[HPV-Hr detection by home self sampling in women not compliant with pap test for cervical cancer screening. Results of a pilot programme in Bouches-du-Rhône]

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.

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.

Acceptability of Human Papilloma Virus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in a Cohort of Patients from Romania (Stage 2)

(1) Background: Low patient’s adherence to conventional cervical cancer screening methods determined the need to take into consideration alternative approaches, and vaginal HPV self-sampling is one of them. We aimed to evaluate, using an online survey, the Romanian women’s acceptability of vaginal HPV self-sampling. (2) Methods: A 13-questions online survey was distributed on three Facebook groups, and the results were summarized. (3) Results: Despite of good educational background, 10.8% (n = 60) of the respondents did not know what a Pap smear is, and 33% (n = 183) were not informed about the free national cervical cancer screening program. Multivariate analysis revealed an increased likelihood of vaginal self-sampling acceptance among respondents who did not know about Pap test (OR: 7.80; 95%CI: 1.062−57.431; p = 0.021), national cervical cancer screening program (OR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.010−3.806; p = 0.02), HPV infection (OR: 7.35; 95%CI: 3.099−17.449; p< 0.001) or HPV test (OR: 1.67; 95%CI: 0.950−2.948; p = 0.03). Moreover, women who did not previously undergo a cervical cancer screening program were more likely to accept the new screening method (OR: 1.62; 95%CI: 0.878−3.015; p = 0.04). (4) Conclusions: Our results showed high acceptability rates of vaginal HPV self-sampling among participants.

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.

Acceptability of vaginal self-sampling with high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: a French questionnaire-based study

In France, cervical cancer screening based on cervical smear has a participation rate of around 60%. New screening strategies are encouraged to increase the participation of under-screened women, including vaginal self-sampling with high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing. This study was based on the distribution of an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to assess the acceptability of vaginal self-sampling with HR-HPV testing by women aged 25 to 65 years in two French Departments of the South of France, Aude, and Hérault, showing low participation in cervical cancer screening. Factors influencing this acceptability were also analyzed. From May to July 2017, 349 completed questionnaires were collected. Women declared high acceptability for vaginal self-sampling (81%) preferably at home (82.6%). Acceptability was statistically higher in the Department of Herault (p = .001) and for women older than 50 years (p = .018). There was no difference according to educational level or attendance to cervical cancer screening. Knowledge about cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening was significantly influenced by educational level. This study confirmed that vaginal self-sampling with HR-HPV testing was highly accepted, including by under-screened women, encouraging further interventional studies. Education about cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening should be part of these programs, especially for women with lower educational level.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Attitudes and factors affecting acceptability of self-administered cervicovaginal sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping as an alternative to Pap testing among multiethnic Malaysian women

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the attitudes and acceptability of self-administered cervicovaginal sampling compared with conventional physician-acquired Papanicolaou (Pap) smear among multiethnic Malaysian women.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study was carried out via interviewer-administered surveys from August 2013 through August 2015 at five government-run, urban health clinics in the state of Selangor. Subjects were participants from an ongoing community-based human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence study who answered a standard questionnaire before and after self-sampling. The cervicovaginal self-sampling for HPV genotyping was performed using a simple brush ('Just for Me'; Preventive Oncology International, Hong Kong). Detailed data on sociodemographics, previous Pap smear experience, and attitudes towards self-administered cervicovaginal sampling were collected and analysed. Acceptability was inferred using a five-item Likert scale that included six different subjective descriptives: experience, difficulty, convenience, embarrassment, discomfort or pain, and confidence in collecting one's own sample.

RESULTS

Of the 839 participants, 47.9% were Malays, followed by 30.8% Indians, 18.8% Chinese and 2.5% from other ethnicities. The median age of the participants was 38 years (IQR 30-48). Some 68.2% of participants indicated a preference for self-sampling over the Pap test, with 95% indicating willingness to follow-up a positive result at the hospital. Age, ethnicity and previous Pap test experience were significant independent factors associated with preference for self-sampling. The older the individual, the less likely they were to prefer self-sampling (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). The Chinese were less likely to prefer self-sampling (72.6%) than the Malays (85.1%) (adjusted OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.98, p=0.004). Participants who had never undergone a Pap smear were also more likely to prefer self-sampling (88.5%) than women who had undergone a previous Pap (80.9%) (adjusted OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, urban Malaysian women from multiethnic backgrounds found self-sampling to be an acceptable alternative to Pap smear.

