F Jalili1, C O'Conaill1, K Templeton1, R Lotocki1, G Fischer2, L Manning2, K Cormier2, K Decker3,4. 1. CervixCheck, CancerCare Manitoba, MB. 2. Diagnostic Services, Shared Health Manitoba, MB. 3. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, MB. 4. Research Institute in Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.
Abstract
Background: CervixCheck, Manitoba's cervical cancer screening program, conducted a pilot study to assess whether screening participation could be improved in unscreened women by offering a mailed self-sampling kit for human papillomavirus (hpv) testing instead of a Pap test. Methods: In a prospective cohort study design, a sample of unscreened women (n = 1052) who had been sent an invitation letter from CervixCheck in the past but who did not respond were randomized to either an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group received a mailed hpv self-sampling kit; the control group received no additional communication. Returned hpv self-sampling swabs were analyzed by a provincial laboratory. After 6 months, screening participation in the two study groups was compared using a logistic regression model adjusted for age and area of residence (urban or rural). Secondary outcomes included hpv positivity, specimen inadequacy, compliance with follow-up, and time to colposcopy. Results:Screening participation was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (n = 51, 9.6%, vs. n = 13, 2.5%; odds ratio: 4.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.56 to 8.77). Geographic area of residence (urban or rural) and age were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that hpv self-sampling kits can enhance screening participation in unscreened non-responder women in the setting of an organized screening program. Next steps should include additional research to determine the best implementation strategy for hpv self-sampling in Manitoba.
RCT Entities:
Background: CervixCheck, Manitoba's cervical cancer screening program, conducted a pilot study to assess whether screening participation could be improved in unscreened women by offering a mailed self-sampling kit for human papillomavirus (hpv) testing instead of a Pap test. Methods: In a prospective cohort study design, a sample of unscreened women (n = 1052) who had been sent an invitation letter from CervixCheck in the past but who did not respond were randomized to either an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group received a mailed hpv self-sampling kit; the control group received no additional communication. Returned hpv self-sampling swabs were analyzed by a provincial laboratory. After 6 months, screening participation in the two study groups was compared using a logistic regression model adjusted for age and area of residence (urban or rural). Secondary outcomes included hpv positivity, specimen inadequacy, compliance with follow-up, and time to colposcopy. Results: Screening participation was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (n = 51, 9.6%, vs. n = 13, 2.5%; odds ratio: 4.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.56 to 8.77). Geographic area of residence (urban or rural) and age were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that hpv self-sampling kits can enhance screening participation in unscreened non-responder women in the setting of an organized screening program. Next steps should include additional research to determine the best implementation strategy for hpv self-sampling in Manitoba.
Entities:
Keywords:
Human papillomavirus; cancer screening; cervical cancer; dna tests
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: C Sarai Racey; Dionne C Gesink; Ann N Burchell; Suzanne Trivers; Tom Wong; Anu Rebbapragada Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: A Szarewski; L Cadman; D Mesher; J Austin; L Ashdown-Barr; R Edwards; D Lyons; J Walker; J Christison; A Frater; J Waller Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 7.640