BACKGROUND: Many cervical cancers occur among women who have not attended cervical screening. Strategies to reach non-attending women may improve the effectiveness of cervical screening programmes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the responses among long-term non-attending women to either (i) HPV-testing of a self-collected vaginal sample, or (ii) cytological screening with a flexible no-fee appointment for sampling at an outpatient clinic. STUDY DESIGN: Among the 242,000 women aged 32-65 years in Southern Sweden, we identified 28,635 women who had not had any cervical smears taken for >9 years. We randomized 1000 women to invitation to HPV self-sampling, and 500 women to flexible outpatient clinic appointments. Responding women received a questionnaire about their reasons for previous non-attendance. RESULTS: The response rate to HPV self-sampling was three times higher than the flexible outpatient clinic invitations (147/1000 women (14.7%) compared to 21/500 (4.2%) p<0.0001). High-risk (hr)-HPV was found in 10/147 self-sampled women (6.9%). 7/10 hr-HPV-positive women attended colposcopy, but no HSIL was found. Among the clinic-sampled women, 2/21 had hr-HPV and 1/21 had HSIL. Reasons for not attending were "uncomfortable with vaginal examination", "feel healthy", "lack of time" and "experience of unfriendly health workers". CONCLUSIONS: Although the response rate was low for both interventions, the invitation to vaginal HPV self-sampling was more effective for increasing the coverage of the screening programme. The fact that "uncomfortable with vaginal examination" was the most common reason for non-attending suggests that self-sampling could be further explored as a strategy to increase the coverage of cervical screening programmes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many cervical cancers occur among women who have not attended cervical screening. Strategies to reach non-attending women may improve the effectiveness of cervical screening programmes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the responses among long-term non-attending women to either (i) HPV-testing of a self-collected vaginal sample, or (ii) cytological screening with a flexible no-fee appointment for sampling at an outpatient clinic. STUDY DESIGN: Among the 242,000 women aged 32-65 years in Southern Sweden, we identified 28,635 women who had not had any cervical smears taken for >9 years. We randomized 1000 women to invitation to HPV self-sampling, and 500 women to flexible outpatient clinic appointments. Responding women received a questionnaire about their reasons for previous non-attendance. RESULTS: The response rate to HPV self-sampling was three times higher than the flexible outpatient clinic invitations (147/1000 women (14.7%) compared to 21/500 (4.2%) p<0.0001). High-risk (hr)-HPV was found in 10/147 self-sampled women (6.9%). 7/10 hr-HPV-positive women attended colposcopy, but no HSIL was found. Among the clinic-sampled women, 2/21 had hr-HPV and 1/21 had HSIL. Reasons for not attending were "uncomfortable with vaginal examination", "feel healthy", "lack of time" and "experience of unfriendly health workers". CONCLUSIONS: Although the response rate was low for both interventions, the invitation to vaginal HPV self-sampling was more effective for increasing the coverage of the screening programme. The fact that "uncomfortable with vaginal examination" was the most common reason for non-attending suggests that self-sampling could be further explored as a strategy to increase the coverage of cervical screening programmes.
Authors: Colin Malone; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana Sm Buist; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Kilian Kimbel; Hongyuan Gao; Chris Thayer; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel L Winer Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 2.136
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: Carolyn Y Fang; Grace X Ma; Elizabeth A Handorf; Ziding Feng; Yin Tan; Joanne Rhee; Suzanne M Miller; Charles Kim; Han Seung Koh Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cary Suzanne Lea; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Andrea C Des Marais; Alice R Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Rachel L Winer; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Thayer; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Diana S M Buist Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Louise Cadman; Caroline Reuter; Mark Jitlal; Michelle Kleeman; Janet Austin; Tony Hollingworth; Anna L Parberry; Lesley Ashdown-Barr; Deepali Patel; Belinda Nedjai; Attila T Lorincz; Jack Cuzick Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: K Haguenoer; S Sengchanh; C Gaudy-Graffin; J Boyard; R Fontenay; H Marret; A Goudeau; N Pigneaux de Laroche; E Rusch; B Giraudeau Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 7.640