Increasing participation in cervical screening by targeting long‐term nonattenders: Randomized health services study

Effectiveness of self-sampling human papillomavirus test on precancer detection and screening uptake in Japan: The ACCESS randomized controlled trial

Japan is lagging in cervical cancer prevention. The effectiveness of a self-sampling human papillomavirus (HPV) test, a possible measure to overcome this situation, has not yet been evaluated. A randomized controlled trial was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-sampling HPV test on detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and screening uptake. Women between 30 and 58 years old who did not participate in the cervical cancer screening program for ≥3 years were eligible and assigned to the intervention group (cytology or self-sampling HPV test) or control group (cytology). Participants assigned to the intervention group were sent a self-sampling kit according to their ordering (opt-in strategy). A total of 7337 and 7772 women were assigned to the intervention and control groups, respectively. Screening uptake in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (20.0% vs. 6.4%; risk ratio: 3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.82, 3.42). The compliance rate with cytology triage for HPV-positive women was 46.8% (95% CI: 35.5%, 58.4%). CIN2+ was detected in five and four participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively; there was no difference for intention-to-screen analysis (risk ratio: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.36, 4.93). Self-sampling of HPV test increased screening uptake; however, no difference was observed in the detection of CIN2+, probably due to the low compliance rate for cytology triage in HPV-positive women. Efforts to increase cytology triage are essential to maximize precancer detections.

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

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

Cervical cancer screening improvements with self-sampling during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic cervical screening in the capital region of Sweden was canceled for several months. A series of measures to preserve and improve the cervical screening under the circumstances were instituted, including a switch to screening with HPV self-sampling to enable screening in compliance with social distancing recommendations.

Methods

We describe the major changes implemented, which were (1) nationwide implementation of HPV screening, (2) switch to primary self-sampling instead of clinician sampling, (3) implementation of HPV screening in all screening ages, and (4) combined HPV vaccination and HPV screening in the cervical screening program.

Results

A temporary government regulation allowed primary self-sampling with HPV screening in all ages. In the Stockholm region, 330,000 self-sampling kits were sent to the home address of screening-eligible women, instead of an invitation to clinician sampling. An increase in organized population test coverage was seen (from 54% to 60% in just 1 year). In addition, a national campaign for faster elimination of cervical cancer with concomitant screening and vaccination for women in ages 23-28 was launched.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated major changes in the cervical cancer preventive strategies, where it can already be concluded that the strategy with organized primary self-sampling for HPV has resulted in a major improvement of population test coverage.

Funding

Funded by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, the Swedish Cancer Society, the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Swedish government, and the Stockholm county.

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.

Acceptability of self-sampling human papillomavirus test for cervical cancer screening in Japan: A questionnaire survey in the ACCESS trial

PURPOSE

In terms of medical policy for cervical cancer prevention, Japan lags far behind other industrialized countries. We initiated a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the self-sampling human papillomavirus (HPV) test as a tool to raise screening uptake and detection of pre-cancer. This study was conducted to explore the acceptability and preference of self-sampling using a subset of the data from this trial.

METHODS

A pre-invitation letter was sent to eligible women, aged 30-59 years who had not undergone cervical cancer screening for three or more years. After excluding those who declined to participate in this trial, the remaining women were assigned to the self-sampling and control groups. A second invitation letter was sent to the former group, and those wanting to undergo the self-sampling test ordered the kit. A self-sampling HPV kit, consent form, and a self-administered questionnaire were sent to participants who ordered the test.

RESULTS

Of the 7,340 participants in the self-sampling group, 1,196 (16.3%) administered the test, and 1,192 (99.7%) answered the questionnaire. Acceptability of the test was favorable; 75.3-81.3% of participants agreed with positive impressions (easy, convenient, and clarity of instruction), and 65.1-77.8% disagreed with negative impressions (painful, uncomfortable, and embarrassing). However, only 21.2% were confident in their sampling procedure. Willingness to undergo screening with a self-collected sample was significantly higher than that with a doctor-collected sample (89.3% vs. 49.1%; p<0.001). Willingness to undergo screening with a doctor-collected sample was inversely associated with age and duration without screening (both p<0.001), but that with a self-collected sample was not associated.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women who used the self-sampling HPV test, high acceptability was confirmed, while concerns about self-sampling procedures remained. Screening with a self-collected sample was preferred over a doctor-collected sample and the former might alleviate disparities in screening rates.

Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening participation among women in Japan, 2010–2019

BACKGROUND

It is known that socioeconomic status (SES) influences the outcome of cancer treatment and this could partly be explained by decreased use of cancer screening services by people of lower SES. Many studies have indicated that low SES, including low educational attainment or unstable employment, was related to nonparticipation in cancer screening. However, studies investigating trends in SES inequalities within cancer screening participation are limited. Our objective was to examine trends in SES inequalities in cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening participation among women in Japan between 2010 and 2019.

METHODS

We analyzed 189,442, 168,571, 163,341, and 150,828 women in 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019 respectively, using nationally representative cross-sectional surveys. The main outcome variables are participation in each cancer screening. We used educational attainment and employment status as measures for SES. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, marital status, educational attainment, and employment status was performed to evaluate the associations between SES and nonparticipation in each cancer screening.

RESULTS

Overall participation rates in each cancer screening increased between 2010 and 2019. Low educational attainment and non-permanent employment status were related to nonparticipation in each cancer screening and inequality according to employment status increased within each screening participation during the study period. For example, dispatched workers were more likely to not participate in cervical cancer screening than permanent workers: in 2010, [aOR 1.11 95 %CI: 1.01 -1.21], and in 2019, [aOR 1.46 95 %CI: 1.34-1.60]. The inequality was greatest in colorectal cancer screening nonparticipation, followed by breast and cervical screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the participation rates in each cancer screening have increased, inequality in participation in terms of employment status widened among women in Japan between 2010 and 2019. Reducing inequalities in cancer screening participation is essential for cancer screening intervention policies.

Experiences of human papillomavirus self-sampling by women >60 years old: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling has shown to be acceptable and feasible across cultures and effective in reaching women who do not participate in regular cervical cancer screening. However, most of these studies have included younger women. There is a lack of knowledge of how older women reason about HPV self-sampling.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe how women (>60 years old) experience the offering of self-sampling of HPV, compared to having a sample collected by a healthcare professional.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

The study had a qualitative explorative design. Four focus group discussions were conducted with women 60-69 years old (n = 22). Data were analysed using principles of interpretive description.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: self-sampling-convenient and without pain, lack of knowledge, worries related to HPV self-sampling, need for information and taking a societal perspective.

CONCLUSION

Women aged >60 years found that HPV self-sampling was convenient and easy to perform. Further, they stressed the importance of being able to remain in the screening programme in advanced age and that self-sampling could be a possible solution. This study also revealed a lack of knowledge among women in this age group regarding HPV infection, how the disease is transmitted and its relation to cervical cancer.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Women who had performed HPV self-sampling participated in the focus group discussion.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials

Objectives

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling proposal on cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake when compared with an invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. Secondary outcomes were acceptability and preference of self-sampling compared to clinician-collected samples.

Methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies examining the CCS uptake comparing self-sampling over invitation to be sampled by an healthcare professional and examining the proportion of women accepting or preferring self-sampling vs. clinician-collected sampling were included. The CCS uptake was also explored according to strategy of self-samplers' distribution, collection device type and screening status. Peters' test and Funnel Plot inspection were used to assess the publication bias. Quality of the studies was assessed through Cochrane Risk of Bias and NIH Quality Assessment tools.

Results

One hundred fifty-four studies were globally identified, and 482,271 women were involved. Self-sampling procedures nearly doubled the probability (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.7-2.0) of CCS uptake when compared with clinician-collected samples. The opt-out (RR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.9-2.4) and the door-to-door (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.6-2.0) did not statistically significant differ (p = 1.177) in improving the CCS uptake. A higher relative uptake was shown for brushes (RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5-1.7) and swabs (RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9-3.1) over clinician-collected samples. A high between-studies variability in characteristics of sampled women was shown. In all meta-analyses the level of heterogeneity was consistently high (I 2 > 95%). Publication bias was unlikely.

Conclusions

Self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of under-screened women in the CCS, in addition to the standard invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. For small communities door-to-door distribution could be preferred to distribute the self-sampler while; for large communities opt-out strategies should be preferred over opt-in. Since no significant difference in acceptability and preference of device type was demonstrated among women, and swabs and brushes exhibited a potential stronger effect in improving CCS, these devices could be adopted.

