Sociodemographic Characteristics and Screening Outcomes of Women Preferring Self-Sampling in the Dutch Cervical Cancer Screening Programme: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, lower high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) positivity but higher cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection were found in self-collected compared with clinician-collected samples. To investigate the possible reason for these differences, we compared sociodemographic and screening characteristics of women and related these to screening outcomes. METHODS: We extracted data from PALGA on all primary hrHPV screens and associated follow-up tests for 857,866 screened women, invited in 2017 and 2018. We linked these data with sociodemographic data from Statistics Netherlands. Logistic regression was performed for hrHPV positivity and CIN 2+/3+ detection. RESULTS: Out of the 857,866 women, 6.8% chose to use a self-sampling device. A higher proportion of self-sampling users was ages 30 to 35 years, was not previously screened, was living in a one-person household, or was the breadwinner in the household. After adjustment for these factors self-sampling had lower hrHPV positivity (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68)) as compared with clinician-collected sampling, as well as lower odds of CIN 2+ (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) and CIN 3+ (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95) detection. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that the observed differences between the two sampling methods are not only related to sociodemographic differences, but related to differences in screening test accuracy and/or background risk. IMPACT: Self-sampling can be used for targeting underscreened women, as a more convenient screening tool. Further investigation is required to evaluate how to implement self-sampling, when it is used as a primary instrument in routine screening. See related commentary by Arbyn et al., p. 159.

Rapid elimination of cervical cancer while maintaining the harms and benefits ratio of cervical cancer screening: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and intensifying screening expedite cervical cancer (CC) elimination, yet also deteriorate the balance between harms and benefits of screening. We aimed to find screening strategies that eliminate CC rapidly but maintain an acceptable harms-benefits ratio of screening. METHODS: Two microsimulation models (STDSIM and MISCAN) were applied to simulate HPV transmission and CC screening for the Dutch female population between 2022 and 2100. We estimated the CC elimination year and harms-benefits ratios of screening for 228 unique scenarios varying in vaccination (coverage and vaccine type) and screening (coverage and number of lifetime invitations in vaccinated cohorts). The acceptable harms-benefits ratio was defined as the number of women needed to refer (NNR) to prevent one CC death under the current programme for unvaccinated cohorts (82.17). RESULTS: Under current vaccination conditions (bivalent vaccine, 55% coverage in girls, 27.5% coverage in boys), maintaining current screening conditions is projected to eliminate CC by 2042, but increases the present NNR with 41%. Reducing the number of lifetime screens from presently five to three and increasing screening coverage (61% to 70%) would prevent an increase in harms and only delay elimination by 1 year. Scaling vaccination coverage to 90% in boys and girls with the nonavalent vaccine is estimated to eliminate CC by 2040 under current screening conditions, but exceeds the acceptable NNR with 23%. Here, changing from five to two lifetime screens would keep the NNR acceptable without delaying CC elimination. CONCLUSIONS: De-intensifying CC screening in vaccinated cohorts leads to little or no delay in CC elimination while it substantially reduces the harms of screening. Therefore, de-intensifying CC screening in vaccinated cohorts should be considered to ensure acceptable harms-benefits ratios on the road to CC elimination.

Shift in harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV screening and vaccination: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the changes in harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening over the first three screening rounds of the Dutch high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening programme. DESIGN: Microsimulation study. SETTING: Dutch hrHPV screening programme; women are invited for screening every 5 or 10 years (depending on age and screening history) from age 30 to 65. POPULATION: Partly vaccinated population of 100 million Dutch women. METHODS: Microsimulation model MISCAN was used to estimate screening effects. Sensitivity analyses were performed on test characteristics and attendance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Harms (screening tests, unnecessary referrals, treatment-related health problems), benefits (CIN2+ diagnoses) and programme efficiency (number needed to screen [NNS]) over the first (period 2017-2021), second (period 2022-2026) and third (period 2027-2031) rounds of hrHPV-based screening. RESULTS: The number of screening tests and CIN2+ diagnoses decreased from the first to the second round (-25.8% and -23.6%, respectively). In the third screening round, these numbers decreased further, albeit only slightly (-2.7% and -5.3%, respectively). NNS to detect a CIN2+ remained constant over the rounds; however, it increased in younger age groups while decreasing in older age groups. CONCLUSION: Both harms and benefits of hrHPV screening decreased over the first screening rounds. For younger women, the efficiency would decrease, whereas longer screening intervals would lead to increased efficiency in older women. Programme efficiency overall remained stable, showing the importance of longer intervals for low-risk women. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Cervical cancer screening: both harms and benefits of hrHPV screening will decrease in the future.

