Search

Background:We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect on participation in organised screening programmes of a self-sampling device mailed home or picked up at a pharmacy compared with the standard recall letter.Methods:Women aged 30-64 non-responding to screening invitation were eligible. Response rate to first invitation ranged from 30% to 60% between centres. The control was the standard reminder letter to undergo the test used by the programme (Pap test in three centres and HPV DNA test in three other centres). Home mailing of the self-sampler was preceded by a letter with a leaflet about HPV. The analysis was intention-to-treat.Results:In all, 14 041 women were randomised and recruited: 5012 in the control arm, 4516 to receive the self-sampler at home, and 4513 to pick up the self-sampler at a pharmacy. Participation was 11.9% in the control, 21.6% (relative participation: 1.75; 95% CI 1.60-1.93) in home, and 12.0% (relative participation: 0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.07) in the pharmacy arms, respectively. The heterogeneity between centres was high (excess heterogeneity of that expected due to chance, i.e., I2, 94.9% and 94.1% for home and pharmacy arm, respectively). The estimated impact on the overall coverage was +4.3% for home mail self-sampling compared with +2.2% for standard reminder.Conclusions:Home mailing of self-sampler proved to be an effective way to increase participation in screening programmes, even in those with HPV as primary testing. Picking up at pharmacies showed effects varying from centre to centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the adequacy of a routine screening to identify cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) in women over 50 years of age, a retrospective cohort was set in six Italian organised population-based screening programmes. In all, 287 330 women (1 714 550 person-years of observation, 1110 cases) screened at age 25-64, with at least two cytological screening tests, the first negative, were followed from their first negative smear until a biopsy proven CIN2+ lesion or their last negative smear. For women aged 25-49 and 50-64 years, crude and age-standardised detection rate (DR), cumulative risk (CR), adjusted hazard risk for number of previous negative screens, probability of false-positive CIN2+ after two or more smear tests were calculated. Detection rate is significantly lower over 50 years of age. Multivariable analysis shows a significant protective effect from four screening episodes (DR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.97); the effect of age >or=50 is 0.29 (95% CI: 0.24-0.35). The CR of CIN2+ is at least eightfold higher in women <50 (CR=2.06, 95% CI: 1.88-2.23) after one previous negative test than in women >or=50 years with four screens (CR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.00-0.46). Over 50 years of age, after four tests at least three false-positive cases are diagnosed for every true positive. Benefits arising from cytological screening is uncertain in well-screened older women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: HPV DNA-based screening is more effective than a Pap test in preventing cervical cancer, but the test is less specific. New HPV tests have been proposed for primary screening. The HPV mRNA test showed a similar or slightly lower sensitivity than the HPV DNA tests but with a higher specificity. We report the results of an organised HPV mRNA-based screening pilot program in Venice, Italy., Methods: From October 2011 to May 2014, women aged 25-64 years were invited to undergo a HPV mRNA test (Aptima). Those testing positive underwent cytological triage. Women with positive cytology were referred to colposcopy, whereas those with negative cytology were referred to repeat the HPV mRNA test 1 year later. The results of the HPV mRNA test program were compared with both the local historical cytology-based program and with four neighbouring DNA HPV-based pilot projects., Results: Overall, 23 211 women underwent a HPV mRNA test. The age-standardised positivity rate was 7.0%, higher than in HPV DNA programs (6.8%; relative rate (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.17). The total colposcopy referral was 5.1%, double than with cytology (2.6%; RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.82-2.25) but similar to the HPV DNA programs (4.8%; RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96-1.08). The cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ detection rate with HPV mRNA was greater than in the HPV DNA programs at baseline (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.19-1.88) and not significantly lower at the 1-year repeat (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.40-1.16). The overall RR was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05-1.59), which was much higher than with cytology (detection rate 5.5‰ vs 2.1‰; RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76-3.62)., Conclusions: A screening programme based on the HPV mRNA obtained results similar to those observed with the HPV DNA test. In routine screening programmes, even a limited increase in HPV prevalence may conceal the advantage represented by the higher specificity of HPV mRNA., Competing Interests: Dr Paolo Giorgi Rossi, the Principal Investigator of an independent study funded by the Italian Ministry of Health, is negotiating with Roche Diagnostics, Hologic-Genprobe, Qiagen and Abbott to obtain reagents at a reduced price or free of charge. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: In Italy, cervical cancer screening programmes actively invite women aged 25-64 years. Programmes are hindered by low participation., Methods: A sample of non-responder women aged 35-64 years, belonging to three different programmes (in Rome, Florence and Teramo), was randomly split into four arms: two control groups received standard recall letters to perform either Pap-test (first group) or human papillomavirus (HPV) test (second group) at the clinic. A third arm was sent letters offering a self-sampler for HPV testing, to be requested by phone, whereas a fourth group was directly sent the self-samplers home., Results: Compliance with standard recall was 13.9% (N619). Offering HPV test at the clinic had a nonsignificant effect on compliance (N616, relative risk (RR)=1.08; 95% CI=0.82-1.41). Self-sampler at request had the poorest performance, 8.7% (N622, RR=0.62; 95% CI=0.45-0.86), whereas direct mailing of the self-sampler registered the highest compliance: 19.6% (N616, RR=1.41; 95% CI=1.10-1.82). This effect on compliance was observed only in urban areas, Florence and Rome (N438, RR=1.69; 95% CI=1.24-2.30), but not in Abruzzo (N178, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.61-1.50), a prevalently rural area., Conclusions: Mailing self-samplers to non-responders may increase compliance as compared with delivering standard recall letters. Nevertheless, effectiveness is context specific and the strategy costs should be carefully considered.