Genotyping and follow-up of HR-HPV types detected by self-sampling in women from low socioeconomic groups not participating in regular cervical cancer screening in France

BACKGROUND

HPV vaginal self-sampling can be an alternative for women refusing cytological screening.

OBJECTIVES

To describe HR-HPV types in 35-69 years old women from low socioeconomic groups not attending regular cytological screening in Marseille, France.

STUDY DESIGN

A cervical screening campaign using HR-HPV self-sampling including 22,702 women aged 35-69 years living in low socioeconomic districts of Marseille was organized. A cytological and/or histological follow-up was undertaken for a subset of women harboring HR-HPV types. Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test was used for screening, while INNO-LiPA HPV Genotyping Extra assay was used for genotyping.

RESULTS

4245 self-samplings were performed (participation rate, 18.7%) out of which 609 (14.3%) were HR-HPV+ by the screening test including 114HPV 16 (18.7%), 41HPV 18 (6.7%), 454HR-HPVnon-16/18 (75.4%). A sample of 260 out of the 454HR-HPVnon-16/18 were genotyped by INNO-LiPA which revealed HPV52 (35%), 66 (22.6%), 51 (19.6%), 31 (15.7%), 39 (13%), 56 (10.4%), and 53, 35, 59, 33, 58, 82, 45, 68, 73 (<10% each). At month 12, a 2nd self-collection kit was sent to 274 of 609HR-HPV+ women who did not have a Pap-test previously performed on them. Of these 274 women, 130 provided a sample for HPV testing; one was uninterpretable, 56 were HPV negative, and 73 were HR-HPV+ (10HPV16+, 3HPV18+, 60HR-HPVnon-16/18+). Of the 345 women with cytological and/or histological follow-up 19 (5.5%) had ≥CIN2 lesions, (11 were HPV16+ and 8 were HR-HPVnon-16/18).

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates the potential efficacy of self-sampling as a cancer screening strategy for socioeconomically deprived women who do not participate in regular Pap screening programs.

Self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: comparison of a brush-based and a lavage-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device

BACKGROUND

High coverage and attendance is essential for cervical cancer screening success. We investigated whether the previous positive experiences on increasing screening attendance by self-sampling in Finland are sampler device dependent.

METHODS

All women identified to cervical cancer screening in 2013 in 28 Finnish municipalities were randomised to receive a lavage- (n = 6030) or a brush type of self-sampling device (n = 6045) in case of non-attendance after two invitation letters. Seven hundred seventy non-attending women in the lavage device group and 734 in the brush group received the self-sampling offer. Women's experiences were enquired with an enclosed questionnaire.

RESULTS

Total attendance in the lavage group increased from 71.0 to 77.7% by reminder letters and further to 80.5% by self-sampling. Respective increase in the brush group was from 72.2 to 78.6% and then to 81.5%. The participation by self-sampling was 21.7% (95% CI 18.8-24.6) in the lavage group and 23.8% (95% CI 20.8-26.9) in the brush group. Women's self-sampling experiences were mainly positive and the sampler devices were equally well accepted by the women.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the lavage device and brush device perform similarly in terms of uptake by non-attending women and user comfort. If self-sampling is integrated to the routine screening program in Finland, either of the devices can be chosen without the fear of losing participants due to a less acceptable device.

Cervical carcinoma in the European Union: an update on disease burden, screening program state of activation, and coverage as of March 2014

OBJECTIVE

Cervical cancer (CC) is defined as a disease of disparity. This is due to marked differences in CC incidence and mortality between developed and developing countries. As a continent, Europe is no exception. This study examines the state of activation of CC screening in the European Union as of March 2014, reviews CC incidence and mortality data, and highlights the initiatives adopted to extend program coverage to nonresponders.

METHODS

The present study is based on the most recent data available from PubMed-indexed journals, the Web sites of the health ministries of each member state, and the Web sites of national cancer observatories; failing these sources, information was sought in scientific journals published in the local language.