Investigating the decrease in participation in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: The role of personal and organisational characteristics.

Declining attendance in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme was recently observed, coinciding with preparations for implementing primary hrHPV-based screening, which was implemented in January 2017. We aimed to investigate which factors were related to decreased attendance. We conducted a population-based cohort study including all women aged 30 to 60 years who were eligible for screening between 2014 and 2018. Attendance was defined as participation in the screening programme within 15 months of the start of the invitation-eligible year. We used data from the Dutch pathology archive (PALGA) linked with data from Statistics Netherlands to investigate population characteristics (position in the household, household income, socio-economic status, number of people in the household, migration background, age) and data from the five Dutch screening organisations (SO) to investigate the effect of cessing self-inviting GP's ('inviting organisation'). SO's were termed SO 1 to 5. Higher attendance rates were observed in women who were employed (60.8%), married (62.9%), Dutch (61.2%), in the highest income bracket (63.4%), living in households with four persons (65.3%) and women who were invited by their GP (69.8%). Differences in personal characteristics did not explain the decline in attendance rates. By adjusting for whether the GP or the SO sent the invitation, the differences in attendance rates between 2014 and 2015 and 2016 and between 2014 and 2015 and 2017-2018 were explained in some screening organisations. Removing the possibility for GPs to send invitations explains some of the decline in participation, although this did not account for the total change in attendance.

Effects of cancer screening restart strategies after COVID-19 disruption.

BACKGROUND: Many breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the effects of five restart strategies after the disruption on required screening capacity and cancer burden. METHODS: Microsimulation models simulated five restart strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. The models estimated required screening capacity, cancer incidence, and cancer-specific mortality after a disruption of 6 months. The restart strategies varied in whether screens were caught up or not and, if so, immediately or delayed, and whether the upper age limit was increased. RESULTS: The disruption in screening programmes without catch-up of missed screens led to an increase of 2.0, 0.3, and 2.5 cancer deaths per 100 000 individuals in 10 years in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Immediately catching-up missed screens minimised the impact of the disruption but required a surge in screening capacity. Delaying screening, but still offering all screening rounds gave the best balance between required capacity, incidence, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies with the smallest loss in health effects were also the most burdensome for the screening organisations. Which strategy is preferred depends on the organisation and available capacity in a country.

Reducing unnecessary referrals for colposcopy in hrHPV-positive women within the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: A modelling study.

BACKGROUND: With the implementation of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening in the Netherlands, an increase was observed in the number of unnecessary referrals (≤Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) 1) to colposcopy. We aimed to investigate which alternative triage strategies safely reduce unnecessary referrals in HPV-based cervical cancer screening programmes. METHODS: Microsimulation model MISCAN was used to simulate an unvaccinated cohort of ten million 30-year old Dutch women. We calculated unnecessary referrals, cervical cancer incidence, mortality, costs and QALYs for 24 triage strategies. Condition for direct referral (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), conditional on HPV-genotype 16/18/other high risk (OHR)), type of triage test (cytology alone or combined with hrHPV) and time to triage test (6 or 12 months) was varied. RESULTS: The 24 triage strategies had varying effects on the number of unnecessary referrals ranging from -72% to +35%. Adjusting conditions for referral to 'HPV16/18+ and ASC-US+' and 'HPVOHR+ and HSIL+' and extending the interval between tests to 12 months resulted in a reduction in unnecessary referrals of 40% (incidence +0%, mortality -1%). Reduction in unnecessary referrals without genotyping was achieved by adjusting conditions for direct referral to LSIL (12 months to repeat test) (unnecessary referrals -37%, incidence +2%, mortality +0%). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the number of unnecessary referrals without increasing incidence and mortality by more than 2% in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme, genotyping for HPV16 or HPV16/18 should be implemented with 12 months to repeat testing.