The Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Self-Sampling to Improve Routine Cervical Cancer Screening: The Importance of Respondent Screening History and Compliance

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness studies of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening uptake rates in underserved women in Europe.

METHODS

A search of Embase, Medline, Global Health, PsychINFO, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database was conducted for studies published between January 2000 and September 2022. Studies were eligible if they analysed the cost-effectiveness of any interventions to improve participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved women of any age eligible to participate in cervical cancer screening in European countries, in any language. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were summarised. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond Checklist, and methodological choices were further compared.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 962 unique studies, with 17 of these (from twelve European countries) meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. All studies focused on underscreened women as an overarching group, with no identified studies focusing on specific subgroups of underserved women. Generally, self-HPV testing and reminder interventions were shown to be cost-effective to increase the uptake rates. There was also research showing that addressing access issues and adopting different screening modalities could be economically attractive in some settings, but the current evidence is insufficient due to the limited number of studies.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has revealed a gap in the literature on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve uptake rates of cervical cancer screening through tailored provision for specific groups of underserved women.

Vaccination and screening strategies to accelerate cervical cancer elimination in Norway: a model-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Experts have proposed an 'EVEN FASTER' concept targeting age-groups maintaining circulation of human papillomavirus (HPV). We explored effects of the vaccination component of these proposals compared with cervical cancer (CC) screening-based interventions on age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) and CC elimination (<4 cases/100,000) timing in Norway.

METHODS

We used a model-based approach to evaluate HPV vaccination and CC screening scenarios compared with a status-quo scenario reflecting previous vaccination and screening. For cohorts ages 25-30 years, we examined 6 vaccination scenarios that incrementally increased vaccination coverage from current cohort-specific rates. Each vaccination scenario was coupled with three screening strategies that varied screening frequency. Additionally, we included 4 scenarios that alternatively increased screening adherence. Population- and cohort-level outcomes included ASR, lifetime risk of CC, and colposcopy referrals.

RESULTS

Several vaccination strategies coupled with de-intensified screening frequencies lowered ASR, but did not accelerate CC elimination. Alternative strategies that increased screening adherence could both accelerate elimination and improve ASR.

CONCLUSIONS

The vaccination component of an 'EVEN FASTER' campaign is unlikely to accelerate CC elimination in Norway but may reduce population-level ASR. Alternatively, targeting under- and never-screeners may both eliminate CC faster and lead to greater health benefits compared with vaccination-based interventions we considered.

Evaluating Opt-In Vaginal Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling: Participation Rates and Detection of High-Grade Lesions (CIN2+) among Unscreened Japanese Women Aged 30-39

Cervical cancer incidence is increasing among Japanese women, which is partly attributed to low screening rates. This study examined the implementation of opt-in human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among Japanese women aged 30-39 years who had not undergone cervical cancer screening, focusing on those requiring preconception care. The responses to the opt-in approach and effectiveness in detecting cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) were evaluated. Participants used the Evalyn® Brush for self-sampling, with HPV testing conducted using the Cobas 4800 system (version 2.2.0). Out of 3489 eligible, unscreened women from four municipalities in Fukui Prefecture, only 10.6% (370/3489) requested the self-sampling kit. Of these, 77.3% (286/370) returned the kit (HPV testing rate: 8.2% (286/3489)). The HPV positivity rate was 13.7% (39/285), yet only 61.5% (24/39) of those with positive HPV results proceeded to cytology testing. Subsequently, three cases of CIN2+ were detected (10.5/1000). While this study demonstrated a reasonable kit return rate and indicated the capability of opt-in HPV self-sampling to detect CIN2+ cases in unscreened women, the low ordering rate of kits and suboptimal compliance for follow-up cytology testing highlight significant challenges. The findings suggest the need for more effective strategies to enhance participation in cervical cancer screening programs.

Social factors and age play a significant role in cervical cancer and advanced-stage disease among Danish women

BACKGROUND

For cervical cancer (CC), the implementation of preventive strategies has the potential to make cervical cancer occurrence and death largely avoidable. To better understand the factors possibly responsible for cervical cancer, we aimed to examine possible differences in age and social parameters as well as screening status between women with low- or high-stage cervical cancer and matched controls.

