HPV self-sampling and follow-up over two rounds of cervical screening in Australia - the iPap trial.

OBJECTIVES: Previously, based on 6 months of follow-up, we showed that HPV self-sampling improved participation in cervical screening compared to a reminder letter for Pap testing for never- and under-screened women. Here, we report follow-up and related screening outcomes for women who participated in the initial self-sampling over two screening rounds. SETTING: The randomised controlled trial was conducted in Australia. METHODS: Never- and under-screened women were randomly allocated to the HPV self-sampling or the reminder for Pap test arm and followed at 6 and 36 months since the kits were first mailed. RESULTS: The first round of HPV self-sampling kits were mailed from May-July 2014 to 12 572 women. After 36 months, 19% of never-screened and 9% of under-screened women returned a kit for HPV testing; 2.7% were HPV 16/18 and 5.8% non-16/18 HPV positive. Compliance with first round follow-up was 84% (95% CI: 77.1-89.5%). Non-compliant and cytology triage negative women were mailed another kit at 12 months. Compliance at 12-month follow-up was 59.3% (49.4 to 68.6%). Of 37 women with a 12-month repeat HPV, 70% were positive. Of women who tested negative for HPV in the first round (n = 1573), 25% attended regular screening in the next round and none had CIN2 + detected. The overall prevalence of CIN2 + was 8.5 per 1000 screened (4.8 to 13.9 per 1000). CONCLUSION: While self-sampling can successfully engage women, compliance with repeat testing may require monitoring. The clinician-supported self-collection pathway now in use in Australia will likely improve women's engagement with follow-up.

Management and long-term outcomes of women with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma in situ of cervix is increasingly managed by local excision rather than hysterectomy and this study will ascertain if conservative management by excision alone is adequate. AIMS: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of conservative management of adenocarcinoma in situ of cervix, particularly in relation to excisional margin status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of women diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ and their management between 1992 and 2010 retrieved from the Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry, Australia. Failure of conservative treatment is defined by histologically proven adenocarcinoma in situ or adenocarcinoma at follow-up after negative excisional margins. RESULTS: adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix was managed primarily with cold knife cone biopsy or loop electrosurgical excision of the cervix. Most excisions were in one piece (83.4%) with average depth of 16.1 mm and 21.9% had involved excisional margins. Women with adenocarcinoma in situ on any excisional margin were more likely to have residual or recurrent disease (28.7%) compared with negative excisional margins (4.3%). Residual adenocarcinoma in situ was twice as common if adenocarcinoma in situ was present at endocervical (29.6%) and stromal (23.1%) margins compared with an ectocervical margin (13.6%). Cancer incidence at follow-up was 2.3% for women with positive excisional margins compared to 1.3% with negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: Women with adenocarcinoma in situ of cervix can be managed with local excisional procedures, best in single pieces to provide the important information on excisional margins. Adenocarcinoma in situ at endocervical and stromal excisional margins needs re-excision or where appropriate, hysterectomy, while negative excisional margins have a low rate of recurrence and can be followed up with test of cure.

Home-based HPV self-sampling improves participation by never-screened and under-screened women: Results from a large randomized trial (iPap) in Australia.

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether HPV self-sampling increases participation in cervical screening by never- and under-screened (not screened in past 5 years) women when compared with a reminder letter for a Pap test. Never- or under-screened Victorian women aged 30-69 years, not pregnant and with no prior hysterectomy were eligible. Within each stratum (never-screened and under-screened), we randomly allocated 7,140 women to self-sampling and 1,020 to Pap test reminders. The self-sampling kit comprised a nylon tipped flocked swab enclosed in a dry plastic tube. The primary outcome was participation, as indicated by returning a swab or undergoing a Pap test; the secondary outcome, for women in the self-sampling arm with a positive HPV test, was undergoing appropriate clinical investigation. The Roche Cobas® 4800 test was used to measure presence of HPV DNA. Participation was higher for the self-sampling arm: 20.3 versus 6.0% for never-screened women (absolute difference 14.4%, 95% CI: 12.6-16.1%, p < 0.001) and 11.5 versus 6.4% for under-screened women (difference 5.1%, 95% CI: 3.4-6.8%, p < 0.001). Of the 1,649 women who returned a swab, 45 (2.7%) were positive for HPV16/18 and 95 (5.8%) were positive for other high-risk HPV types. Within 6 months, 28 (62.2%) women positive for HPV16/18 had colposcopy as recommended and nine (20%) had cytology only. Of women positive for other high-risk HPV types, 78 (82.1%) had a Pap test as recommended. HPV self-sampling improves participation in cervical screening for never- and under-screened women and most women with HPV detected have appropriate clinical investigation.

Women's experience with home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing.