Cost-effectiveness of population screening for atrial fibrillation: the STROKESTOP study

AIMS

Previous studies on the cost-effectiveness of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) are based on assumptions of long-term clinical effects. The STROKESTOP study, which randomised 27 975 persons aged 75/76 years into a screening invitation group and a control group, has a median follow-up time of 6.9 years. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for AF using clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The analysis is based on a Markov cohort model. The prevalence of AF, the use of oral anticoagulation, clinical event data, and all-cause mortality were taken from the STROKESTOP study. The cost for clinical events, age-specific utilities, utility decrement due to stroke, and stroke death was taken from the literature. Uncertainty in the model was considered in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Per 1000 individuals invited to the screening, there were 77 gained life years and 65 gained quality-adjusted life years. The incremental cost was €1.77 million lower in the screening invitation group. Gained quality-adjusted life years to a lower cost means that the screening strategy was dominant. The result from 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations showed that the AF screening strategy was cost-effective in 99.2% and cost-saving in 92.7% of the simulations. In the base-case scenario, screening of 1000 individuals resulted in 10.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): -22.5 to 1.4] fewer strokes (8.4 ischaemic and 2.2 haemorrhagic strokes), 1.0 (95% CI: -1.9 to 4.1) more cases of systemic embolism, and 2.9 (95% CI: -18.2 to 13.1) fewer bleedings associated with hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Based on the STROKESTOP study, this analysis shows that a broad AF screening strategy in an elderly population is cost-effective. Efforts should be made to increase screening participation.

Design of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake in a U.S. healthcare system: The STEP trial

BACKGROUND

Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to overdue individuals increases cervical cancer screening adherence; offering self-sampling to previously adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the U.S. Given heterogeneity of the U.S. health system and population, data are needed to optimize how HPV self-sampling is offered to individuals who are overdue, due after successful past screening, or have an unknown screening history.

METHODS

STEP is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial set within a U.S. integrated healthcare delivery system, designed to compare different outreach approaches for offering HPV self-sampling in populations defined by prior screening behavior (previously-adherent, overdue, or unknown screening history). Over 14 months, eligible individuals were identified through electronic medical record (EMR) data and randomized to Usual Care (UC), Education (UC + educational materials about cervical cancer screening), Direct-Mail (UC + Education + a mailed self-sampling kit) or Opt-In (UC + Education + option to request a kit), depending on screening history. The primary objective is to compare screening completion by outreach approach and screening history. Secondary objectives include evaluating incremental cost-effectiveness of outreach approaches, and identifying patient preference for, and satisfaction with, HPV self-screening, and barriers to abnormal results follow-up (measured through interviews and focus groups).

CONCLUSIONS

The trial was designed to generate data that U.S. health systems can use to inform primary HPV screening implementation strategies that incorporate HPV self-sampling options to improve screening access, adherence, and patient satisfaction. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale and design of this pragmatic trial.

A pilot study of risk-stratified cervical cancer screening

Background: Cervical screening programs target entire populations, although it is well established that cervical cancer risks can vary >100-fold based, in particular, on the woman's screening history. Since cervical screening switched to Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary screening method, the risk differences are even larger as different HPV types may vary in associated cancer risk by 100 times. Furthermore, HPV infections with the most oncogenic types are declining dramatically because of HPV vaccination programs. Tailoring screening intensity based on the known cancer risk of the individual (risk-stratified screening) therefore has great potential to increase both the sensitivity and specificity. Within Horizon 2020 a major project for Risk-stratified Screening for Cervical Cancer (RISCC) has therefore been launched. We performed a pilot study of risk-stratified screening to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of offering vaginal HPV self-sampling tests to women with a higher risk of cervical cancer. Methods: We identified resident women who had had either i) atypical glandular cells in screening tests during the past six years (risk >150/100,000 woman-years) or ii) abnormal screening findings above the age of 50, but without sufficient follow-up (risk >65/100,000). The women were invited, either by short message service (SMS) or physical letters, to order an HPV self-sampling kit via the study web-platform. The returned self-collected samples were tested for HPV. If positive, women were invited for clinical follow-up. Results: Among 920 targeted women, 191 (21%) placed an order and 163 (18%) returned a self-collected sample. Among all tested samples, 19 (12%) were positive for hrHPV and 18 of these women attended clinical follow-up. Conclusions: SMS invitations to high-risk women complemented with physical letters are feasible and result in substantial requests for kits and submission of samples. Future work will focus on improving the efficiency of the procedure and further increasing attendance.