METHODS

Through the Danish Cancer Registry (DCR), women diagnosed with cervical cancer in Denmark between 1987 and 2016 were included. These were age- and residence-matched in a 1:5 ratio with controls from the general female population. The study population was sub grouped into a low-stage subpopulation with women with early-stage cervical cancer and matched controls and a high-stage subpopulation with women with late-stage cervical cancer and matched controls. Age and social parameters were compared within the subpopulations as well as between low- and high-stage cases. For part of the study population, screening attendance was examined to compare differences in adherence.

RESULTS

Overall, we found that the risk of cervical cancer is significantly increased in socially disadvantaged women and not least non-attenders in screening. Interestingly, the high-stage subpopulation was significantly older than the low-stage subpopulation (p < 0.001), and when examining the impact of age further, we found that for cervical cancer cases, the risk of having low-stage disease decreases significantly with increasing age, whereas the risk of having high-stage disease increases significantly with increasing age. In the screening cohort, significantly less cases than controls were attenders in screening with the most pronounced differences seen in the old subpopulation (women aged 50-64 years) and in the high-stage subpopulation (p-values all < 0.001). Interestingly, when examining the risk of CC for attenders and non-attenders, we demonstrated that many social parameters continue to influence the risk of cervical cancer, even in women attending screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Older women, socially disadvantaged women, and non-attenders in screening are particularly vulnerable in terms of developing cervical cancer, especially high-stage disease. Therefore, improvements in the participating rate in screening as well as a revision of the current screening guidelines are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Self-collection Intervention on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake among Underscreened U.S. Persons with a Cervix

BACKGROUND

We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection (followed by scheduling assistance for those who were HPV+ or inconclusive) compared with scheduling assistance only and usual care among underscreened persons with a cervix (PWAC).

METHODS

A decision tree analysis was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), or the cost per additional PWAC screened, from the Medicaid/state and clinic perspectives. A hypothetical cohort represented 90,807 low-income, underscreened individuals. Costs and health outcomes were derived from the MyBodyMyTest-3 randomized trial except the usual care health outcomes were derived from literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Screening uptake was highest in the self-collection alternative (n = 65,721), followed by the scheduling assistance alternative (n = 34,003) and usual care (n = 18,161). The self-collection alternative costs less and was more effective than the scheduling assistance alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective. Comparing the self-collection alternative with usual care, the ICERs were $284 per additional PWAC screened from the Medicaid/state perspective and $298 per additional PWAC screened from the clinic perspective. PSAs demonstrated that the self-collection alternative was cost-effective compared with usual care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $300 per additional PWAC screened in 66% of simulations from the Medicaid/state perspective and 58% of simulations from the clinic perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with usual care and scheduling assistance, mailing HPV self-collection kits to underscreened individuals appears to be cost-effective in increasing screening uptake.

IMPACT

This is the first analysis to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of mailed self-collection in the United States.

Value of a catch-up HPV test in women aged 65 and above: A Danish population-based nonrandomized intervention study

BACKGROUND

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) test is replacing cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test due to superior sensitivity, but in most countries women ≥65 years have never had an HPV test despite they account for around 50% of cervical cancer deaths. We explored the effect of a catch-up HPV test among 65- to 69-year-old women without previous record of HPV-based screening.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This population-based nonrandomized intervention study (quasi-experimental design) included Danish women aged 65 to 69 with no record of cervical cancer screening in the last ≥5.5 years and no HPV-exit test at age 60 to 64 at the time of study inclusion. Eligible women residing in the Central Denmark Region were invited for HPV screening either by attending clinician-based sampling or requesting a vaginal self-sampling kit (intervention group, n = 11,192). Women residing in the remaining four Danish regions received standard care which was the opportunity to have a cervical cytology collected for whatever reason (reference group, n = 33,387). Main outcome measures were detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) per 1,000 women eligible for the screening offer and the benefit-harm ratio of the intervention and standard practice measured as the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+ case. The minimum follow-up time was 13 months for all tested women (range: 13 to 25 months). In the intervention group, 6,965 (62.2%) were screened within 12 months from the date of study inclusion and 743 (2.2%) women had a cervical cytology collected in the reference group. The CIN2+ detection was significantly higher in the intervention group (3.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): [2.9, 5.3]; p < 0.001; n = 44/11,192) as compared to the reference group (0.3, 95% CI: [0.2, 0.6]; n = 11/33,387). For the benefit-harm ratio, 11.6 (95% CI: [8.5, 15.8]; p = 0.69; n = 511/44) colposcopies were performed to detect one CIN2+ in the intervention group as compared to 10.1 (95% CI: [5.4, 18.8]; n = 111/11) colposcopies in the reference group. The study design entails a risk of confounding due to the lack of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher CIN2+ detection per 1,000 eligible women in the intervention group supports that a catch-up HPV test could potentially improve cervical cancer prevention in older women. This study informs the current scientific debate as to whether women aged 65 and above should be offered a catch-up HPV test if they never had an HPV test.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04114968.

