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

Evidence from Europe on implementation, participation and performance of self-collection for cervical cancer screening

Cervical cancer screening programs reduce the number of cervical cancer cases and deaths, but the success of any screening program is dependent on high participant uptake and coverage and many European countries are observing declining cervical cancer screening coverage to below national targets. Self-collection of vaginal samples for human papillomavirus testing, also termed self-sampling, is one strategy which is being introduced to try to increase screening coverage by removing barriers to participation and it has attracted growing interest and support globally. Informed by peer-reviewed and gray literature, this narrative review starts with a case study from the Netherlands and outlines the self-collection landscape in Europe within the themes of program implementation and relative test performance. It highlights some of the current evidence gaps needed to inform policy decisions on the use of self-collection within screening programs.

Opportunistic offering of self-sampling to non-attenders within the English cervical screening programme: a pragmatic, multicentre, implementation feasibility trial with randomly allocated cluster intervention start dates (YouScreen)

Background

Self-sampling has game-changing potential to tackle the declining participation and inequities seen in many organised cervical screening programmes. Wide variation in uptake between settings and mode of kit offer highlight the importance of local piloting. Furthermore, harnessing the benefits of self-sampling in real-world settings has been surprisingly challenging. The YouScreen study estimated the impact of offering self-sampling to non-attenders within the English Programme and evaluated large-scale opportunistic offering of self-sampling in primary care.

Methods

A pragmatic modified stepped-wedge implementation feasibility trial with randomly-allocated cluster intervention start dates at primary care practices in England (133 participating, 62 non-participating). Eligible women were aged 25-64 years and ≥6 months overdue for screening ("non-attenders"). Between January 13, 2021 and 30 November, 2021 self-sampling kits were distributed to non-attenders via an opportunistic offer in primary care when they consulted for any reason and direct mailout to those unscreened 15-months after routine invitation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of non-attenders screened each month; change in coverage; and uptake (90 days). YouScreen is registered with ISRCTN:12759467.

Findings

8338 women provided self-samples following recruitment between January 13, 2021 and 30 November, 2021. Self-samples were returned from 65.5% (6061/9248) who accepted an opportunistically offered kit and 12.9% (2777/17,604) directly-mailed kits. Responders were representative of the ethnically diverse and deprived underlying non-attendee population (64% ethnic minority groups, 60% from the two most deprived national quintiles). The self-sampling intervention resulted in a 22% (95% CI 18-26) increase in non-attenders screened per month (per-protocol analysis) and 12% (95% CI 9-15) (intention-to-treat analysis). Change in coverage at participating (mean intervention duration 7.5 months) vs non-participating practices was 1.6% (95% CI 0.4-2.8). Adverse effects were not formally collected.

Interpretation

Opportunistically offering self-sampling to under-screened women in primary care could increase coverage in England and potentially reach underserved populations.

Funding

North Central London and North East London Cancer Alliance.

Practitioners support and intention to adopt universal access to self-collection in Australia's National Cervical Screening Program

OBJECTIVE

Primary care practitioners are crucial to engaging people in Australia's national cervical screening program. From July 2022, practitioners have been able to offer all screen-eligible people the choice to collect their own self-collected sample; an option introduced to increase equity. This study explored how practitioners are intending to incorporate universal access to self-collection into their clinical care.

METHODS

Semi-structed interviews with 27 general practitioners, nurses, and practice managers from 10 practices in Victoria, Australia conducted between May and August 2022. Interviews were deductively coded, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Diffusion of Innovations theory was used to categorise intention to provide self-collection.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of universal access to self-collection, citing benefits for screen-eligible people and that it overcame the limited adaptability of the previous policy. Most participants' practices (n = 7, 70%) had implemented or had plans to offer the option for self-collection to all. Participants deliberating whether to provide universal access to self-collection held concerns about the correct performance of the self-test and the perceived loss of opportunity to perform a pelvic examination. Limited time to change practice-level processes and competing demands within consultations were anticipated as implementation barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent to which self-collection can promote equity within the program will be limited without wide-spread adoption by practitioners. Communication and education that addresses concerns of practitioners, along with targeted implementation support, will be critical to ensuring that self-collection can increase participation and Australia's progression towards elimination of cervical cancer.

