenders opportunistically in primary care is feasible. Return rates could be increased if more women were offered kits. A large trial is needed to identify how self-sampling is best integrated into the national screening programme, and to identify determinants of uptake.

Feasibility of Cervical Cancer Screening Utilizing Self-sample Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Mexican Immigrant Women in Harris County, Texas: A Pilot Study

Here we evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of self-sample human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (self-HPV) among a sample of predominantly Mexican immigrant women who never or sporadically attend for Pap testing. Immigrant women who had not had a Pap test in the past 3 years (n = 100) were recruited. Participants self-collected a cervical sample for HPV testing. High-risk (HR) HPV-positive women were referred for clinical follow-up. Acceptability of self-HPV was high, with 99% reporting that they would be willing to use self-HPV regularly. Nineteen women (19%) tested positive for HR-HPV. Of these, 50% obtained clinical follow-up within 3 months. For those who did not, the primary barrier to follow-up was difficulty obtaining healthcare coverage. In conclusion, self-HPV is highly acceptable to Mexican immigrant women who otherwise do not attend for Pap testing. While the approach addresses critical barriers to primary screening, questions remain as to whether uninsured HR-HPV positive women are able to attend for clinical follow-up.