RESULTS

In 2003, the European Council recommended that priority be given to organized screening program activation. Nonetheless, a number of European Union member states still lack population-based organized screening programs, and few have implemented programs directed at disadvantaged populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Several investigations have demonstrated that the women at higher CC risk are unscreened and underscreened ones. Since then, several member states have made significant efforts to set up effective prevention programs by adopting international quality standards and centralizing screening organization and result evaluation. Several developed countries and some new central-eastern European member states have poorly organized prevention programs that result in poor women's health. Diagnosis of CC is emotionally traumatic, but it is highly preventable. When CC is found early, it is highly treatable and associated with long survival and good quality of life.

To what extent will women accept HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening? A qualitative study conducted in Switzerland

Objectives

Human papillomavirus self-sampling (self-HPV) is regarded as an alternative to Pap smear testing for women who do not participate in cervical cancer screening. This qualitative study aimed to determine women’s views on cervical cancer screening and the various obstacles to participation in screening, and to evaluate the perceived benefits and disadvantages of self-HPV.

Method

Twenty-four focus groups were conducted in 2012, with a total of 125 participants aged between 24 and 67 years. They were recruited through different channels, including flyers and posters, personal contacts, and an ongoing clinical trial focused on the unscreened population. Interview transcripts have been coded with the ATLAS.ti CAQDAS.

Results

Fifty-seven participants regularly attended screening and 68 had not been screened in the past 3 years. While some participants considered self-HPV as an acceptable screening method, others expressed concerns. Benefits included access, reduced costs, and time-saving. Disadvantages included the fear of not performing the test correctly, hurting oneself, and the accuracy of the test. Participants expressed concern that self-HPV would replace gynecological visits.

Conclusion

Self-HPV is not likely to rapidly or substantially modify women’s behaviors in regard to screening. While it may offer benefits in some specific situations, most women emphasized the advantages of regular gynecologist visits.

Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

INTRODUCTION

Population coverage for cervical cancer screening is an important determinant explaining differences in the incidence of cervical cancer between countries. Offering devices for self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of hard-to-reach women.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the participation after an invitation including a self-sampling device (self-sampling arm) versus an invitation to have a sample taken by a health professional (control arm), sent to under-screened women.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomised studies were found eligible. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the pooled participation in the self-sampling arm was 23.6% (95% confidence interval (CI)=20.2-27.3%), when self-sampling kits were sent by mail to all women, versus 10.3% (95% CI=6.2-15.2%) in the control arm (participation difference: 12.6% [95% CI=9.3-15.9]). When women had to opt-in to receive the self-sampling device, as used in three studies, the pooled participation was not higher in the self-sampling compared to the control arm (participation difference: 0.2% [95% CI=-4.5-4.9%]).

CONCLUSION

An increased participation was observed in the self-sampling arm compared to the control arm, if self-sampling kits were sent directly to women at their home address. However, the size of the effect varied substantially among studies. Since participation was similar in both arms when women had to opt-in, future studies are warranted to discern opt-in scenarios that are most acceptable to women.

Self-collection tools for routine cervical cancer screening: a review

Sub-optimal participation is a major problem with cervical cancer screening in developing countries which have no organized national screening program. There are various notable factors such as 'embarrassment', 'discomfort' and 'no time' cited by women as they are often also the bread winners for the family. Implementation of self-sampling methods may increase their participation. The aim of this article was to provide a survey of various types of self-sampling tools which are commonly used in collection of cervical cells. We reviewed currently available self-sampling devices and collated the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of its acceptance and its accuracy in giving desired results. In general, regardless of which device is used, self-sampling for cervical scrapings is highly acceptable to women in most of the studies cited.

Self-sampling to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: an RCT comparing home mailing, distribution in pharmacies, and recall letter

Background:

We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect on participation in organised screening programmes of a self-sampling device mailed home or picked up at a pharmacy compared with the standard recall letter.

Methods:

Women aged 30–64 non-responding to screening invitation were eligible. Response rate to first invitation ranged from 30% to 60% between centres. The control was the standard reminder letter to undergo the test used by the programme (Pap test in three centres and HPV DNA test in three other centres). Home mailing of the self-sampler was preceded by a letter with a leaflet about HPV. The analysis was intention-to-treat.