Widening the offer of human papillomavirus self-sampling to all women eligible for cervical screening: Make haste slowly

Self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has the potential to increase the uptake of cervical screening among underscreened women and will likely form a crucial part of the WHO's strategy to eliminate cervical cancer by 2030. In high-income countries with long-standing, organised cervical screening programmes, self-collection is increasingly becoming available as a routine offer for women regardless of their screening histories, including under- and well-screened women. For these contexts, a validated microsimulation model determined that adding self-collection to clinician collection is likely to be cost-effective on the condition that it meets specific thresholds relating to (1) uptake and (2) sensitivity for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). We used these thresholds to review the 'early-adopter' programme-level evidence with a mind to determine how well and how consistently they were being met. The available evidence suggested some risk to overall programme performance in the situation where low uptake among underscreened women was accompanied by a high rate of substituting clinician sampling with self-collection among well-screened women. Risk was further compounded in a situation where the slightly reduced sensitivity of self-sampling vs clinician sampling for the detection of CIN2+ was accompanied with lack of adherence to a follow-up triage test that required a clinician sample. To support real-world programmes on their pathways toward implementation and to avoid HPV self-collection being introduced as a screening measure in good faith but with counterproductive consequences, we conclude by identifying a range of mitigations and areas worthy of research prioritisation.

Economic Evaluation of Mailed Home-Based Human Papillomavirus Self-sampling Kits for Cervical Cancer Screening

Importance

Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling addresses barriers to cervical cancer screening, and mailed self-sampling kits have been reported to increase screening uptake. International research suggests mailed kits are cost-effective in certain settings. However, the cost-effectiveness of mailing HPV self-sampling kits for increasing screening uptake has not been evaluated in the US.

Objective

To conduct an economic evaluation of a mailed HPV self-sampling intervention among underscreened women enrolled in an integrated US health care system.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of results from a randomized clinical trial of 19 851 women aged 30 to 64 years enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), a US-based integrated health care system. Women were identified through electronic medical records, and eligible participants were enrolled in a health plan for at least 3 years and 5 months, had a primary care clinician, had not received a Papanicolaou test for at least 3 years and 5 months, and had not received a hysterectomy. Enrollment occurred from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 25, 2018. The current economic evaluation was conducted between August 2, 2021, and July 30, 2022. Intervention delivery costs were calculated from both the KPWA and Medicare perspectives and were based on either wellness visit or Papanicolaou test-only visit costs.

Intervention

Participants in the control group received usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc outreach for screening. Participants in the intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost (intervention group minus control group) divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening (intervention group minus control group) within 6 months of randomization.

Results

Among 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years; 76.7% White), 9960 were randomized to the intervention group, and 9891 were randomized to the control group. Baseline ICERs ranged from $85.84 (95% CI, $85.68-$85.99) using KPWA wellness visits as the cost basis to $146.29 (95% CI, $146.20-$146.38) using Medicare Papanicolaou test-only visits as the cost source. Subgroups of participants aged 50 to 64 years and participants most recently overdue for screening achieved cost-effectiveness at lower levels of willingness to pay for an additional completed screening than other subgroups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation, mailing HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening was cost-effective for increased screening uptake relative to usual care. These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates among eligible women in US health care systems.

The cost-effectiveness of opt-in and send-to-all HPV self-sampling among long-term non-attenders to cervical cancer screening in Norway: The Equalscreen randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mailing a human papillomavirus self-sampling (HPV-ss) kit, directly or via invitation to order, compared with mailing reminder letters among long-term non-attenders in Norway.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis using the Equalscreen study data with 6000 women aged 35-69 years who had not screened in 10+ years. Participants were equally randomized into three arms: reminder letter (control); invitation to order HPV-ss kit (opt-in); directly mailed HPV-ss kit (send-to-all). Cost-effectiveness (2020 Great British Pounds (GBP)) was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per additional screened woman, and per additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from extended and direct healthcare perspectives.