A comparison of the carbon footprint of alternative sampling approaches for cervical screening in the UK: A descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

To understand whether self-sampling can reduce carbon emissions (CO2 e) from the NHS cervical screening programme (NHSCSP) by comparing the carbon footprint of three sampling strategies: routine cervical sampling, vaginal self-sampling and first-void (FV) urine collection.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING

National Health Service (NHS), United Kingdom (UK).

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

Patients aged 25-64 years eligible for cervical screening in the UK.

METHODS

A carbon footprint analysis was undertaken for three cervical screening sampling approaches, from point of invitation to screening through to preparation for transport to the laboratory for HPV testing. A combination of primary and secondary data were used, with a bottom-up approach applied to collection of primary data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We report CO2 e per sampling approach, which is the unit used to express carbon footprint and harmonise the contributions of greenhouse gases with different global warming potentials.

RESULTS

The total carbon footprint of routine cervical sampling is 3670 g CO2 e. By comparison, vaginal self-sampling had a total carbon footprint of 423 g CO2 e, and FV urine sampling 570 g CO2 e. The largest share of emissions for routine sampling was attributable to the carbon footprint associated with an appointment in a primary care setting, which totalled 2768 g CO2 e.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine cervical sampling is up to 8.7-fold more carbon-intensive than self-sampling approaches with equivalent effectiveness. We found negligible differences in the carbon footprint of alternative self-sampling methods, supporting the need for an informed choice of screening options for participants, which includes sharing information on their environmental impacts.

Acceptability of human papillomavirus self-collection and the role of telehealth: a prospective, randomized study stratified by menopausal status

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the utility of telehealth instruction versus mail-based written instruction in facilitating high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) self-collection among post-menopausal patients compared with pre-menopausal patients, as well as the impact on acceptability and feasibility.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized study of people eligible for cervical cancer screening, stratified by menopausal status, to undergo standard written or telehealth-based instructions for hrHPV self-collection. English speaking individuals residing in Oregon, with a cervix, eligible for primary hrHPV testing, and with access to a video-capable device were included. Patients with prior hysterectomy, trachelectomy, diagnosis of cervical cancer, or pelvic radiation for gynecologic cancer were excluded. We compared preference for and opinions about self-collection and hrHPV test results, by randomization group and stratified by menopausal status using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Among 123 patients enrolled, 61 identified as post-menopausal with a median age of 57 years. While the majority of post-menopausal participants who received telehealth instructions found it helpful, only 6.1% considered telehealth instructions necessary to complete self-testing. There was no difference in opinion of telehealth by menopausal status. Overall, 88.5% of post-menopausal participants preferred self-collection to provider-collection. There were no significant differences between pre- and post-menopausal participants in terms of test preference, discomfort, ease of use, or perceptions of self-collection.

CONCLUSION

Telehealth instruction did not add significant value to patients participating in hrHPV self-collection, nor did it alter the acceptability of hrHPV-self collection among an English-speaking cohort. Compared with prior experiences with provider-collected screening, hrHPV self-collection was preferred by both pre- and post-menopausal participants. There were no significant differences in preference for provider- versus self-collection when stratified by menopausal status.

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.

Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes in Denmark: A nationwide registry-based study

Women in Denmark are invited to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in their fifties and sixties. We determined the patterns of concurrent participation in the three programmes. Participation in organised cancer screening was determined using the highly complete Danish population and health care registers for all women aged 53-65 years on 31 March 2018 who continuously resided in Denmark since 1 April 2012. Data were linked using unique personal identification numbers. We studied overall and cancer-specific proportions of women undergoing screening for all three, two, one, and none of the cancers. Among all 468,507 women, 406,306 (87%) participated in breast, 345,768 (74%) in cervical, and 316,496 (68%) in colorectal cancer screening. Despite high participation, only 255,698 (55%) women were screened for all three cancers, while 123,469 (26%) were screened for two, 54,538 (12%) for one, and 34,802 (7%) were not screened for any cancer. Cancer-specific patterns were highly heterogeneous across the population but changed little after accounting for women's medical history. A significant proportion of women who are screened for a specific cancer remain unscreened for other cancers. The consistency of these data at the international level requires a reconsideration of invitational practices for organised screening.

