Dataset Information

Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.

Design

Cost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model.

Setting

England.

Participants

A cohort of 10 000 women aged 25-65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).

Methods

The model was based on the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year cycle: routine screening (year 1) and recall screening (years 2/3). Parameter inputs were informed using published studies, NHSCSP reports and input from experts and manufacturers. Costs were from 2020/2021, British pound sterling (£).

Interventions

Three sampling strategies were implemented: (1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, (2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine, (3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved mailing women a sampling kit.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens and cost per complete screen.

Secondary outcomes

number of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios.

Results

In the base case, the average cost per complete screen was £56.81 for clinician-collected cervical sampling, £38.57 for FV urine self-sampling and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal) per year.

Conclusion

Self-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women.

SUBMITTER: Huntington S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10254906 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation.

Huntington Susie S Puri Sudhir Krishnan K Schneider Verena V Sargent Alex A Turner Katy K Crosbie Emma J EJ Adams Elisabeth J EJ

BMJ open 20230606 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.<h4>Design</h4>Cost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model.<h4>Setting</h4>England.<h4>Participants</h4>A cohort of 10 000 women aged 25-65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).<h4>Methods</h4>The model was based on the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapt ...[more]

PMID: 37280031

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccording to international guidelines, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA tests represent a valid alternative to Pap Test for primary cervical cancer screening, provided that they guarantee balanced clinical sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) lesions. The study aimed to assess whether HPV Selfy (Ulisse BioMed - Trieste, Italy), a full-genotyping HPV DNA test that detects and differentiates 14 high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) types, meets the criteria for primary cervical cancer screening described in the international guidelines, on clinician-collected as well as on self-collected samples.MethodsFor each participant woman, consecutively referring to Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Giuliano Isontina (Trieste, Italy) and CRO-National Cancer Institute (Aviano, Italy) for the cervical cancer screening program, the following samples were tested: (a) a clinician-collected cervical specimen, analyzed with the reference test (Hybrid Capture®2 test, HC2) and HPV Selfy; and (b) a self-collected vaginal sample, analyzed with HPV Selfy. Enrolled women were also asked to fulfill a questionnaire about self-sampling acceptability. As required by guidelines, a non-inferiority test was conducted to compare the clinical performance of the test under evaluation with its reference test.ResultsHPV Selfy clinical sensitivity and specificity resulted non-inferior to those of HC2. By analysis of a total of 889 cervical liquid-based cytology samples from a screening population, of which 98 were from women with CIN2+, HPV Selfy showed relative sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ of 0.98 and 1.00 respectively (non-inferiority score test: P = 0.01747 and P = 0.00414, respectively); the test reached adequate intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility. Moreover, we demonstrated that the performance of HPV Selfy on self-collected vaginal samples was non-inferior to the performance obtained on clinician-collected cervical specimen (0.92 relative sensitivity and 0.97 relative specificity). Finally, through HPV Selfy genotyping, we were able to describe HPV types prevalence in the study population.ConclusionsHPV Selfy fulfills all the requirements of the international Meijer's guidelines and has been clinically validated for primary cervical cancer screening purposes. Moreover, HPV Selfy has also been validated for self-sampling according to VALHUDES guidelines. Therefore, at date, HPV Selfy is the only full-genotyping test validated both for screening purposes and for self-sampling. Trial registration ASUGI Trieste n. 16008/2018; CRO Aviano n.17149/2018.

Project description:BackgroundThe increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays.MethodsThe hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures.FindingsWe included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00).ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who refuse a clinical examination, self-collected screening would be a good alternative. We recommend that guidelines on how to self-collect gonorrhea and chlamydia urine, vaginal, rectal and pharyngeal specimens be published.

Project description:IntroductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a method of cervical cancer screening can be performed by healthcare providers or by patients through self-sampling directly in the community, removing several barriers experienced by under screened populations. The objective of this scoping review was to determine which HPV self-sampling implementation and engagement strategies have been used to engage under screened populations (i.e., Indigenous, newcomer, and rural and remote communities) in cervical cancer screening.MethodsA scoping review was conducted searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SocINDEX from inception to August 2023. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Indigenous, newcomer, and rural and remote communities; (2) countries identified as members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; and (3) intervention included HPV self-sampling. The review was registered prior to conducting the search (https://osf.io/zfvp9).ResultsA total of 26 studies out of 2,741 studies met the inclusion criteria. In-person engagement with trusted community leaders was the most widely used and accepted recruitment and engagement strategy across all three populations. Six out of seven studies with Indigenous communities distributed HPV self-sampling kits to eligible participants in person in a clinical setting for collection on site or at home. Similarly, nine of the identified studies that engaged newcomers recruited participants in person through the community, where eligible participants were either given a kit (n = 7) or received one in the mail (n = 2). Lastly, of the 10 identified studies engaging rural and remote participants in HPV self-sampling, six recruited eligible participants in person at various community locations and four used electronic medical records or registries to identify and mail kits to participants.DiscussionHPV self-sampling through in person kit distribution and mail out of HPV self-sampling kits is an effective way to increase participation rates amongst under screened populations.