RESULTS

Participation, CIN2+ detection, and total screening costs were highest in the send-to-all arm, followed by the opt-in and control arms. Non-histological physician appointments contributed to 67% of the total costs in the control arm and ≤ 31% in the self-sampling arms. From an expanded healthcare perspective, the ICERs were 135 GBP and 169 GBP per additional screened woman, and 2864 GBP and 4165 GBP per additional CIN2+ detected for the opt-in and send-to-all, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling were more effective and, depending on willingness-to-pay, may be considered cost-effective alternatives to improve screening attendance in Norway.

Secondary Prevention of Cervical Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on secondary prevention of cervical cancer globally.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel to produce recommendations reflecting four resource-tiered settings. A review of existing guidelines, formal consensus-based process, and modified ADAPTE process to adapt existing guidelines was conducted. Other experts participated in formal consensus.

RESULTS

This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five existing guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness analyses provided indirect evidence to inform consensus, which resulted in ≥ 75% agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is recommended in all resource settings; visual inspection with acetic acid may be used in basic settings. Recommended age ranges and frequencies vary by the following setting: maximal: age 25-65 years, every 5 years; enhanced: age 30-65 years, if two consecutive negative tests at 5-year intervals, then every 10 years; limited: age 30-49 years, every 10 years; basic: age 30-49 years, one to three times per lifetime. For basic settings, visual assessment is used to determine treatment eligibility; in other settings, genotyping with cytology or cytology alone is used to determine treatment. For basic settings, treatment is recommended if abnormal triage results are obtained; in other settings, abnormal triage results followed by colposcopy is recommended. For basic settings, treatment options are thermal ablation or loop electrosurgical excision procedure; for other settings, loop electrosurgical excision procedure or ablation is recommended; with a 12-month follow-up in all settings. Women who are HIV-positive should be screened with HPV testing after diagnosis, twice as many times per lifetime as the general population. Screening is recommended at 6 weeks postpartum in basic settings; in other settings, screening is recommended at 6 months. In basic settings without mass screening, infrastructure for HPV testing, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

Identifying a Single Optimal Integrated Cervical Cancer Prevention Policy in Norway: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Interventions targeting the same disease but at different points along the disease continuum (e.g., screening and vaccination to prevent cervical cancer [CC]) are often evaluated in isolation, which can affect cost-effectiveness profiles and policy conclusions. We evaluated nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (9vHPV) compared with bivalent HPV vaccine (2vHPV) alongside deintensified screening intervals for a vaccinated birth cohort to inform a single optimal integrated CC prevention policy.

METHODS

Using a multimodeling approach, we evaluated the health and economic impacts of alternative CC screening strategies for a Norwegian birth cohort eligible for HPV vaccination in 2021 assuming they received 1) 2vHPV or 2) 9vHPV. We conducted 1) a restricted analysis that evaluated the optimal HPV vaccine under current screening guidelines; and 2) a comprehensive analysis including alternative screening and vaccination strategy combinations. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and evaluated them according to different cost-effectiveness thresholds.

RESULTS

Assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of $40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, we found that, while holding screening intensity fixed, switching the routine vaccination program in Norway from 2vHPV to 9vHPV would not be considered cost-effective (ICER of $132,700 per QALY gained). However, when allowing for varying intensities of CC screening, we found that switching to 9vHPV would be cost-effective compared with 2vHPV under an alternative threshold of $55,000 per QALY gained, if coupled with reductions in the number of lifetime screens.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis highlights the importance of evaluating the full potential policy landscape for country-level decision makers considering policy adoption, including nonindependent primary and secondary prevention efforts, to draw appropriate conclusions and avoid sub-optimal outcomes.

HIGHLIGHTS

Without evaluating the full potential policy landscape, including primary and secondary prevention efforts, country-level decision makers may not be able to draw appropriate policy conclusions, resulting in suboptimal outcomes.An applied example from cervical cancer prevention in Norway compared a restricted analysis of current screening guidelines to a comprehensive analysis including alternative screening and vaccination strategy combinations.We found that a switch from bivalent to nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine would be considered cost-effective in Norway if coupled with reductions in the number of lifetime screens compared with the current screening strategy.A comprehensive analysis that considers how different types of interventions along the disease continuum affect each other will be critical for decision makers interpreting cost-effectiveness analysis results.