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.

Cervical cell lift: A novel triage method for the spatial mapping and grading of precancerous cervical lesions

BACKGROUND

Primary HPV screening, due to its low specificity, requires an additional liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage test. However, even with LBC triage there has been a near doubling in the number of patients referred for colposcopy in recent years, the majority having low-grade disease.

METHODS

To counter this, a triage test that generates a spatial map of the cervical surface at a molecular level has been developed which removes the subjectivity associated with LBC by facilitating identification of lesions in their entirety. 50 patients attending colposcopy were recruited to participate in a pilot study to evaluate the test. For each patient, cells were lifted from the cervix onto a membrane (cervical cell lift, CCL) and immunostained with a biomarker of precancerous cells, generating molecular maps of the cervical surface. These maps were analysed to detect high-grade lesions, and the results compared to the final histological diagnosis.

FINDINGS

We demonstrated that spatial molecular mapping of the cervix has a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 69-98) (positive predictive value 81% (95% CI 60-92)) for the detection of high-grade disease, and that AI-based analysis could aid disease detection through automated flagging of biomarker-positive cells.

INTERPRETATION

Spatial molecular mapping of the CCL improved the rate of detection of high-grade disease in comparison to LBC, suggesting that this method has the potential to decisively identify patients with clinically relevant disease that requires excisional treatment.

FUNDING

CRUK Early Detection Project award, Jordan-Singer BSCCP award, Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, UK-MRC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals/Advanced Sterilisation Products, and NWO.

Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer disproportionately affects women ≥65 years, especially those not screened regularly. Speculum use is a key barrier.

AIM

To assess if offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increases uptake for lapsed attenders aged 50-64 years.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Pragmatic randomised control trial conducted at 10 general practices in East London, UK.

METHOD

Participants were 784 women aged 50-64 years, last screened 6-15 years before randomisation. Intervention participants received a letter offering the choice of non-speculum clinician- or self-sampling. Control participants received usual care. The main outcome measure was uptake within 4 months.

RESULTS

Screening uptake 4 months after randomisation was significantly higher in the intervention arm: 20.4% (n = 80/393) versus 4.9% in the control arm (n = 19/391, absolute difference 15.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.0% to 20.0%, P<0.001). This was maintained at 12 months: intervention 30.5% (n = 120/393) versus control 13.6% (n = 53/391) (absolute difference 17.0%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 22.7%, P<0.001). Conventional screening attendance within 12 months was very similar for both intervention 12.7% (n = 50/393) and control 13.6% (n = 53/391) arms. Ethnic differences were seen in screening modality preference. More White women opted for self-sampling (50.7%, n = 38/75), whereas most Asian and Black women and those from other ethnic backgrounds opted for conventional screening.

CONCLUSION

Offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling substantially increases uptake in older lapsed attendee women. Non-speculum clinician sampling appeals to women who dislike the speculum but still prefer a clinician to take their sample. Providing a choice of screening modality may be important for optimising cervical screening uptake.

Evaluation of ILEX SelfCerv for Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection in Gynecology Clinic Attendees at a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa

BACKGROUND

The SelfCerv Self-Collection Cervical Health Screening Kit (Ilex Medical Ltd., Johannesburg, South Africa) is an applicator tampon designed for self-collection of vaginal samples for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and E6/E7 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA). The study aimed to evaluate the performance of the SelfCerv applicator tampon for the detection of hr-HPV for cervical cancer screening, and further to investigate women's experiences and preferences regarding self-sampling.

METHODS

Vaginal samples were collected from 527 gynecology clinic attendees aged ≥18 years at a tertiary hospital in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Self-samples were collected using the SelfCerv kit, followed by endocervical samples collected by a healthcare professional using Cervex-Brush^® Combi. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on self-sampling experiences and preferences. Both samples were tested for 14 high-risk (hr) HPV types and E6/E7 mRNA using the Abbott RealTime HR-HPV and Aptima HR-HPV mRNA assays, respectively.