Results:

In all, 14 041 women were randomised and recruited: 5012 in the control arm, 4516 to receive the self-sampler at home, and 4513 to pick up the self-sampler at a pharmacy. Participation was 11.9% in the control, 21.6% (relative participation: 1.75; 95% CI 1.60–1.93) in home, and 12.0% (relative participation: 0.96; 95% CI 0.86–1.07) in the pharmacy arms, respectively. The heterogeneity between centres was high (excess heterogeneity of that expected due to chance, i.e., I², 94.9% and 94.1% for home and pharmacy arm, respectively). The estimated impact on the overall coverage was +4.3% for home mail self-sampling compared with +2.2% for standard reminder.

Conclusions:

Home mailing of self-sampler proved to be an effective way to increase participation in screening programmes, even in those with HPV as primary testing. Picking up at pharmacies showed effects varying from centre to centre.

The Possible Effects on Socio-Economic Inequalities of Introducing HPV Testing as Primary Test in Cervical Cancer Screening Programs

Background: Screening with HPV is more effective than Pap test in preventing cervical cancer. HPV as primary test will imply longer intervals and a triage test for HPV positive women. It will also permit the development of self-sampling devices. These innovations may affect population coverage, participation, and compliance to protocols, and likely in a different way for less educated, poorer, and disadvantaged women.

Aim: To describe the impact on inequalities, actual or presumed, of the introduction of HPV-based screening.

Methods: The putative HPV-based screening algorithm has been analyzed to identify critical points for inequalities. A systematic review of the literature has been conducted searching PubMed on HPV screening coverage, participation, and compliance. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis.

Results: Knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer was lower in women with low socio-economic status and in disadvantaged groups. A correct communication can reduce differences. Longer intervals will make it easier to achieve high-population coverage, but higher cost of the test in private providers could reduce the use of opportunistic screening by disadvantaged women. There are some evidences that inviting for HPV test instead of Pap increases participation, but there are no data on social differences. Self-sampling devices are effective in increasing participation and coverage. Some studies showed that the acceptability of self-sampling is higher in more educated women, but there is also an effect on hard-to-reach women. Communication of HPV positivity may increase anxiety and impact on sexual behaviors, the effect is stronger in low educated and disadvantaged women. Finally, many studies found indirect evidence that unvaccinated women are or will be more probably under-screened.

Conclusion: The introduction of HPV test may increase population coverage, but non-compliance to protocols and interaction with opportunistic screening can increase the existing inequalities.

HPV self-sampling or the Pap-smear: a randomized study among cervical screening nonattenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France

Today in France, low attendance to cervical screening by Papanicolaou cytology (Pap-smear) is a major contributor to the 3,000 new cervical cancer cases and 1,000 deaths that occur from this disease every year. Nonattenders are mostly from lower socioeconomic groups and testing of self-obtained samples for high-risk Human Papilloma virus (HPV) types has been proposed as a method to increase screening participation in these groups. In 2011, we conducted a randomized study of women aged 35-69 from very low-income populations around Marseille who had not responded to an initial invitation for a free Pap-smear. After randomization, one group received a second invitation for a free Pap-smear and the other group was offered a free self-sampling kit for HPV testing. Participation rates were significantly different between the two groups with only 2.0% of women attending for a Pap-smear while 18.3% of women returned a self-sample for HPV testing (p ≤ 0.001). The detection rate of high-grade lesions (≥CIN2) was 0.2‰ in the Pap-smear group and 1.25‰ in the self-sampling group (p = 0.01). Offering self-sampling increased participation rates while the use of HPV testing increased the detection of cervical lesions (≥CIN2) in comparison to the group of women receiving a second invitation for a Pap-smear. However, low compliance to follow-up in the self-sampling group reduces the effectiveness of this screening approach in nonattenders women and must be carefully managed.

Comparison of use of vaginal HPV self-sampling and offering flexible appointments as strategies to reach long-term non-attending women in organized cervical screening

BACKGROUND

Many cervical cancers occur among women who have not attended cervical screening. Strategies to reach non-attending women may improve the effectiveness of cervical screening programmes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the responses among long-term non-attending women to either (i) HPV-testing of a self-collected vaginal sample, or (ii) cytological screening with a flexible no-fee appointment for sampling at an outpatient clinic.