Implementation of a self-sampling HPV test for non-responders to cervical cancer screening in Japan: secondary analysis of the ACCESS trial

A self-sampling human papillomavirus (HPV) test could improve the morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer in Japan. However, its effectiveness and feasibility have not been demonstrated sufficiently. Hence, we launched a randomized controlled trial, which is ongoing, and report the results of a secondary analysis. To ensure autonomous participation with a minimum selection bias, opt-out consent was obtained from women who met the inclusion criteria, and written consent was obtained from those who underwent a self-sampling test. The number of women who met the inclusion criteria was 20,555; 4283 and 1138 opted out before and after the assignment, respectively. Of the 7340 women in the self-sampling arm, 1372 (18.7%) ordered and 1196 (16.3%) underwent the test. Younger women in their 30 s and 40 s tended to undertake the test more frequently than older women in their 50 s (P for trend < 0.001). Invalid HPV test results were rare (1.3%), and neither adverse events nor serious complaints were reported. Despite adopting the opt-out procedure, more women than expected declined to participate, suggesting the need for a waiver of consent or assignment before consent to reduce selection bias. A self-sampling HPV test can be implemented in Japan and would be more accessible to young women, the predominant group affected by cervical cancer.

HPV self-sampling among long-term non-attenders to cervical cancer screening in Norway: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer screening participation is suboptimal in most settings. We assessed whether human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling may increase screening participation among long-term non-attenders in Norway.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with participation as the primary outcome was initiated in the national cervical screening programme in March 2019. A random sample of 6000 women aged 35-69 years who had not attended screening for at least 10 years were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self-sampling kit (opt-in) for HPV testing or (iii) a self-sampling kit unsolicited (send-to-all) for HPV testing.

RESULTS

Total participation was 4.8%, 17.0% and 27.7% among control, opt-in and send-to-all (P < 0.0001; participation difference (%) send-to-all vs. control: 22.9 (95%CI: 20.7, 25.2); opt-in vs. control: 12.3 (95%CI: 10.3, 14.2); send-to-all vs. opt-in: 10.7 (95% CI: 8.0, 13.3)). High-risk HPV was detected in 11.5% of self-samples and 9.2% of clinician-collected samples (P = 0.40). Most women (92.5%) who returned a positive self-sample attended the clinic for triage testing. Of the 933 women screened, 33 (3.5%) had CIN2 + (1.1%, 3.7%, 3.8% among control, opt-in, and send-to-all, respectively), and 11 (1.2%) had cervical cancer (0%, 1.2%, 1.3% among control, opt-in, send-to-all, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling increased screening participation among long-term, higher-risk non-attenders.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03873376.

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

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

Study protocol of the ACCESS trial: a randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling in cervical cancer screening uptake and precancer detection

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the incidence of cervical cancer has increased in Japan, probably because of an interruption in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and a low cervical cancer screening rate. There is a lack of evidence for self-sampling HPV testing as a cervical cancer screening tool in Japan. The Accelerating Cervical Cancer Elimination by Self-Sampling test trial aims to compare the effectiveness of screening using the self-sampling HPV test with that of routine screening concerning screening uptake and precancer detection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial has a single-municipality, open-label, parallel, superiority and randomised design. Approximately 20 000 women who have not undergone cervical cancer screening for at least 3 years will be assigned randomly to the self-sampling arm and the control arm using a 1:1 ratio. Participants assigned to the control arm will undergo routine cervical cancer screening (cytology test) provided by Ichihara City, while those assigned to the self-sampling arm will choose the routine screening or self-sampling HPV test. HPV tests will be performed using the cobas 8800 system (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland). Participants who will undergo the self-sampling HPV testing will be recommended to undergo routine screening. The results of the cytology test and further tests, such as colposcopy and biopsy, will be collected and used for this trial. The risk ratio and risk difference in the proportion of participants with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia two or worse between the two arms will be calculated. The test for the null hypothesis (the detection rates are equal between the two arms) will be performed using Pearson's χ² test.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the Research Ethics Committees of the Chiba Foundation for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention and the collaborating research institutes. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCT1030200276. Pre-results.