RESULTS

The overall agreement for hr-HPV typing between 527 paired samples was good (87.1%; κ =0.74) with high sensitivity (86.2%) and specificity (88.0%). HPV-16 (96.4%; κ = 0.83) had higher agreement rate than HPV-18 (96.8%; κ = 0.72) and the other 12 hr-HPVs (86.5%; κ = 0.72). Two hundred and eighty-five (285) sample pairs tested for E6/E7 mRNA showed fair agreement (70.2%; κ= 0.34). Furthermore, self-sampling was reported as comfortable (90.5%) and painless (86.7%), with 88.4% of women preferring self-collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-collected samples had good agreement with the healthcare professional-collected samples for the detection of hr-HPV DNA and the procedure was highly preferred by women. Self-sampling using SelfCerv can be used as an alternative to healthcare professional sampling in clinic-based routine cervical cancer screening.

Acceptability of Self-Sample Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Thai Women Visiting a Colposcopy Clinic

We offered self-sampling devices to 250 women who visited the colposcopy clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand from March 1 to June 30, 2015. Participants received instruction about the vaginal self-sample method and collected the specimen themselves, before being examined by the physician who obtained a conventional cervical specimen. Participating women's attitudes and feelings regarding the self-sample method were explored using a short questionnaire. Of the 247 eligible women, more than 90% of participants rated the self-sample method as very good to excellent for convenience, comfort, and safety. In addition, 80% of participants reported the overall experience of using the self-sample device was very good to excellent compared with the physician-collected method. Self-sample HPV testing appears to be highly accepted and perceived as convenient, comfortable, and safe. More studies on self-sample HPV testing should be conducted in Thailand to investigate this as an alternative method of cervical cancer screening, particularly among women who do not attend the screening program.

Predictive Value of HPV Testing in Self-collected and Clinician-Collected Samples Compared with Cytology in Detecting High-grade Cervical Lesions

BACKGROUND

Self-sampling has become an attractive proposition now that human papillomavirus (HPV) primary testing is being incorporated into cervical cancer screening programs worldwide. We compared predictive values of HPV testing based on self- and physician-collected samples, and cytology, in detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

METHODS

The Cervical And Self-Sample In Screening (CASSIS) study enrolled 1,217 women ages 16-70 years prior to scheduled colposcopies. Vaginal specimens were self-collected using the validated HerSwab device. Cervical specimens were collected by gynecologists. Specimens were tested for presence of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) by the Cobas 4800 HPV test. We estimated positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for a subset of women (n = 700) who underwent cervical biopsy and cytology at the actual CASSIS visit.

RESULTS

hrHPV was detected in 329 women (47%) with HerSwab and in 327 (46.7%) with physician sampling. Respective values for HPV16/18 were 119 (17%) and 121 (17.3%). On histology, 134 women had CIN1, 49 had CIN2, 48 had CIN3, 5 had CIN2/CIN3, and 3 had cancers. PPVs for CIN2⁺ of any hrHPV were 28% (95% CI, 23.2-33.1) and 29.7% (95% CI, 24.8-34.9) for HerSwab and physician samples, respectively. Corresponding values for HPV16/18 were 43.7% (95% CI, 34.6-53.1) and 43.8% (95% CI, 34.8-53.1). PPV of cytology (ASC-US+) was 26.6% (95% CI, 21.6-32.0). Corresponding NPVs (same order as PPVs) were 96.4% (95% CI, 93.9-98.1), 97.8% (95% CI, 95.6-99), 90.9% (95% CI, 88.2-93.1), 91% (95% CI, 88.4-93.2), and 94.7% (95% CI, 91.8-96.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that HPV self-sampling has comparable performance with a physician-collected sample in detecting cervical lesions.

IMPACT

HPV self-sampling has the potential to increase coverage in cervical cancer screening.

Human Papillomavirus Research: Where Should We Place Our Bets?

BACKGROUND

Massive strides have been made with respect to primary and secondary prevention of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated disease as a result of prophylactic vaccination and cervical screening based on molecular HPV testing. However, cervical cancer continues to be an important clinical and societal burden. Additionally, other HPV-associated cancers, for which there are no screening programmes, are rising. Finally, the optimal combination of vaccination and screening strategies will require careful thinking. Considering this unprecedented and important time, we were keen to solicit the views of the expert community to determine what they perceived were the key priorities for HPV research. Our objective was to identify consensus and key priorities for HPV-based research through provision of a questionnaire disseminated to a multidisciplinary group of key opinion leaders (KOLs).

