Screening for persistent high-risk HPV infections may be a valuable screening method for young women; A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Screening of young women is often discouraged because of the high risk of unnecessary diagnostics or overtreatment. Multiple countries therefore use cytology instead of high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-testing as screening method for young women because of the limited specificity of hrHPV-testing. The objective of this study was to investigate how hrHPV screening before the age of 30, can be used to reduce the future prevalence of high-grade cervical lesions in young women. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed follow-up data from a cohort study on HPV prevalence in unscreened Dutch women aged 18-29 years. Women performed multiple self-collected cervico-vaginal samples for HPV detection and genotyping. At least one valid cervical pathology result was obtained from 1,018 women. Women were categorized as hrHPV negative, cleared- or persistent hrHPV infection. Anonymized follow-up data for each group was obtained. Composite outcome measures were defined as; normal, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). The association between prior hrHPV status and cytology and histology outcome was analyzed. RESULTS: After exclusion, a pathology result was registered for 962 women. The prevalence of HSIL was 19.3% in women with a persistent HPV infection at a younger age. This is significantly higher (p<0,001) compared with the HSIL prevalence of 1.5% in HPV-negative women, and 3.1% (n = 8) in women who cleared the hrHPV infection in the past. CONCLUSION: Women with a persistent hrHPV infection in their 20s, show an increased prevalence of HSIL lesions in their early 30s. Screening for persistent hrHPV infections, instead of cytology screening before the age of 30, can be used to reduce the future prevalence of cervical cancer in young women.

The effect of video information on anxiety levels in women attending colposcopy: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate whether additional information, in video form, reduces anxiety, depression and pain levels in women referred for colposcopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between September 2012 and March 2015, 136 patients referred for colposcopy were randomized into two study arms. Group A received video information in addition to the regular information leaflet, and group B (control group) received only the regular information leaflet. The patients were requested to complete standardized online questionnaires. The first online questionnaire (T1) was pre-randomization, and was completed at home, 5 days prior to the appointment. The second online questionnaire (T2) was completed directly before the colposcopy appointment, and the last online questionnaire (T3) was completed directly following colposcopy at the out-patient clinic. The questionnaires included the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) to assess pain. RESULTS: The STAI state anxiety score was high (44.6), but there was no significant difference in STAI, HADS and NRS between the two groups at the three measuring points. A post hoc analysis showed that women with a generally higher baseline anxiety trait had significantly lower HADS anxiety levels following video information. CONCLUSIONS: Additional information (video) before colposcopy did not significantly reduce anxiety, depression, and expected or experienced pain, as measured by the STAI, HADS and NRS in patients attending their first colposcopy appointment. However, most patients positively appreciated the video information, which may reduce the anxiety of extremely anxious patients.

Reasons for non-attendance to cervical screening and preferences for HPV self-sampling in Dutch women.

OBJECTIVES: High attendance rates in cervical screening are essential for effective cancer prevention. Offering HPV self-sampling to non-responders increases participation rates. The objectives of this study were to determine why non-responders do not attend regular screening, and why they do or do not participate when offered a self-sampling device. METHODS: A questionnaire study was conducted in the Netherlands from October 2011 to December 2012. A total of 35,477 non-responders were invited to participate in an HPV self-sampling study; 5347 women did opt out. Finally, 30,130 women received a questionnaire and self-sampling device. RESULTS: The analysis was based on 9484 returned questionnaires (31.5%) with a self-sample specimen, and 682 (2.3%) without. Among women who returned both, the main reason for non-attendance to cervical screening was that they forgot to schedule an appointment (3068; 32.3%). The most important reason to use the self-sampling device was the opportunity to take a sample in their own time-setting (4763; 50.2%). A total of 30.9% of the women who did not use the self-sampling device preferred after all to have a cervical smear taken instead. CONCLUSIONS: Organisational barriers are the main reason for non-attendance in regular cervical screening. Important reasons for non-responders to the regular screening to use a self-sampling device are convenience and self-control.