Feasibility of sending a direct send HPV self-sampling kit to long-term non-attenders in an organized cervical screening program

INTRODUCTION

Non-participation in screening is a main risk factor for cervical cancer. Human-papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling may be an alternative to repeated invitations for non-attenders. Several studies have concluded that participation among non-attenders increases significantly when offering self-sampling kits for HPV. However, participation rates are highly variable between settings, and therefore pilots to determine optimal implementation strategy have been recommended before routine roll out.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All women who had not participated in the organized screening program for at least 10 years aged 33-62 in one Swedish county were identified through screening registers. HPV self-sampling kits were sent to all eligible women. Participation was defined as returning a self-sample kit or attending routine screening within 6 months. Women who did not submit the kit within 8 weeks were randomized to receive a written reminder. HPV-positive women were referred directly to colposcopy without prior triage. Biopsies for histopathologic confirmation were used as gold standard.

RESULTS

Among eligible women, 150/741 (20.2%) returned the self-sample kit or attended routine screening. A randomized written reminder was sent out to 319/591 non-responders and another 11 women returned the kit. In total, 23/147 (16.3%) of returned kits were HPV positive. Out of the 23 HPV-positive women, 17 (74%) attended colposcopy; 10/17 (59%) had a histopathological high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) or cervical cancer. The most common HPV type was HPV 52, and 2 out of 3 women with HPV 16 had a histopathologically confirmed cancer.

CONCLUSION

The direct send kit strategy and referral of all HPV-positive women to colposcopy without prior triage appears to be feasible if resources are available and should be prioritized given the high prevalence of HSIL lesions and cancer among non-attenders. A written reminder might further increase attendance.

Combined patterns of participation in cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screenings and factors for non-participation in each screening among women in Japan

Finding effective strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening (CCS), breast cancer screening (BCS) and colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) for women is an important public health issue. Our objective was to examine combined patterns of participation in these three screenings and investigate the factors associated with non-participation in each. We analyzed 115,254 women aged 40-69 who were age-eligible for all three screenings from a 2016 nationally representative cross-sectional survey in Japan. Eight screening patterns were defined as full-participation (CCS + BCS + CRCS), partial-participation (CCS + BCS, CCS + CRCS, BCS + CRCS, CCS, BCS, CRCS), and non-participation (none). Multinomial logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, marital status, educational attainment, employment status, self-rated health, current hospital visits, and smoking status was performed to evaluate the factors associated with each screening pattern, using full-participation as the reference category. Screening rates for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer were 45.0%, 46.2%, and 40.4%, respectively. Although only 26.9% of women participated in all three screenings, more than 60% participated in at least one screening. Unstable employment, low educational attainment, low self-rated health, and current smoker were associated with both non-participation and partial-participation, especially single-participation in cervical and breast cancer screening. For example, self-employed women were more likely to be non-participants [aOR 2.80 95%CI: 2.65-2.96], single-participants for CCS [aOR 2.87 95%CI: 2.57-3.20], and BCS [aOR 2.07 95%CI: 1.85-2.33] than permanent workers. It may be useful to consider related factors for non-participation patterns to encourage partial-participants to have other cancer screenings by utilizing one cancer screening as an opportunity to provide information about other screenings.

Performance of a six-methylation-marker assay on self-collected cervical samples - A feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

In high-income countries, a high proportion of cervical cancers is diagnosed in screening non-attendees. One approach to improve screening coverage is to offer self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. However, especially young women are often HPV positive without having a precancerous lesion in need of treatment. To improve the rather low specificity of HPV testing additional markers such as DNA-methylation can be used. The aim of this feasibility study was to examine the performance of the methylation marker assay GynTect®, comprising six methylation markers, on dry self-collected cervico-vaginal samples compared to physician-taken samples.

METHODS

We recruited 89 patients from our colposcopy clinic of whom 87 qualified for the study. The women took a self-sample with the Evalyn-Brush. Afterwards the planned colposcopy was performed and smears for cytology and reference HPV testing were taken as well as a biopsy in cases of abnormalities. Physician-taken and self-collected samples were tested for HPV DNA and were analyzed with GynTect®.

RESULTS

We obtained 95.5 % valid results for the self-collected samples which was very close to the physician-taken samples. Only about half of the self-collected samples were GynTect® positive in comparison to the physician-taken samples. GynTect® scores were significantly lower for self-collected than for physician-taken samples (p = 0.001, paired t-test). The overall concordance for GynTect® results was moderate (kappa 0.394; p < 0.001). For HPV testing we obtained a good concordance (kappa 0.586; p < 0.001). The GynTect® results for the self-collected samples showed a sensitivity for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) of 26.1 % (95 %-CI: 0.13-0.46) and a specificity of 95.6 % (95 %-CI: 0.85-0.99), in comparison to a sensitivity of 45.5 % (95 %-CI: 0.27-0.65) and a specificity of 78.3 % (95 %-CI: 0.64-0.88) for the physician-taken samples.

