Search

Current management of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN), caused by high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV), is based on surveillance and surgical therapy. Procedures carry potential risks such as preterm birth, and access remains limited throughout the world. However, there are no medical therapies recommended to promote the clearance of hr-HPV infection or CIN. Ultimately, even if less efficacious than excision procedures, medical therapies have the potential to decrease cervical cancer by eliminating barriers to treatment, such as access to treatment, or serving as an adjunct to surgical treatment in both high- and low-resource settings. This review describes current research on topical therapies with the potential for self-application for the treatment of HPV or CIN. Therapies included are immune-modulators, anti-proliferative medications, antivirals, hormones, and herbal/alternative therapies. Randomized trials of immune-modulating (imiquimod), anti-proliferative (5-fluorouracil), and anti-viral (cidofovir) therapies have had the most promising results. However, no option has sufficient clinical trial evidence to be recommended as treatment for CIN 2-3 and surgery remains the standard of care. The research described in this review serves as a guide for the development of future trials in the burgeoning arena of topical therapies for CIN 2-3., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: We compared women's acceptability of urine and cervico-vaginal sample self-collection for high-risk (oncogenic) human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing and assessed whether acceptability varied across racial/ethnic groups. Methods: As part of a test accuracy study of urine-based hrHPV testing, we recruited a convenience sample of women 25-65 years of age at two colposcopy clinics in North Carolina between November 2016 and January 2019. After self-collection of urine and cervico-vaginal samples, women completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the sample collection methods. We coded open-ended questions inductively. All results are presented stratified by racial/ethnic group. Results: We included 410 women (119 Hispanic, 115 non-Hispanic Black, 154 non-Hispanic White, and 22 women with other racial identities). Most women (79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 76%-83%) had positive feelings about urine-based hrHPV testing. Women generally preferred urine (78%, 95% CI = 74%-82%) over cervico-vaginal self-collection (18%, 95% CI = 14%-22%), but the degree differed by racial/ethnic group, increasing from 75% in non-Hispanic Black to 82% in Hispanic women ( p  = 0.011). Most women reported at least one positive aspect of urine (89%) and cervico-vaginal self-collection (85%) for hrHPV testing with the most common positive aspect being easy sample collection, although 16% of women were concerned about performing the cervico-vaginal self-collection correctly. Conclusions: Self-collection for hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening is highly acceptable to women across different racial/ethnic groups in the United States, and most women in our study would be more likely to attend future cervical cancer screening appointments if screening were urine based. Urine-based hrHPV testing is a promising approach to improve cervical cancer screening coverage.