Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

The early impacts of primary HPV cervical screening implementation in Australia on the pathology sector: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of Australia's National Cervical Screening Program from cytology to a molecular test for human papillomavirus (HPV) (locally referred to as the 'Renewal'), including a longer five-year interval and older age at commencement, significantly impacted all sectors of program delivery. The Renewal had major implications for the roles and requirements of pathology laboratories providing services for the Program. This study aimed to understand the early impacts of the Renewal and its implementation on the pathology sector. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (N = 49) involved in the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study (STORIES), 11-20 months after the program transition. A subset of interviews (N = 24) that discussed the pathology sector were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were identified: implementation enablers, challenges, missed opportunities, and possible improvements. Participants believed that the decision to transition to primary HPV screening was highly acceptable and evidence-based, but faced challenges due to impacts on laboratory infrastructure, resources, staffing, and finances. These challenges were compounded by unfamiliarity with new information technology (IT) systems and the new National Cancer Screening Register ('Register') not being fully functional by the date of the program transition. The limited availability of self-collection and lack of standardised fields in pathology forms were identified as missed opportunities to improve equity in the Program. To improve implementation processes, participants suggested increased pathology sector involvement in planning was needed, along with more timely and transparent communication from the Government, and clearer clinical management guidelines. CONCLUSION: The transition to primary HPV screening had a significant and multifaceted impact on the Australian pathology sector reflecting the magnitude and complexity of the Renewal. Strategies to support the pathology sector through effective change management, clear, timely, and transparent communication, as well as adequate funding sources will be critical for other countries planning to transition cervical screening programs.

"So, if she wasn't aware of it, then how would everybody else out there be aware of it?"-Key Stakeholder Perspectives on the Initial Implementation of Self-Collection in Australia's Cervical Screening Program: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes. RESULTS: Stakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway's availability. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of self-collection, wider promotion to providers and eligible people, clarity around pathology processes and the scaling up of test availability, as well as timely education and communication of clinical management practice guidelines, are needed to ensure smoother program delivery in the future. Other countries implementing self-collection policies can learn from the implementation challenges faced by Australia.

Cervical screening with primary HPV testing or cytology in a population of women in which those aged 33 years or younger had previously been offered HPV vaccination: Results of the Compass pilot randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and invasive cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) compared to cytology, but no evaluation has been conducted in a population previously offered HPV vaccination. We aimed to assess colposcopy referral and CIN2+ detection rates for HPV-screened versus cytology-screened women in Australia's HPV-vaccinated population (by 2014, resident women ≤33 years had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination, with 3-dose uptake across age cohorts being about 50%-77%). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Compass is an open-label randomised trial of 5-yearly HPV screening versus 2.5-yearly liquid-based cytology (LBC) screening. In the first phase, consenting women aged 25-64 years presenting for routine screening at 47 primary practices in Victoria, Australia, provided a cervical sample and were randomised at a central laboratory at a 1:2:2 allocation to (i) image-read LBC screening with HPV triage of low-grade cytology ('LBC screening'), (ii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with LBC triage for other oncogenic (OHR) types ('HPV+LBC triage'), or (iii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with dual-stained cytology triage for OHR types ('HPV+DS triage'). A total of 5,006 eligible women were recruited from 29 October 2013 to 7 November 2014 (recruitment rate 58%); of these, 22% were in the group age-eligible for vaccination. Data on 4,995 participants were analysed after 11 withdrawals; 998 were assigned to, and 995 analysed (99.7%) in, the LBC-screened group; 1,996 assigned to and 1,992 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+LBC triage group; and 2,012 assigned to and 2,008 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+DS triage group. No serious trial-related adverse events were reported. The main outcomes were colposcopy referral and detected CIN2+ rates at baseline screening, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis after follow-up of the subgroup of triage-negative women in each arm referred to 12 months of surveillance, and after a further 6 months of follow-up for histological outcomes (dataset closed 31 August 2016). Analysis was adjusted for whether women had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination or not. For the LBC-screened group, the overall referral and detected CIN2+ rates were 27/995 (2.7% [95% CI 1.8%-3.9%]) and 1/995 (0.1% [95% CI 0.0%-0.6%]), respectively; for HPV+LBC triage, these were 75/1,992 (3.8% [95% CI 3.0%-4.7%]) and 20/1,992 (1.0% [95% CI 0.6%-1.5%]); and for HPV+DS triage, these were 79/2,008 (3.9% [95% CI 3.1%-4.9%]) and 24/2,008 (1.2% [95% CI 0.8%-1.6%]) (p = 0.09 for difference in referral rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women; p = 0.003 for difference in CIN2+ detection rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women, with p = 0.62 between HPV screening groups). Limitations include that the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated population, that individual women's vaccination status was unknown, and that long-term follow-up data on disease detection in screen-negative women are not yet available. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, primary HPV screening was associated with significantly increased detection of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions compared to cytology, in a population where high vaccine uptake was reported in women aged 33 years or younger who were offered vaccination. It had been predicted that increased disease detection might be associated with a transient increase in colposcopy referral rates in the first round of HPV screening, possibly dampened by HPV vaccine effect; in this study, although the point estimates for referral rates in women in each HPV-screened group were 41%-44% higher than in cytology-screened women, the difference in referral rate between cytology- and HPV-screened women was not significant. These findings provide initial support for the implementation of primary HPV screening in vaccinated populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001207707.