BACKGROUND: Self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is accepted by up to 30% of non-attendees to the regular cervical screening programme. Here, the yield of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 or worse (≥ CIN2) and CIN3 or worse (≥ CIN3) of 15, 274 HPV self-sampling responders amongst non-attendees were compared to that of 176, 027 women participating in regular screening in the same period and in the same region. We also analysed which subpopulations amongst non-attendees are targeted by HPV self-sampling, and which characteristics relate to hrHPV prevalence and yield of ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3. METHOD: Data from two consecutive self-sampling studies were pooled. ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3 yields, screening history, age and ethnic status were retrieved from centralised pathology and screening databases, respectively. A logistic regression model was fitted to analyse method of invitation, ethnicity, age group, and screening history as predictors for response rate, hrHPV presence and ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3 in non-attendees. For screening history analyses, women < 34 years were excluded since it was the first screening round in their life. FINDINGS: ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3 yields of HPV self-sampling responders were higher than those of screening participants (≥ CIN2: relative risk (RR) = 1.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.4-1.9; ≥ CIN3: RR = 1.8, 95%CI = 1.5-2.1 with relative risk values increasing with age (test of homogeneity:≥ CIN2: p = 0.04; ≥ CIN3: p=0.03). Native Dutch non-attendees responded better than immigrants (32% versus 22%, p<0.001) and those screened in the previous round revealed a higher response than underscreened (i.e. previous smear taken >7 years ago) or never screened (34% versus 25%, p<0.001) women. Strikingly, amongst under- and never screened women aged ≥ 39 years, never screened women responded better (25% versus 23%, p<0.001). ≥ CIN2 rates were higher amongst responding native Dutch women than immigrants (p<0.01), and higher in under-/never screened women than in women screened in the previous round (p<0.01). INTERPRETATION: Offering hrHPV self-sampling increases the efficacy of the screening programme by targeting a substantial portion of non-attendees of all ethnic groups who have not regularly been screened and are at highest risk of ≥ CIN2.
BACKGROUND: Self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is accepted by up to 30% of non-attendees to the regular cervical screening programme. Here, the yield of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 or worse (≥ CIN2) and CIN3 or worse (≥ CIN3) of 15, 274 HPV self-sampling responders amongst non-attendees were compared to that of 176, 027 women participating in regular screening in the same period and in the same region. We also analysed which subpopulations amongst non-attendees are targeted by HPV self-sampling, and which characteristics relate to hrHPV prevalence and yield of ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3. METHOD: Data from two consecutive self-sampling studies were pooled. ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3 yields, screening history, age and ethnic status were retrieved from centralised pathology and screening databases, respectively. A logistic regression model was fitted to analyse method of invitation, ethnicity, age group, and screening history as predictors for response rate, hrHPV presence and ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3 in non-attendees. For screening history analyses, women < 34 years were excluded since it was the first screening round in their life. FINDINGS: ≥ CIN2/≥ CIN3 yields of HPV self-sampling responders were higher than those of screening participants (≥ CIN2: relative risk (RR) = 1.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.4-1.9; ≥ CIN3: RR = 1.8, 95%CI = 1.5-2.1 with relative risk values increasing with age (test of homogeneity:≥ CIN2: p = 0.04; ≥ CIN3: p=0.03). Native Dutch non-attendees responded better than immigrants (32% versus 22%, p<0.001) and those screened in the previous round revealed a higher response than underscreened (i.e. previous smear taken >7 years ago) or never screened (34% versus 25%, p<0.001) women. Strikingly, amongst under- and never screened women aged ≥ 39 years, never screened women responded better (25% versus 23%, p<0.001). ≥ CIN2 rates were higher amongst responding native Dutch women than immigrants (p<0.01), and higher in under-/never screened women than in women screened in the previous round (p<0.01). INTERPRETATION: Offering hrHPV self-sampling increases the efficacy of the screening programme by targeting a substantial portion of non-attendees of all ethnic groups who have not regularly been screened and are at highest risk of ≥ CIN2.
Authors: F Jalili; C O'Conaill; K Templeton; R Lotocki; G Fischer; L Manning; K Cormier; K Decker Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Jennifer S Smith; Andrea C Des Marais; Allison M Deal; Alice R Richman; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Belinda Yen-Lieberman; Lynn Barclay; Jerome Belinson; Allen Rinas; Noel T Brewer Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: P Giorgi Rossi; C Fortunato; P Barbarino; S Boveri; S Caroli; A Del Mistro; A Ferro; C Giammaria; M Manfredi; T Moretto; A Pasquini; M Sideri; M C Tufi; C Cogo; E Altobelli Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Lise M A De Strooper; Viola M J Verhoef; Johannes Berkhof; Albertus T Hesselink; Helena M E de Bruin; Folkert J van Kemenade; Remko P Bosgraaf; Ruud L M Bekkers; Leon F A G Massuger; Willem J G Melchers; Renske D M Steenbergen; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer; Daniëlle A M Heideman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Philip E Castle; Julia C Gage; Edward E Partridge; Alfio Rausa; Patti E Gravitt; Isabel C Scarinci Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 3.090