Project description:Background & aimWomen with HIV/HPV coinfection and cervical lesions are at increased risk of developing HPV related anal cancer. Self-collection of anal swabs may facilitate HPV molecular testing in anal cancer screening, especially in high-risk groups, and yet it is not adequately studied. We evaluated level of agreement between self-collected anal swabs (SCAS) and clinician-collected anal swabs (CCAS) when used for HPV genotyping. We also described the anal HPV genotype distribution and HIV/HPV coinfection.MethodsWe performed a cross sectional study with participants from a visual-inspection-with-acetic-acid and cervicography (VIAC) clinic, in Harare, Zimbabwe. In a clinic setting, the women aged ≥18 years provided anal swabs in duplicate; first CCAS and then SCAS immediately after. HPV detection and genotyping were performed using next generation amplicon sequencing of a 450bp region of the HPV L1 gene. Level of agreement of HPV genotypes between CCAS and SCAS was calculated using the kappa statistic. McNemar tests were used to evaluate agreement in the proportion of genotypes detected by either method.ResultsThree-hundred women provided 600 samples for HPV genotyping. HPV genotypes were detected in 25% of SCAS and in 22% of CCAS. The most common genotypes with CCAS were HPV52, HPV62 and HPV70 and with SCAS were HPV62, HPV44, HPV52, HPV53 and HPV68. Total HPV genotypes detected in CCAS were more than those detected in SCAS, 32 versus 27. The agreement of HPV genotypes between the two methods was 0.55 in kappa value (k). The test of proportions using McNemar gave a Chi-square value of 0.75 (p = 0.39). Multiple HPV infections were detected in 28/75 and 29/67 women for CCAS and SCAS respectively.ConclusionsSCAS and CCAS anal swabs showed moderate agreement, with no statistically significant difference in the proportion of genotypes detected by either methods. Although the differences between the two methods were not statistically significant, CCAS detected more HPV genotypes than SCAS and more HPV infections were detected in SCAS than in CCAS. Our data suggest that self-collected anal swabs can be used as an alternative to clinician-collected anal swabs for HPV genotyping.

Project description:BackgroundHPV self-sampling has been widely supported by the scientific community following a strong body of literature on the subject. Self-sampling is important in cervical cancer screening as it has been shown to improve participation. It is well documented that HPV-testing has proven superior to cytology with regards to sensitivity in detection of CIN and cancer. The value of self-collected samples is reliant on the quality of the molecular testing performed, as well as the patients' preference in sampling procedure and compliance to follow up on positive test results. Due to the incompatibility of self-samples and cytology, triage of HPV-DNA positives by testing for molecular biomarkers is highly warranted.MethodsOur objective was to compare the detection rate of genital Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection in self- and clinician-collected samples by a 14-type HPV-DNA test and a 7-type mRNA E6/E7 test.ResultsFive hundred five women were recruited. Each study participant had two sample collection procedures performed upon the same visit, alternating order in execution of the self-collection or the clinician-taken procedure first or second, 1010 samples in total. HPV-DNA prevalence was 22.8% in self-collected versus 19.2% in clinician-collected samples (P = 0.19). Overexpression of mRNA E6/E7 from 7 HPV types was 7.1 and 6.3%, respectively (P = 0.71). The difference between HPV-DNA and HPV-mRNA positivity rates were statistically significant in both self-collected (22.8% versus 7.1%, P < 0.001) and clinician-collected samples (19.2% versus 6.3%, P < 0.001). Overall agreement between the two collection methods was fair, with a concordance rate of 78.2% (390/505), k = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.25-0.44), P < 0.001, for the HPV-DNA test and 92.5% (467/505), k = 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.56), P < 0.001, for the mRNA test, respectively. 96.8% of the participants reported they felt confident carrying out the self-collection themselves, and 88.8% reported no discomfort at all performing the procedure.ConclusionsThis comparative study of two sampling methods reports fair agreement of HPV positivity rates between the self-collected and clinician-collected specimens using Abbott hrHPV and PreTect HPV-Proofer'7 tests. Only one third of HPV-DNA positive women had overexpression of mRNA E6/E7.Trial registrationISRCTN77337300 .

Project description:BackgroundParticipation in cervical cancer screening varies by socioeconomic status. The aims were to assess if offering human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling kits has an effect on screening participation among various socioeconomic groups and to determine if two invitation strategies for offering self-sampling influence the participation rate equally.MethodsThe study was based on registry data that were applied to data from a randomized controlled trial (n=9,791) measuring how offering HPV self-sampling affected screening participation. The women received either 1) a self-sampling kit mailed directly to their homes (directly mailed group); 2) an invitation to order the kit (opt-in group); or 3) a standard second reminder to attend regular cytology screening (control group). The participation data were linked to registries containing socioeconomic information.ResultsWomen in the directly mailed group participated significantly more than women in the control group, regardless of their socioeconomic status, but the largest effects were observed in Western immigrants (participation difference [PD]=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%-26.0%) and social welfare recipients (PD=15.2%, 95% CI=9.7%-20.6%). Compared with the control group, opt-in self-sampling only had an insignificant effect on participation among women who were immigrants, retired, or less educated. Western immigrants had a significantly higher increase in participation than native Danish women when kits were mailed directly compared with the opt-in strategy (PD=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%-26.2% and PD=5.5%, 95% CI=2.9%-8.1%, respectively, P=0.01).ConclusionAll socioeconomic groups benefited from the directly mailed strategy in terms of higher screening participation, but Western immigrants and lower socioeconomic groups seemed to benefit the most. Immigrants and some lower socioeconomic groups only had insignificant benefits of opt-in self-sampling. The directly mailed strategy might be preferable to opt-in self-sampling because it ensures that ethnic minority groups obtain benefits of introducing HPV self-sampling in an organized cervical cancer screening program.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials NCT02680262. Registered February 10, 2016.

Dataset Information

Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Methods

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Secondary outcomes

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets