Dataset Information

HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: A randomised trial to ascertain whether women who do not attend for cervical screening are more likely to respond to the opportunity to collect a self-sample for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or to a further invitation to attend for cervical screening.The study was carried out in a Primary Care Trust (PCT) in London between June 2009 and December 2009. In total, 3000 women were randomly selected from persistent non-responders (i.e., who had not responded to at least two invitations to attend for screening). The women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to either receive an HPV self-sampling kit or a further invitation to attend for cervical cytology. The main outcome measures were (1) percentage of women attending for cervical cytology compared with those returning a self-sample HPV test or attending for cytology subsequent to receiving the kit and (2) percentage of those testing positive for HPV who attended further investigation.The total response in the self-sampling group for screening was 10.2%. Of the 1500 women in the control group sent a further invitation for cervical screening, 4.5% attended for cytology screening. This difference is highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). Of the 8 women who tested positive for HPV, 7 attended for a cervical smear and had a concurrent colposcopy. Three of these (43%) had high-grade disease (defined as CIN 2+), with one found to have an invasive cancer (stage 1b) and one CIN 3.The value of this intervention relies on the detection of high-grade CIN and early stage cancer with a good prognosis. The relatively high yield of abnormalities found is consistent with that expected among a hard to reach and relatively high-risk group of women. Our study suggests that self-sampling could increase participation among non-responders in England, but further work is needed to ascertain whether the low response rate seen here is likely to be representative of the rest of the country. Other studies are needed to investigate the response to self-sampling in different demographic and geographic settings.

SUBMITTER: Szarewski A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3065284 | biostudies-other | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background To overcome obstacles within the Slovenian organised cervical cancer screening programme, a randomised pilot study of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among non-attenders was performed, aiming to assess three different screening approaches. Participants and methods Non-attenders aged 30-64 years from two Slovenian regions were randomised to two HPV self-sampling groups-the opt-in (I1, n = 14.400) and the opt-out (I2, n = 9.556), with a control group (P, n = 2.600). Self-collected samples were analysed using the Hybrid Capture 2 assay. HPV-positive women were invited to a colposcopy. The overall and type-specific intention-to-screen response rates and histological outcomes with a positive predictive value (PPV) according to the women's age, the screening approach, the level of protection resulting from previous screening history, and the region of residence were assessed. Results Of the 26.556 women enrolled, 8.972 (33.8%) responded with self-sample for HPV testing and/or traditional cytology within one year of enrolment. Response rates were 37.7%, 34.0% and 18.4% (p < 0.050) for opt-out, opt-in and control groups. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ was diagnosed in 3.9/1.000, 3.4/1.000, and 3.1/1.000 women (p > 0.050), respectively. PPV of the HPV self-sampling was 12.0% and 9.6% for CIN2+ and CIN3+. The highest PPV was obtained in non-attenders in screening programme for more than 10-years and concordant results of HPV testing with 40.8% for CIN2+ and 38.8% for CIN3+. Conclusions The results of our study show that a high response to HPV self-sampling can be achieved also in an opt-in approach, if women are encouraged to choose between self-sampling at home and screening with gynaecologist. In addition, clinically important risk difference for a high-grade cervical lesion exists in the case of a positive result of HPV testing on self-collected samples, depending on the length of the interval since last screening. Stratified management of these women should be strongly considered. Women who were not screened with cytology for at least 10 years should be referred to immediate colposcopy for histology verification instead to delayed re-testing.

Project description:Background:Participation 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. Methods:The 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. Results:Women 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). Conclusion:All 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 registration:Current Controlled Trials NCT02680262. Registered February 10, 2016.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.DesignCost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model.SettingEngland.ParticipantsA cohort of 10 000 women aged 25-65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).MethodsThe 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 (£).InterventionsThree 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 measuresPrimary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens and cost per complete screen.Secondary outcomesnumber of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionSelf-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.

Project description:The effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs is challenged by suboptimal participation and coverage. Offering cervico-vaginal self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing (HPV self-sampling) to non-participants can increase screening participation. However, the effect varies substantially among studies, especially depending on the approach used to offer HPV self-sampling. The present trial evaluates the effect on participation in an organized screening program of a HPV self-sampling kit mailed directly to the home of the woman or mailed to the woman's home on demand only, compared with the standard second reminder for regular screening.The CHOiCE trial is a parallel, randomized, controlled, open-label trial. It will include 9327 women aged 30-64 years who are living in the Central Denmark Region and who have not participated in cervical cancer screening after an invitation and one reminder. The women will be equally randomized into three arms: 1) Directly mailed a second reminder including a HPV self-sampling kit; 2) Mailed a second reminder offering a HPV self-sampling kit, to be ordered by e-mail, text message, phone, or through a webpage; and 3) Mailed a second reminder for a practitioner-collected sample (control group). The primary outcome will be the proportion of women in the intervention groups who participate by returning their HPV self-sampling kit or have a practitioner-collected sample compared with the proportion of women who have a practitioner-collected sample in the control group at 90 and 180 days after mail out of the second reminders. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be performed. The secondary outcome will be the proportion of women with a positive HPV self-collected sample who attend follow-up testing at 30, 60, or 90 days after mail out of the results.The CHOiCE trial will provide strong and important evidence allowing us to determine if and how HPV self-sampling can be used to increase participation in cervical cancer screening. This trial therefore has the potential to improve prevention and reduce the number of deaths caused by cervical cancer.Current Controlled Trials NCT02680262 . Registered 10 February 2016.

Dataset Information

HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets