The time has come to implement primary human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer in the United States

Attitudes toward the American Cancer Society's 2020 cervical cancer screening guidelines: A qualitative study of a national sample of US clinicians

BACKGROUND

The 2020 American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for cervical cancer screening. These guidelines propose two major changes from current practice: initiating screening at age 25 years and using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, and therefore understanding clinician attitudes is important to facilitate practice change.

METHODS

Interviews with a national sample of clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening in a variety of settings explored attitudes toward the two major changes from the 2020 ACS cervical cancer screening guidelines. Clinicians participated in 30- to 60-min interviews exploring their attitudes toward various aspects of cervical cancer screening. Qualitative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seventy clinicians participated from across the United States. Few respondents were initiating screening at age 25 years, and none were using primary HPV testing. However, over half would be willing to adopt these practices if supported by scientific evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional societies, lack of laboratory availability and insurance coverage, limited autonomy within large health care systems, and concerns related to missed disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Few clinicians have adopted screening initiation or primary HPV testing, as recommended by the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to adopting these changes. Implementation may be facilitated via professional organization endorsement, clinician education, and laboratory, health care system, and insurance support.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The main changes to current practices were to initiate screening at age 25 years instead of age 21 years and to screen using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing rather than cytology alone or in combination with HPV testing. We performed in-depth interviews with 70 obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their attitudes toward these guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to changing practice if the changes were supported by evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional medical organizations, logistical issues, and concerns about missed disease.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine in females with existing cervical HR-HPV infection at first vaccination: A pooled analysis of four large clinical trials worldwide

Females with existing high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) infections remain at risk of subsequent multiple or recurrent infections, on which benefit from HPV vaccines was under-reported. We pooled individual-level data from four large-scale, RCTs of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine to evaluate efficacy and immunogenicity in females DNA-positive to any HR-HPV types at first vaccination. Females receiving the AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine in the original RCTs constituted the vaccine group in the present study, while those unvaccinated served as the control group. Vaccine efficacy (VE) against new infections and associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ in females DNA-negative to the considered HR-HPV type but positive to any other HR-HPV types, VE against reinfections in females DNA-positive to the considered HR-HPV type but cleared naturally during later follow-up, and levels of anti-HPV-16/18 IgG were assessed. Our final analyses included 5137 females (vaccine group = 2532, control group = 2605). The median follow-up time was 47.88 months (IQR: 45.72-50.04). For the prevention of precancerous lesions related to the non-infected HR-HPV types at baseline, VE against HPV-16/18 related CIN 2+ was 82.70% (95% CI: 63.70-93.00%). For the prevention of reinfections related to the infected HR-HPV types following natural clearance, VE against HPV-16/18 12MPI was non-significant (p > .05), albeit robust immunity persisted for at least 48 months. Females with existing HR-HPV infections at first vaccination still benefit from vaccination in preventing precancers related to the non-infected types at baseline. VE against reinfections related to the infected types following natural clearance remains to be further investigated.

Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing: Acceptability in a U.S. Safety Net Health System

INTRODUCTION

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing is increasingly recognized as a strategy to expand cervical cancer screening access and utilization. Acceptability is a key determinant of uptake. This study assesses the acceptability of and experiences with mailed self-sampling kits for human papillomavirus testing among underscreened patients in a safety net health system.

METHODS

A nested telephone survey was administered between 2021 and 2023 to a sample (n=272) of the 2,268 participants enrolled in the Prospective Evaluation of Self-Testing to Increase Screening trial. Trial participants include patients of a safety net health system aged 30-65 years who were not up to date on screening. Participants were asked about barriers to provider-performed screening. Kit users and nonusers were asked about their experiences.

RESULTS

Prevalent barriers to provider-performed screening included perceived discomfort of pelvic examination (69.4%), being uncomfortable with male providers (65.4%), and embarrassment (57.0%). Among participants who reported using the mailed kit (n=164), most reported good experiences (84.8%). Most reported self-sampling as more/equally convenient (89.0%), less/equally embarrassing (99.4%), and less/equally stressful (95.7%) than provider-performed screening. Among kit nonusers (n=43), reasons for not using the kit included forgetting about it (76.7%), preferring provider-performed screening (76.7%), and fearing cancer (67.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective Evaluation of Self-Testing to Increase Screening trial participants generally had a positive experience with self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing. Increased comfort and reduced embarrassment/anxiety with self-sampling are relevant attributes because these were the most prevalent reported barriers to provider-performed screening. High acceptability suggests potentially high uptake when self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing receives regulatory approval and is available in safety net health systems.