STUDY DESIGN

Among the 242,000 women aged 32-65 years in Southern Sweden, we identified 28,635 women who had not had any cervical smears taken for >9 years. We randomized 1000 women to invitation to HPV self-sampling, and 500 women to flexible outpatient clinic appointments. Responding women received a questionnaire about their reasons for previous non-attendance.

RESULTS

The response rate to HPV self-sampling was three times higher than the flexible outpatient clinic invitations (147/1000 women (14.7%) compared to 21/500 (4.2%) p<0.0001). High-risk (hr)-HPV was found in 10/147 self-sampled women (6.9%). 7/10 hr-HPV-positive women attended colposcopy, but no HSIL was found. Among the clinic-sampled women, 2/21 had hr-HPV and 1/21 had HSIL. Reasons for not attending were "uncomfortable with vaginal examination", "feel healthy", "lack of time" and "experience of unfriendly health workers".

CONCLUSIONS

Although the response rate was low for both interventions, the invitation to vaginal HPV self-sampling was more effective for increasing the coverage of the screening programme. The fact that "uncomfortable with vaginal examination" was the most common reason for non-attending suggests that self-sampling could be further explored as a strategy to increase the coverage of cervical screening programmes.

Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The European Community recommends the implementation of population-based screening programmes for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers. This recommendation is supported by many observational studies showing that organised programmes effectively reduce mortality and control the inappropriate use of screening tests. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy of interventions to increase participation in organised population-based screening programs.

METHODS

We included all studies on interventions aimed at increasing screening participation published between 1/1999 and 7/2012. For those published before 1999, we considered the Jepson et al. (2000) review (Health Technol Assess 4:1-133, 2000).

RESULTS

Including studies from the Jepson review, we found 69 with quantitative information on interventions in organised screening: 19 for cervical, 26 for breast, 20 colorectal cancers, and 4 for cervical and breast cancer together.Effective interventions were: postal (breast RR = 1,37 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 1.25-1.51; cervical RR = 1.71 95% CI: 1.60-1.83; colorectal RR = 1.33 95% CI: 1.17-1.51) and telephone reminders (with heterogeneous methods for implementation); GP's signature on invitation letter (breast RR = 1.13 95% CI: 1.11-1.16; cervical RR = 1.20 95% CI: 1.10-1.30; colorectal RR = 1.15 95% CI: 1.07-1.24); scheduled appointment instead of open appointment (breast RR = 1.26 95% CI: 1.02-1.55; cervical RR = 1.49 95% CI: 1.27-1.75; colorectal RR = 1.79 95% CI: 1.65-1.93). Mailing a kit for self-sampling cervical specimens increased participation in non-responders (RR = 2.37 95% CI: 1.44-3.90).

CONCLUSION

Although some interventions did prove to be effective, some specific variables may influence their effectiveness in and applicability to organised population-based screening programs.

Self-collected HPV testing improves participation in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

HPV testing has emerged as an effective cervical cancer screening test. The use of HPV self-testing has the potential to address many barriers to screening and reach at-risk women through engagement in screening. However, there is a need to examine the evidence for whether offering self-collected HPV testing in practice increases screening compliance. The objective of this review is to determine to what extent providing self-collected HPV testing increases screening participation in women who are never or underscreened for cervical cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature review conducted in the databases Medline and Embase identified articles examining the use of HPV self-testing on cervical cancer screening participation. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to calculate the relative compliance, with an intent-to-treat analysis of HPV self-testing compared to Pap testing, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All statistical tests were two-sided.

SYNTHESIS

Ten studies were reviewed, with 8 being European and 2 North American. Of the 10 studies, 9 employed a randomized design. In all studies, the relative compliance of HPV self-collected testing compared to Pap testing was significantly greater than 1.0 (p<0.01). The overall relative compliance was 2.14 (95% CI 1.30-3.52). There was large heterogeneity of screening compliance between studies for both HPV self-testing and Pap testing.

CONCLUSION

HPV self-collected testing significantly improved the participation of women who did not routinely attend cervical cancer screening programs. New approaches to HPV self-test delivery should be considered as HPV testing becomes more widely incorporated as a primary screening tool.