| Literature DB >> 24646201 |
Farhana Sultana, Dallas R English, Julie A Simpson, Julia M L Brotherton, Kelly Drennan, Robyn Mullins, Stella Heley, C David Wrede, Marion Saville, Dorota M Gertig1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organized screening based on Pap tests has substantially reduced deaths from cervical cancer in many countries, including Australia. However, the impact of the program depends upon the degree to which women participate. A new method of screening, testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA to detect the virus that causes cervical cancer, has recently become available. Because women can collect their own samples for this test at home, it has the potential to overcome some of the barriers to Pap tests. The iPap trial will evaluate whether mailing an HPV self-sampling kit increases participation by never- and under-screened women within a cervical screening program. METHODS/Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24646201 PMCID: PMC3994873 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-207
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Review of trials comparing participation in HPV self-sampling (SS) and reminder letter to attend for a Pap test
| Sancho-Garnier
[ | France | 35-69 yrs; no Pap smear for ≥2 years; did not respond to first invitation | HPV SS kit* | Standard invitation | Dacron swab | Abbott real Time, 17.6% | 18.3% | 2% | 41% |
| Szarewski
[ | UK | 25-65 yrs; ≥6 years overdue | HPV SS kit | Standard invitation | Cotton swab | HCII, 8.3% | 10.2% | 4.5% | 87.5% |
| Wikstrom
[ | Sweden | 39-60 yrs; ≥6 years overdue | HPV SS kit* + 2nd reminder | Standard invitation | Qvintip | HCII, 6% | 39% | 9% | 98% |
| Rossi
[ | Italy | 35-65 yrs; 3–5 months overdue | HPV SS kit | 2 control arms | Pantarhei device | HCII , 1 = 21.8%, 4 = 6.5% | 1 = 19.6%, 2 = 8.7% | 3 = 13.9%, 4 = 14.9% | 1 = 91% |
| -Direct mail (1)* | -Standard recall (3) | ||||||||
| -On demand (2) | -HPV at the clinic (4) | ||||||||
| Virtanen
[ | Finland | 30-60 yrs; did not respond to primary invitation | HPV SS kit | Reminder letter | Delphi Screener | HCII | 29.8% | 26.2% | - |
| Virtanen
[ | 30-60 years; did not respond to primary invitation | HPV SS kit* | Reminder letter | Delphi Screener | HCII, 12.3% | 32% | 26% | 86.6% | |
| Gok
[ | Netherlands | 30-60 yrs; did not respond to invitation or 6 month reminder | HPV SS kit* | Second reminder letter* | Delphi screener | HCII, 10.3% | 26.6% | 16.4% | 90.4% |
| Bais
[ | 30-50 yrs, did not respond to invitation or 6 month reminder | HPV SS kit | Second reminder letter | Viba-brush + collection tube | GP 5+/6+ PCR, 8% | 34.2% | 17.6% | 86% | |
*Pre-invitation letter informing of the arrival of the kit or reminder, and in Finland trial, this letter included “opt out” option.
Figure 1RCT design overview and clinical management for both never- and under-screened women.
Figure 2Flow of participants and timeline for women in the trial.
Power calculations assuming different participation fraction in the two arms of the trial
| | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2% | 7% | 100% |
| 2% | 10% | 100% |
| 5% | 8% | 94% |
| 10% | 14% | 95% |
| 15% | 19% | 87% |
| 5% | 7.4% | 80% |