SUMMARY

A structured survey composed of 46 HPV research "categories" was sent to 73 KOLs who were invited to "rank" the categories according to priority. The invitees represented clinical and public health disciplines as well as basic scientists. Scores were weighted according to the number of responses. Invitees also had the opportunity to comment on barriers to the research and suggest other research areas that required attention not reflected in the survey. We received 29 responses in total; overall, the 3 highest-ranked categories were "optimal cervical screening in low and middle-income countries (LMICs)," "primary disease prevention in LMICs" and "impact of vaccine on HPV infection and associated disease." "HPV and the microbiome" and "mechanisms of transformation" were the highest-ranked categories with respect to basic research. Consistent barriers to research were around governance on the use of samples and data and funding, particularly in an era of vaccination. Key Messages: Research to support the management of disease in LMICs is clearly perceived as a priority in the international community in addition to other diverse areas which necessitate an improved basic understanding of viral mechanisms and interactions. International, multidisciplinary efforts which articulate the broader HPV research agenda will be important when seeking funding in addition to international endeavours to support the efficient use of existing samples and cohorts to facilitate such research.

Barriers to cervical screening and interest in self-sampling among women who actively decline screening

OBJECTIVES

Understanding why some women actively decline cervical screening could contribute to tailored intervention development. We explored reasons for non-participation in cervical screening among women who had made an active decision not to attend in the future. We also explored interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling.

METHODS

In a population-based survey of women in Great Britain, home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with screening eligible women. Women reported their intention to attend for screening when next invited. They endorsed predefined barriers to screening and indicated their interest in human papillomavirus self-sampling.

RESULTS

Women who had actively declined screening and those who intended to go but were currently overdue (n=543) were included in this analysis. Women who had made an active decision not to be screened in the future were more likely to endorse the barriers 'I have other more important things to worry about' and to perceive screening to be of low relevance based on their sexual behaviour. Most participants (70%) indicated that they would be interested in human papillomavirus self-sampling. Interest in self-sampling was greater among those who reported having had a bad experience of screening in the past, were too busy or embarrassed to attend, or would not want a man to carry out the test.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who had made an active decision not to attend screening felt it was of low relevance to them and that they had more important things to worry about. Shifting the perceived cost-benefit ratio for these women by offering human papillomavirus self-sampling might increase screening participation in this group.

VALHUDES: A protocol for validation of human papillomavirus assays and collection devices for HPV testing on self-samples and urine samples

BACK GROUND

Systematic reviews have concluded that hrHPV DNA testing using target-amplification tests is as accurate on vaginal self-samples as on clinician-taken specimens for the detection of cervical precancer. However, insufficient evidence is available for specific HPV assay/self-sample device combinations.

OBJECTIVES

The VALHUDES protocol is designed as a diagnostic test accuracy study that aims to compare the clinical sensitivity and specificity of particular hrHPV assay(s) on vaginal self-samples and first-void-urine, collected in agreement with standardized protocols, with hrHPV testing on matched clinician-taken samples.

STUDY DESIGN

Five hundred enrolled women referred to a colposcopy clinic are invited to collect a first-void urine sample and one or more vaginal self-samples with particular devices before collection of a cervical sample by a clinician. Sample sets are subsequently analysed in a laboratory accredited for HPV testing. Disease verification for all enrolled patients is provided by colposcopy combined with histological assessment of biopsies.

RESULTS

A first VALHUDES study has started in Belgium in December 2017 with enrolment from four colposcopy centres. The following assays are foreseen to be evaluated: RealTime High Risk HPV assay (Abbott), cobas-4800 and -6800 (Roche), Onclarity (BD), Xpert HPV (Cepheid) and Anyplex II HPV HR (Seegene).

CONCLUSION

Given empirical evidence that the relative accuracy of HPV-testing on self- vs clinician-samples is robust across clinical settings, the VALHUDES protocol offers a framework for validation of HPV assay/self-sample device combinations that can be translated to a primary screening setting.

Is self-sampling to test for high-risk papillomavirus an acceptable option among women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia?