CONCLUSIONS

GynTect® methylation marker testing has a satisfactory amount of valid results on self-collected samples. However, the results of the self-collected samples differed clearly in comparison to the reference samples. To justify an application in screening, a larger study with more cases of high-grade cervical dysplasia and HPV positive patients will be needed.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Colposcopy clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

PRIMARY OUTCOME

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

SECONDARY OUTCOME

The acceptability by women of self-sampling.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cervical screening in high-income countries: the need for quality assurance, adjunct biomarkers and rational adaptation to HPV vaccination

We here discuss human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening avenues to achieve elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem in high-income country (HIC) settings, covering both the most recent data on the performance of HPV testing, as well as the currently most robust triage methods that are known. We also provide an outlook to several other promising, yet not fully established, options for triage that have been proposed, including methylation, dual staining, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. Finally, we discuss the key issue of how to adapt screening in the presence of programmatic HPV vaccination, and how this combination can best be leveraged for comprehensive cancer control. We conclude that, for the HIC setting, evidence-based and effective cervical screening methods are readily available, but whichever method or platform is chosen, we would propose that recurring audits of performance and population attendance remain common denominators for maintaining successful disease prevention.

Investigating the decrease in participation in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: The role of personal and organisational characteristics

Declining attendance in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme was recently observed, coinciding with preparations for implementing primary hrHPV-based screening, which was implemented in January 2017. We aimed to investigate which factors were related to decreased attendance. We conducted a population-based cohort study including all women aged 30 to 60 years who were eligible for screening between 2014 and 2018. Attendance was defined as participation in the screening programme within 15 months of the start of the invitation-eligible year. We used data from the Dutch pathology archive (PALGA) linked with data from Statistics Netherlands to investigate population characteristics (position in the household, household income, socio-economic status, number of people in the household, migration background, age) and data from the five Dutch screening organisations (SO) to investigate the effect of cessing self-inviting GP's ('inviting organisation'). SO's were termed SO 1 to 5. Higher attendance rates were observed in women who were employed (60.8%), married (62.9%), Dutch (61.2%), in the highest income bracket (63.4%), living in households with four persons (65.3%) and women who were invited by their GP (69.8%). Differences in personal characteristics did not explain the decline in attendance rates. By adjusting for whether the GP or the SO sent the invitation, the differences in attendance rates between 2014 and 2015 and 2016 and between 2014 and 2015 and 2017-2018 were explained in some screening organisations. Removing the possibility for GPs to send invitations explains some of the decline in participation, although this did not account for the total change in attendance.

Comparison of vaginal self-sampling and cervical sampling by medical professionals for the detection of HPV and CIN2+: A randomized study

Primary screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) test is more effective in reducing cervical cancer incidence than cytology and it also offers the opportunity to self-sample. We conducted a randomized study to compare vaginal self-sampling with cervical sampling by medical professionals for HPV testing concerning prevalence of HPV and detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in primary screening. In total, 11 951 women aged 30-60 years were randomized into two groups, 5961 for self-sampling (SS arm) and 5990 for sampling by medical professionals (SMP arm). Sampling was performed with a RoversViba-brush in the SS arm and a cytobrush in the SMP arm. All samples were applied to an indicating FTA elute card and analyzed for HPV using a clinically validated real-time PCR test (hpVIR). All HPV-positive women performed repeated sampling about 6 months later using the same procedure as used initially. All HPV-positive women in the second sampling were referred to colposcopy. The prevalence of HPV in the first test did not differ between the SS arm (6.8%, 167/2466) and the SMP arm (7.8%, 118/1519) (P = .255). The prevalence of CIN2+ per 1000 screened women was 17 (43/2466 × 1000) (95%CI 13-24) in the SS arm and 21 (32/1519 × 1000) (95%CI 15-30) in the SMP arm. For CIN3+, the prevalence per 1000 screened women was 14 (35/2466 × 1000) (95%CI 10-20) in the SS arm and 15 (23/1519 × 1000) (95%CI 10-23) in the SMP arm. In conclusion, self-sampling and sampling by medical professionals showed the same prevalence of HPV and detection rate of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in histology.

