OBJECTIVE: HPV testing has emerged as an effective cervical cancer screening test. The use of HPV self-testing has the potential to address many barriers to screening and reach at-risk women through engagement in screening. However, there is a need to examine the evidence for whether offering self-collected HPV testing in practice increases screening compliance. The objective of this review is to determine to what extent providing self-collected HPV testing increases screening participation in women who are never or underscreened for cervical cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature review conducted in the databases Medline and Embase identified articles examining the use of HPV self-testing on cervical cancer screening participation. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to calculate the relative compliance, with an intent-to-treat analysis of HPV self-testing compared to Pap testing, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All statistical tests were two-sided. SYNTHESIS: Ten studies were reviewed, with 8 being European and 2 North American. Of the 10 studies, 9 employed a randomized design. In all studies, the relative compliance of HPV self-collected testing compared to Pap testing was significantly greater than 1.0 (p<0.01). The overall relative compliance was 2.14 (95% CI 1.30-3.52). There was large heterogeneity of screening compliance between studies for both HPV self-testing and Pap testing. CONCLUSION: HPV self-collected testing significantly improved the participation of women who did not routinely attend cervical cancer screening programs. New approaches to HPV self-test delivery should be considered as HPV testing becomes more widely incorporated as a primary screening tool.
OBJECTIVE: HPV testing has emerged as an effective cervical cancer screening test. The use of HPV self-testing has the potential to address many barriers to screening and reach at-risk women through engagement in screening. However, there is a need to examine the evidence for whether offering self-collected HPV testing in practice increases screening compliance. The objective of this review is to determine to what extent providing self-collected HPV testing increases screening participation in women who are never or underscreened for cervical cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature review conducted in the databases Medline and Embase identified articles examining the use of HPV self-testing on cervical cancer screening participation. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to calculate the relative compliance, with an intent-to-treat analysis of HPV self-testing compared to Pap testing, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All statistical tests were two-sided. SYNTHESIS: Ten studies were reviewed, with 8 being European and 2 North American. Of the 10 studies, 9 employed a randomized design. In all studies, the relative compliance of HPV self-collected testing compared to Pap testing was significantly greater than 1.0 (p<0.01). The overall relative compliance was 2.14 (95% CI 1.30-3.52). There was large heterogeneity of screening compliance between studies for both HPV self-testing and Pap testing. CONCLUSION: HPV self-collected testing significantly improved the participation of women who did not routinely attend cervical cancer screening programs. New approaches to HPV self-test delivery should be considered as HPV testing becomes more widely incorporated as a primary screening tool.
Entities:
Keywords:
Human papillomavirus; cervical cancer screening; review; self collected specimens; under-screening
Authors: Andrea C Des Marais; Yuqian Zhao; Marcia M Hobbs; Vijay Sivaraman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: H N Pedersen; L W Smith; C Sarai Racey; D Cook; M Krajden; D van Niekerk; G S Ogilvie Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.677
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: Paul L Reiter; Abigail B Shoben; Deborah McDonough; Mack T Ruffin; Martin Steinau; Elizabeth R Unger; Electra D Paskett; Mira L Katz Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.830
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