Objective

Self-sampling to test for high risk human papilloma virus (HPV) is becoming an increasingly important component of cervical cancer screening. The aim of this observational study is to examine how women treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) view HPV self-sampling.

Methods

Invited to participate in the present study were patients who had undergone treatment of high-grade CIN (grade 2 or higher) and were followed-up at 6-months at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. The participants were instructed as to how to perform HPV self-sampling. Thereafter, the participants completed a questionnaire about HPV self-sampling and other cervical cancer screening methods, as well as about self-perceived risk of cervical cancer without regular gynecologic follow-up and about specific knowledge regarding HPV, CIN and cervical cancer.

Results

Altogether 479 women enrolled in this study. The participation rate was 96.6%. Nearly 75% of the participants stated they would consider performing the HPV self-sampling prior to their next gynecologic follow-up. Confidence in HPV self-sampling was a significant independent predictor of willingness to perform HPV self-sampling. However, confidence in HPV self-sampling was significantly lower than confidence in Papanicolaou smears and in HPV testing with samples collected by health professionals. Higher specific knowledge about HPV, CIN and cervical cancer was also a significant independent predictor of willingness to perform HPV self-sampling, as was having travelled longer distance to attend gynecologic follow-up. Participants with lower income and without completed university education expressed significantly higher confidence in HPV self-sampling and lower confidence in Papanicolaou smears than the other women.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the views of women treated for high-grade CIN vis-à-vis HPV self-sampling. The latter is an acceptable option for the vast majority of this cohort of women.

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.

Agreement of self- and physician-collected samples for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus infections in women attending a colposcopy clinic in Thailand

Objective

To study the concordance between vaginal self- and endocervical physician-collected high-risk (hr) HPV testing in Thai women who attended a colposcopy clinic. Vaginal samples were obtained by self-sampling with a dry brush before endocervical samples were obtained by physicians. Both specimens were analyzed for hrHPV by Cobas4800 HPV test.

Results

Of the 247 pairs of samples, overall hrHPV prevalence from self- and physician-collected samples was 41.3 and 36.0%, respectively. The overall agreement between the methods was 74.5% with κ 0.46 (P < 0.001). Our study revealed moderate agreement between self- and physician-collected methods for hrHPV testing.

Human papillomavirus self-sampling for screening nonattenders: Opt-in pilot implementation with electronic communication platforms

In organized cervical screening programs, typically 25% of the invited women do not attend. The Copenhagen Self‐sampling Initiative (CSi) aimed to gain experiences on participation among screening nonattenders in the Capital Region of Denmark. Here, we report on the effectiveness of different communication platforms used in the pilot with suggestions for strategies prior to a full‐implementation. Moreover, an innovative approach using self‐sampling brushes with unique radio frequency identification chips allowed for unprecedented levels patient identification safety. Nonattenders from the capital region of Denmark were identified via the organized national invitation module. Screening history was obtained via the nationwide pathology registry. Twenty‐four thousand women were invited, and as an alternative to the regular communication platforms (letter and phone), women could request a home test via a mobile‐friendly webpage. Instruction material and video‐animation in several languages were made available online. Chi‐square test was used to test differences. Out of all invited, 31.7% requested a home test, and 20% returned it to the laboratory. In addition, 10% were screened at the physician after receiving the invitation. Stratified by screening history, long‐term unscreened women were less likely to participate than intermittently screened women (28% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). Of all contacts received, 64% (63–65) came via letter, and 31% (95CI: 30–32%) via webpage/mobile‐app. Self‐sampling was well‐accepted among nonattenders. Adopting modern technology‐based platforms into the current organized screening program would serve as a convenient communication method between health authority and citizens, allowing easy access for the citizen and reducing the work load in administrating self‐sampling approaches.

What's new?

Our implementation study is the first to evaluate opt‐in self‐sampling for 24,000 screening nonattenders, which can be basis for future routine implementation. Women could respond through a variety of communication channels (regular mail, phone and custom‐made web/mobile‐app). Our study utilized self‐sampling brushes with a novel RFID‐chip for secure patient‐identification, eliminating inconveniences for the women to fill out forms on returning the brush and loss of brushes due to missing identification.