Switching clinic-based cervical cancer screening programs to human papillomavirus self-sampling: A cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccinated and unvaccinated Norwegian women

Several countries have implemented primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening. HPV testing enables home-based, self-collected sampling (self-sampling), which provides similar diagnostic accuracy as clinician-collected samples. We evaluated the impact and cost-effectiveness of switching an entire organized screening program to primary HPV self-sampling among cohorts of HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated Norwegian women. We conducted a model-based analysis to project long-term health and economic outcomes for birth cohorts with different HPV vaccine exposure, that is, preadolescent vaccination (2000- and 2008-cohorts), multiage cohort vaccination (1991-cohort) or no vaccination (1985-cohort). We compared the cost-effectiveness of switching current guidelines with clinician-collected HPV testing to HPV self-sampling for these cohorts and considered an additional 44 strategies involving either HPV self-sampling or clinician-collected HPV testing at different screening frequencies for the 2000- and 2008-cohorts. Given Norwegian benchmarks for cost-effectiveness, we considered a strategy with an additional cost per quality-adjusted life-year below $55 000 as cost-effective. HPV self-sampling strategies considerably reduced screening costs (ie, by 24%-40% across cohorts and alternative strategies) and were more cost-effective than clinician-collected HPV testing. For cohorts offered preadolescent vaccination, cost-effective strategies involved HPV self-sampling three times (2000-cohort) and twice (2008-cohort) per lifetime. In conclusion, we found that switching from clinician-collected to self-collected HPV testing in cervical screening may be cost-effective among both highly vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts of Norwegian women.

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.

Community cervical cancer screening: Barriers to successful home-based HPV self-sampling in Dabat district, North Gondar, Ethiopia. A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers to successful home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in North Gondar, Ethiopia.

METHODS

The study participants were women who had previously participated in a community-wide home-based HPV self-sampling pilot study, community health workers, women's development army leaders, and the sample collectors of the home-based HPV self-sampling pilot study. A community based qualitative descriptive study was conducted. We applied purposive and convenience sampling. In total, 47 women participated in the study (in-depth interviews n = 22, four focus group discussions n = 25, 6-7 participants each). The study employed thematic analysis for clustering the emerged themes.

RESULTS

Husband disapproval was identified as the main barrier to the acceptance of home-based HPV self-sampling. Social influence, lack of knowledge about cervical cancer and screening, lack of health education on cervical cancer and HPV-based screening, feeling healthy, and religious influence were identified as additional barriers. Fear of using Evalyn brush® for self-sampling was found to be the main barrier to the provision of a quality sample. The inability of the sample collectors to check the proper utilization of Evalyn brush® and the difficulty in understanding the instructions did also contribute to the low-quality. Providing health education concerning cervical cancer and HPV self-sapling to women, male involvement in the screening program, and linking the screening service to existing local health facilities were suggested to guarantee the success of home-based HPV self-sampling.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating women regarding cervical cancer and HPV testing, providing clear instructions on how to collect self-sample, and male involvement in the screening program are prerequisites for a successful implementation of home-based HPV testing. Women empowerment should also be focused to overcome the identified sociocultural barriers. Furthermore, the screening program should guarantee the timely provision of the test results and offering women follow-up examinations and treatment for abnormal findings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of repeated self-sampling for HPV testing in primary cervical screening: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended in primary cervical screening to improve cancer prevention. An advantage of HPV testing is that it can be performed on self-samples, which could increase population coverage and result in a more efficient strategy to identify women at risk of developing cervical cancer. Our objective was to assess whether repeated self-sampling for HPV testing is cost-effective in comparison with Pap smear cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in increasing participation rate in primary cervical screening.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed on data from a previously published randomized clinical study including 36,390 women aged 30-49 years. Participants were randomized either to perform repeated self-sampling of vaginal fluid for HPV testing (n = 17,997, HPV self-sampling arm) or to midwife-collected Pap smears for cytological analysis (n = 18,393, Pap smear arm).

RESULTS

Self-sampling for HPV testing led to 1633 more screened women and 107 more histologically diagnosed CIN2+ at a lower cost vs. midwife-collected Pap smears (€ 229,446 vs. € 782,772).

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in that repeated self-sampling for HPV testing increased participation and detection of CIN2+ at a lower cost than midwife-collected Pap smears in primary cervical screening. Offering women a home-based self-sampling may therefore be a more cost-effective alternative than clinic-based screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered since this trial is a secondary analysis of an earlier published study (Gustavsson et al., British journal of cancer. 118:896-904, 2018).

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.