Acceptance of Self-Sampling Among Long-Term Cervical Screening Non-Attenders with HPV-Positive Results: Promising Opportunity for Specific Cancer Education

This study aims to investigate acceptance of vaginal self-sampling for high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) among long-term screening non-attenders at increased cervical cancer risk and to identify leverage points to promote screening adherence among these women. Forty-three long-term screening non-attenders performed home vaginal self-sampling for HPV, had positive HPV results, and subsequently attended gynecologic examination. Sixteen (37.2%) had high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2 or 3), and two had invasive cervical cancer. Forty-one of these women completed a questionnaire concerning Specific Knowledge about HPV, CIN, and cervical cancer, potential barriers to screening and views about self-sampling. Results were compared with 479 women treated for CIN2+ who attended gynecologic follow-up and also performed self-sampling. Significant multivariate predictors of long-term non-attender status compared with referents were low Specific Knowledge, high confidence in self-sampling, and potential barriers-refraining from activity to attend gynecologic examination, needing another's help to attend, and long travel time. Non-attenders citing fear/refraining from gynecologic examination as why they preferred self-sampling significantly more often had lowest Specific Knowledge compared with other non-attenders. All non-attenders could envision themselves doing self-sampling again while only 74% of referents endorsed this statement (p = 0.0003). We conclude that HPV self-sampling is an acceptable option for women at increased cervical cancer risk who have been long-term screening non-attenders. Educational outreach to enhance Specific Knowledge about HPV, CIN and cervical cancer is critical. Those non-attenders who explicitly avoid gynecologic examinations need special attention. Trial Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02750124.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Participation in interventions and recommended follow-up for non-attendees in cervical cancer screening -taking the women's own preferred test method into account-A Swedish randomised controlled trial

Background

Cervical cancer is a highly preventable disease. To not attend an organized cervical cancer screening program increases the risk for cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer. The aim was to investigate the participation rate in three different intervention groups for non- attendees in the Swedish national program for cervical screening. The participation in the recommended follow up, and the histology found were also examined.

Method

Population-based randomized control trial. It included10,614 women that had not participated in the cervical cancer screening programme during the last six years (ages 30–49) and the last eight years (ages 50–64) were randomised 1:1:1(telephone call from a midwife (offering the choice between a visit for a pap smear or an HPV self-sampling test); an HPV self-sampling test only; or the routine procedure with a yearly invitation).

Results

In the intention to treat analysis the participation rates were 25.5% (N = 803/3146) vs 34.1% (N = 1047/3068) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p<0.001) for telephone, HPV self-test and control groups respectively. In the by protocol analysis including women that answered the phone call the participation rates were 31.7% (N = 565/1784) vs 26.1% (N = 788/3002) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p<0.001) for telephone, HPV self-test and control groups. The corresponding results in the by protocol analysis including women that did not answer the phone call was 19.7% (N = 565/2870) vs 26.1% (N = 788/3002) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p< 0.001). The majority of the women 63,4% (1131/1784) who answered the telephone wanted to participate either by booking a visit for pap smear (38,5%) or to be sent a HPV self- sampling test (24,9%) (p<0.001). Women who chose an HPV self-test were older and gave anxiety/ fear as a reason to decline participation, and they were also less likely to participate in the follow-up if found to be HPV-positive compared to the women who chose a Pap smear. The attendance to the recommended follow-up after abnormality was in total 87%. The non-attendees had a three or eight times higher risk of having a cytology result of HSIL or suspected SCC respectively, in the index sample compared to women screened as recommended (OR 3.3 CI 95% 1.9–5.2, OR 8.6 CI 1.6–30). A total of ten SCC and one adenocarcinoma were found in the histopathology results from the non-attendee group with a study intervention, while there was only one SCC in the non-attendee group without any study intervention (p = 0.02, OR 8.1 CI 95% 1.2–350).

Conclusions

Our study suggests, according to intention to treat analysis, that the best intervention to get as many non-attendees as possible to participate is to send an HPV self-sampling test together with an invitation letter. Almost 90% of women in the study with an abnormal index sample attended follow-up. This is high enough to indicate that interventions to increase the participation among non-attendees are meaningful.

Registry

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN)

Registration number ISRCTN78719765.