Literature DB >> 26985849

Impact of HPV sample self-collection for underscreened women in the renewed Cervical Screening Program.

Megan Smith1, Jie Bin Lew2, Kate Simms2, Karen Canfell2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In 2017, the National Cervical Screening Program in Australia will transition to 5-yearly primary HPV screening for all women, irrespective of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status. As an adjunct to the mainstream program, HPV testing on self-collected samples will be offered under practitioner supervision to all unscreened and underscreened women aged 30-74 years. We quantified how different screening decisions affect the future risk of cervical cancer.
DESIGN: Simulation of outcomes for 100 000 previously unscreened women, aged 30 years and eligible for self-collection, using a well-established model of HPV natural history and cervical screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative cancer diagnoses and deaths averted (compared with remaining unscreened) to age 84, number needed to treat for pre-cancer (NNT) to avert each cancer diagnosis.
RESULTS: One round of self-collected HPV screening at age 30 years would avert 908 cancer diagnoses and 364 cancer deaths in the cohort by age 84 (NNT, 5.8). Benefits would still be achieved were self-collected screening delayed to age 40 (922 fewer diagnoses; 426 fewer deaths; NNT, 3.7) or 50 (684 fewer diagnoses; 385 fewer deaths; NNT, 3.2). However, the benefits associated with joining the mainstream screening program would be substantially larger (2002, 1623 or 1091 fewer diagnoses and NNT of 4.9, 3.7 or 3.4 by joining at age 30, 40 or 50 years respectively). The relative benefits of joining the mainstream program were similar for cohorts who had been offered vaccination.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering HPV self-collection has the potential to considerably improve outcomes for unscreened and underscreened women. Nevertheless, these findings underscore the need for concerted strategies to encourage these women to join the mainstream HPV screening program.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26985849     DOI: 10.5694/mja15.00912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  14 in total

1.  Effects of an Education Intervention about HPV Self-Testing for Healthcare Providers and Staff.

Authors:  Brynne E Presser; Mira L Katz; Abigail B Shoben; Deborah Moore; Mack T Ruffin; Electra D Paskett; Paul L Reiter
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits.

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

3.  Results of a Pilot Study of a Mail-Based Human Papillomavirus Self-Testing Program for Underscreened Women From Appalachian Ohio.

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

4.  Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Ruanne V Barnabas; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin A Tiro; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Projected future impact of HPV vaccination and primary HPV screening on cervical cancer rates from 2017-2035: Example from Australia.

Authors:  Michaela T Hall; Kate T Simms; Jie-Bin Lew; Megan A Smith; Marion Saville; Karen Canfell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing: Increased Cervical Cancer Screening Participation and Incorporation in International Screening Programs.

Authors:  Sarah Gupta; Christina Palmer; Elisabeth M Bik; Juan P Cardenas; Harold Nuñez; Laurens Kraal; Sara W Bird; Jennie Bowers; Alison Smith; Nathaniel A Walton; Audrey D Goddard; Daniel E Almonacid; Susan Zneimer; Jessica Richman; Zachary S Apte
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2018-04-09

7.  Effect of Mailed Human Papillomavirus Test Kits vs Usual Care Reminders on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake, Precancer Detection, and Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Rachel L Winer; John Lin; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Tara Beatty; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Chris Thayer; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-11-01

8.  Self-administered versus provider-directed sampling in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study (ACCSS): a qualitative investigation with Canadian First Nations women.

Authors:  Ingeborg Zehbe; Pamela Wakewich; Amy-Dee King; Kyla Morrisseau; Candace Tuck
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Prevalence and genotype distribution of human papillomavirus infection among women in northeastern Guangdong Province of China.

Authors:  Pingsen Zhao; Sudong Liu; Zhixiong Zhong; Jingyuan Hou; Lifang Lin; Ruiqiang Weng; Luxian Su; Nanxiang Lei; Tao Hou; Haikun Yang
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.090

10.  Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Among a National Sample of Women in the United States.

Authors:  Erin Bishop; Mira L Katz; Paul L Reiter
Journal:  Biores Open Access       Date:  2019-04-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.