Durability of clinical performance afforded by self-collected HPV testing: A 15-year cohort study in China

OBJECTIVE

Self-collected HPV testing could substantially reduce disparities in cervical cancer screening, with slightly lower sensitivity compared to physician-collected specimens cross-sectionally. We aimed to evaluate the comprehensive long-term performance of self-collected HPV testing prospectively.

METHODS

In 1999, 1997 women were screened by HPV testing on self-collected and physician-collected samples, cytology and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and followed up in 2005, 2010 and 2014, respectively. HPV testing was performed with Hybrid Capture II. Prospective performance, baseline clinical efficiency, and 15-year cumulative risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Self-collected HPV testing prospectively detected 83.3% (95% CI:74.9%,89.3%), 70.3% (95% CI:62.5%,77.2%) and 63.3% (95% CI:55.7%, 70.2%) of cumulative CIN2+ at 6-year, 11-year and 15-year follow-up, respectively. Relative cumulative sensitivity of physician-collected HPV testing versus self-collected HPV testing was stable over 15 years at about 1.16. Cumulative sensitivity of self-collected HPV testing was comparable to cytology and significantly higher than VIA. Among women positive by self-collected HPV testing at baseline, 26.2% (95% CI:21.5%, 30.9%) developed CIN2+ during 6-year follow-up and no difference was observed with physician-collected HPV testing even 15 years after baseline. Negative self-collected HPV results provided greater protection against CIN2+ than VIA and ascertained CIN2+ cumulative incident rates as low as 1.1% at the 6-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-collected HPV testing demonstrates lower sensitivity than physician-collected HPV testing but performs comparably to cytology prospectively and provides satisfactory assurance against CIN2+, indicating an alternative role in cervical cancer primary screening with five-year interval as an option especially in low-resource settings.

An overview of cervical cancer epidemiology and prevention in Scandinavia

New technologies such as human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and vaccination necessitate comprehensive policy analyses to optimize cervical cancer prevention. To inform future Scandinavian-specific policy analyses, we aimed to provide an overview of cervical cancer epidemiology and existing prevention efforts in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. We compiled and summarized data on current prevention strategies, population demography and epidemiology (for example, age-specific HPV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence over time) for each Scandinavian country by reviewing published literature and official guidelines, performing registry-based analyses using primary data and having discussions with experts in each country. In Scandinavia, opportunistic screening occurred as early as the 1950s and by 1996, all countries had implemented nationwide organized cytology-based screening. Prior to implementation of widespread screening and during 1960-66, cervical cancer incidence was considerably higher in Denmark than in Norway and Sweden. Decades of cytology-based screening later (i.e. 2010-2014), cervical cancer incidence has been considerably reduced and has converged across the countries since the 1960s, although it still remains lowest in Sweden. Generally, Scandinavian countries face similar cervical cancer burdens and utilize similar prevention approaches; however, important differences remain. Future policy analyses will need to evaluate whether these differences warrant differential prevention policies or whether efforts can be streamlined across Scandinavia.

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

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

Choosing wisely: a model-based analysis evaluating the trade-offs in cancer benefit and diagnostic referrals among alternative HPV testing strategies in Norway

Background:

Forthcoming cervical cancer screening strategies involving human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women not vaccinated against HPV infections may increase colposcopy referral rates. We quantified health and resource trade-offs associated with alternative HPV-based algorithms to inform decision-makers when choosing between candidate algorithms.

Methods:

We used a mathematical simulation model of HPV-induced cervical carcinogenesis in Norway. We compared the current cytology-based strategy to alternative strategies that varied by the switching age to primary HPV testing (ages 25–34 years), the routine screening frequency (every 3–10 years), and management of HPV-positive, cytology-negative women. Model outcomes included reductions in lifetime cervical cancer risk, relative colposcopy rates, and colposcopy rates per cervical cancer prevented.

Results:

The age of switching to primary HPV testing and the screening frequency had the largest impacts on cancer risk reductions, which ranged from 90.9% to 96.3% compared to no screening. In contrast, increasing the follow-up intensity of HPV-positive, cytology-negative women provided only minor improvements in cancer benefits, but generally required considerably higher rates of colposcopy referrals compared to current levels, resulting in less efficient cervical cancer prevention.

Conclusions:

We found that in order to maximise cancer benefits HPV-based screening among unvaccinated women should not be delayed: rather, policy makers should utilise the triage mechanism to control colposcopy referrals.