BACKGROUND: Increasing cervical screening coverage by reaching inadequately screened groups is essential for improving the effectiveness of cervical screening programs. Offering HPV self-sampling to women who are never or under-screened can improve screening participation, however participation varies widely between settings. Information on women's experience with self-sampling and preferences for future self-sampling screening is essential for programs to optimize participation. METHODS: The survey was conducted as part of a larger trial ("iPap") investigating the effect of HPV self-sampling on participation of never and under-screened women in Victoria, Australia. Questionnaires were mailed to a) most women who participated in the self-sampling to document their experience with and preference for self-sampling in future, and b) a sample of the women who did not participate asking reasons for non-participation and suggestions for enabling participation. Reasons for not having a previous Pap test were also explored. RESULTS: About half the women who collected a self sample for the iPap trial returned the subsequent questionnaire (746/1521). Common reasons for not having cervical screening were that having Pap test performed by a doctor was embarrassing (18 %), not having the time (14 %), or that a Pap test was painful and uncomfortable (11 %). Most (94 %) found the home-based self-sampling less embarrassing, less uncomfortable (90 %) and more convenient (98%) compared with their last Pap test experience (if they had one); however, many were unsure about the test accuracy (57 %). Women who self-sampled thought the instructions were clear (98 %), it was easy to use the swab (95 %), and were generally confident that they did the test correctly (81 %). Most preferred to take the self-sample at home in the future (88 %) because it was simple and did not require a doctor's appointment. Few women (126/1946, 7 %) who did not return a self-sample in the iPap trial returned the questionnaire. Their main reason for not screening was having had a hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based self-sampling can overcome emotional and practical barriers to Pap test and increase participation in cervical screening despite some women's concerns about test accuracy. Mailing to eligible women and assuring women about test accuracy could further optimize participation in screening.

A pilot study to compare dry cervical sample collection with standard practice of wet cervical samples for human papillomavirus testing.

BACKGROUND: For human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection, specimen collection and transportation using a dry swab without transport medium has advantages, in various situations, over liquid media. OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study we evaluated whether a dry cervical sample taken with a flocked swab (dry sample) is a valid alternative for HPV DNA testing compared with the standard practice of a wet sample taken with a cyto-broom placed directly into liquid media (wet sample). STUDY DESIGN: Women attending the dysplasia clinic at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne Australia between November 2013 and February 2014 were enrolled. During colposcopic examination, a practitioner collected wet and dry cervical samples, with the order of collection randomised. In the laboratory both samples were left for a week before being tested for 14 high-risk HPV types using the Roche Cobas 4800 test. RESULTS: Overall, 209 had valid HPV results from both samples. The observed agreement for HPV detection between wet and dry samples was 92.8% and kappa was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.78-0.92). There was no statistical difference in the percent HPV positive for each sample (p = 0.30). HPV testing of the dry sample had an 88.5% (95% CI: 79.9-94.3%) sensitivity for HPV detected using the wet specimen. For the HPV results categorized hierarchically, there was 92.8% overall agreement and a kappa of 0.87 (95% CI = 0.80-0.93) for the paired results. CONCLUSION: Using dry flocked swabs to collect cervical cells is a valid alternative to collecting wet samples for HPV DNA testing using a PCR based test.

Women's views on human papillomavirus self-sampling: focus groups to assess acceptability, invitation letters and a test kit in the Australian setting.

UNLABELLED: Background The study evaluated acceptability, invitation letters and the test kit for a trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among never- and under-screened women in Australia. METHODS: Victorian women, 30-69 years, who had never had a Pap test or were overdue for one, participated. Four focus groups including eight to nine participants segmented by age (30-49 and 50-69 years) and screening history (never- and under-screened) were conducted in August 2013. Discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: The response to the concept of HPV self-sampling was positive. Decision-making was largely influenced by the content of a pre-invitation letter. Appealing features of self-sampling were cost (free), convenience (home-based) and anticipated less discomfort (with a swab) than a Pap test. Small kits that fit in mailboxes were preferred over post office parcel collection. The perceived barriers include concerns about test accuracy and lack of confidence that a home-based test would give the same results as a physician administered test. Women wanted information on the timing of receipt of the results and information about the organisation providing the test. CONCLUSION: HPV self-sampling is a possible alternative for Australian women who are reluctant to have a Pap test and may increase the likelihood of participation in cervical cancer screening if women's concerns about it can be addressed. The findings of this study are relevant for researchers, policymakers and practitioners implementing self-sampling for under-screened women as part of cervical screening programs.

Cervical screening rates for women vaccinated against human papillomavirus.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cervical screening rates for women vaccinated with a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine with those for unvaccinated women, to address concerns that vaccinated women may not be participating in cervical screening. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of linked data from the Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry and the National HPV Vaccination Program Register for 20-29-year-old women in Victoria, Australia, for the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening participation rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated women. RESULTS: Participation in cervical screening during the 2-year period 2010-2011 was significantly lower in 20-24-year-old vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women of the same age (37.6% v 47.7%, a 10.1 percentage point difference [95% CI, 9.7-10.6]; P < 0.001) and significantly lower in 25-29-year-old vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women of the same age (45.2% v 58.7%, a 13.5 percentage point difference [95% CI, 13.1%-13.9%]; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed for participation during the 3-year period 2009-2011. CONCLUSIONS: Despite education messages provided to young women, our results suggest that vaccinated women are being screened at lower rates than unvaccinated women in Australia. While some degree of undermatching of women in the study may have occurred, this cannot wholly explain our findings. Effective implementation of Individual Healthcare Identifiers to health records, including registry records, is needed to prevent potential undermatching of individuals in future linkage studies. In the meantime, efforts to increase participation in cervical screening by vaccinated women are needed.