Leveraging COVID-era innovation for cervical cancer screening: Clinician awareness and attitudes toward self-sampling and rapid testing for HPV detection.

Cervical cancer screening rates are declining in the US, with persistent disparities among vulnerable populations. Strategies to better reach under-screened communities are needed. The COVID pandemic sparked major shifts in healthcare delivery, including the accelerated development and adoption of rapid diagnostic testing, broadened access to remote care, and growing consumer demand for self-testing, which could be leveraged for cervical cancer. Rapid tests for the detection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) have the potential to improve cervical cancer screening coverage, and if coupled with patient-collected cervicovaginal samples, create an opportunity for self-testing. The objectives of this study were: 1) to examine whether COVID influenced clinician perspectives of rapid testing as a screening modality; and 2) to assess clinician awareness, perceived benefits and limitations, and willingness to adopt point-of-care HPV testing, patient self-sampling, and rapid HPV self-testing with self-collected samples. The methodology adopted consisted of an online cross-sectional survey (n = 224) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) were conducted with clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening in Indiana, ranked in the top ten states for cervical cancer mortality and with marked disparities across socio-demographic groups. The main findings show that about half the clinicians reported that the COVID pandemic had influenced their views on rapid testing as a screening modality both positively (greater public acceptability of rapid testing and impact on patient care) and negatively (concerns regarding accuracy of rapid tests). The majority of clinicians (82%) were willing to adopt rapid HPV testing at the point-of-care, while only 48% were willing to adopt rapid HPV self-testing with self-collected samples. In-depth interviews revealed provider concerns around patients' ability to collect their own sample, report results correctly, and return to the clinic for follow-up and other preventive care. Addressing clinician concerns about self-sampling and rapid HPV testing, such as ensuring that rapid tests include sample adequacy controls, is necessary to mitigate barriers to adoption for cervical cancer screening.

Clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-methods study in Indiana.

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, in which a high-risk HPV test is administered without cytology, was first included in 2018 US cervical cancer screening guidelines. Subsequent guidelines endorsed primary HPV testing as the preferred method for cervical cancer screening following evidence of its clinical and economic benefits, although many sources still indicate it as an option along with cytology and HPV/Pap co-testing. Primary HPV testing could be key to improving the declining cervical cancer screening rates in the US; however its adoption has been slow as clinicians are hesitant to make the change. Indiana ranks in the top ten states for cervical cancer mortality, with marked race-ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and low HPV vaccination rates. To examine clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary HPV testing, in 2021 we conducted an online cross-sectional survey (n = 224) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) with Indiana clinicians practicing cervical cancer screening. Only 3 % reported using primary HPV testing for eligible patients, and only 50 % were willing to adopt it as the preferred cervical cancer screening method for the recommended patient group. In a multivariable logistic regression model, knowledge of the effectiveness (aOR 2.58 [1.41-4.72]) and perceived benefit (aOR 7.35 [3.65-14.81]) of primary HPV testing predicted willingness to adopt. In-depth interviews revealed knowledge gaps, uncertainty, and perceived limitations of this method as the reasons for limited uptake of primary HPV testing. Targeted messages about the benefits and effectiveness may enhance clinician knowledge, acceptance, and adoption.

Obstetrician/gynecologists' HPV vaccination recommendations among women and girls 26 and younger.

Background: Obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) are well poised to vaccinate girls and young women against HPV, however little is known about if and how they recommend the HPV vaccine. This study aims to understand factors associated with strong and frequent HPV vaccine recommendations among OB/GYNs for patients 26 years and younger. Methods: 224 practicing U.S. OB/GYNs were surveyed for how strongly and frequently they recommend the HPV vaccine to patients 26 and younger. Provider beliefs, knowledge, and preferences surrounding the vaccine, as well as clinic and patient-level variables were examined as covariates. We then examined the relationships using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Of the 224 respondents, 205 were included in the analysis, with 57% (n = 116) reporting strongly and frequently recommending the HPV vaccination to eligible patients 26 and younger. The regression showed two provider beliefs and two clinic-level attributes to be strongly associated with strong and frequent recommendations. Being a strong and frequent recommender was positively associated with believing other gynecologists frequently recommend the vaccine (aOR 24.33 95%CI[2.56-231.14]) and believing that 50% or more of their patients are interested in receiving the vaccine (aOR 2.77 95%CI[1.25-6.13]). The clinic-level attributes were having the vaccine stocked (aOR 2.66 95%CI[1.02-6.93]) and suburban (aOR 3.31 95%CI[1.07-10.19]) or urban (aOR 3.54 95%CI[1.07-11.76]) location versus rural. Conclusions: These findings suggest that OB/GYN peer support and educating OB/GYN about patients' interest in HPV vaccination may improve HPV vaccination. This work can inform clinic-level interventions including stocking the vaccine and focusing improvement efforts on rural clinics.

Pancreatic Cancer-Related Mutational Burden Is Not Increased in a Patient Cohort With Clinically Severe Chronic Pancreatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pancreatitis is associated with an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer, and patients with inherited forms of pancreatitis are at greatest risk. We investigated whether clinical severity of pancreatitis could also be an indicator of cancer risk independent of etiology by performing targeted DNA sequencing to assess the mutational burden in 55 cancer-associated genes. METHODS: Using picodroplet digital polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing, we reported the genomic profiles of pancreases from severe clinical cases of chronic pancreatitis that necessitated palliative total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation. RESULTS: We assessed 57 tissue samples from 39 patients with genetic and idiopathic etiologies and found that despite the clinical severity of disease, there was no corresponding increase in mutational burden. The average allele frequency of somatic variants was 1.19% (range 1.00%-5.97%), and distinct regions from the same patient displayed genomic heterogeneity, suggesting that these variants are subclonal. Few oncogenic KRAS mutations were discovered (7% of all samples), although we detected evidence of frequent cancer-related variants in other genes such as TP53, CDKN2A, and SMAD4. Of note, tissue samples with oncogenic KRAS mutations and samples from patients with PRSS1 mutations harbored an increased total number of somatic variants, suggesting that these patients may have increased genomic instability and could be at an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. DISCUSSION: Overall, we showed that even in those patients with chronic pancreatitis severe enough to warrant total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation, pancreatic cancer-related mutational burden is not appreciably increased.