Search

Objective: To report detailed age‐specific outcomes from the first round of an English pilot studying the implementation of high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. Design: Observational study with screening in 2013–2016, followed by two early recalls and/or colposcopy until the end of 2019. Setting: Six NHS laboratory sites. Population: A total of 1 341 584 women undergoing screening with HR‐HPV testing or liquid‐based cytology (LBC). Methods: Early recall tests and colposcopies were recommended, depending on the nature of the screening‐detected abnormality. Main outcome measures: We reported standard screening process indicators, e.g. proportions with an abnormality, including high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) or cancer, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of colposcopy for CIN2+, by screening test and age group. Results: Among unvaccinated women screened with HR‐HPV testing at age 24–29 years, 26.9% had a positive test and 10.4% were directly referred to colposcopy following cytology triage, with a PPV for CIN2+ of 47%. At 50–64 years of age, these proportions were much lower: 5.3%, 1.2% and 27%, respectively. The proportions of women testing positive for HR‐HPV without cytological abnormalities, whose early recall HR‐HPV tests returned negative results, were similar across the age spans: 54% at 24–29 years and 55% at 50–64 years. Two‐thirds of infections at any age were linked to non‐16/18 genotypes. Among women with CIN2, CIN3 or cervical cancer, however, the proportion of non‐16/18 infections increased with age. As expected, the detection of abnormalities was lower following screening with LBC. Conclusions: These data provide a reliable reference for future epidemiological studies, including those concerning the effectiveness of HPV vaccination. Data from the English pilot study provide a comprehensive overview of abnormalities detected through HPV screening. Data from the English pilot study provide a comprehensive overview of abnormalities detected through HPV screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several international cervical screening guidelines advise against using high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) testing in women younger than 30. The rationale for this in young women, lies in the potential for additional detection of both low‐grade and high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) leading to unnecessary treatments without reducing the burden of cervical cancer. We studied 56 544 women screened at 24 to 29 with HR‐HPV testing and 116 858 screened with liquid‐based cytology (LBC) in the English HPV screening pilot. They were compared to 528 460 women screened at the age of 30 to 49. We studied the detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 across two consecutive screening rounds 3 years apart. At 24 to 29, a positive HR‐HPV test detected more cases of cervical cancer in the prevalence round than did a positive LBC test (1.36/1000 screened vs 0.82/1000, ORadj: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.18‐2.19). In women with a negative HR‐HPV test, cervical cancer was diagnosed before or at the incidence round in 0.07/1000. After a negative LBC test, cancer detection reached 0.47/1000 and 40% of these cases were diagnosed at FIGO stage IB+. HR‐HPV testing increased the detection of CIN2/3 diagnoses in two consecutive rounds combined by 30% (71.9/1000 vs 55.2/1000). The patterns of detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 were almost identical at older ages. These data support using HR‐HPV testing for screening of women younger than 30, which not only accelerates the diagnosis of cervical cancer but leads to a similar relative increase in CIN2/3 diagnosis to that found in women aged 30 to 49. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used a cross‐sectional survey to examine short‐term anxiety and distress in women receiving different results following routine human papillomavirus (HPV) primary testing at cervical screening. Participants were women aged 24–65 (n = 1,127) who had attended screening at one of five sites piloting HPV primary screening in England, including a control group with normal cytology who were not tested for HPV. Women completed a postal questionnaire ~2 weeks after receiving their screening result. Unadjusted mean anxiety scores ranged from 32.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.2) in HPV‐negative women to 42.1 (SD = 14.9) in women who were HPV‐positive with abnormal cytology. In adjusted analyses, anxiety was significantly higher in women testing HPV‐positive with either normal cytology (mean difference [MD] = 3.5, CI: 0.6–6.4) or abnormal cytology (MD = 7.2, CI: 3.7–10.6), than the control group. Distress was slightly higher in women who tested HPV‐positive with abnormal cytology (MD = 0.9, CI: 0.02–1.8), than the control group. We also found increased odds of very high anxiety in women who tested HPV‐positive with normal or abnormal cytology compared to the control group. This pattern of results was only observed among women receiving their first HPV‐positive result, not among women found to have persistent HPV at 12‐month follow‐up. Testing HPV‐positive with normal cytology for the first time, is associated with elevated anxiety despite carrying very low immediate cervical cancer risk. However, receiving the same test result at 12‐month early recall does not appear to be associated with higher anxiety, suggesting anxiety may normalise with repeated exposure and/or over time. What's new? While a positive test for human papillomavirus (HPV) with negative cytology is associated with low cervical cancer risk, recall for additional HPV testing may have undesirable psychological impacts. In this study, involving women who participated in HPV primary screening in England, women who were informed of an HPV‐positive result for the first time experience increased anxiety and concern. Meanwhile, positive HPV testing at 12‐month recall had little adverse psychological impact, suggesting that anxiety concerning a positive HPV result is relatively short‐lived. Nonetheless, strategies should be in place to mitigate anxiety in women receiving a positive result for the first time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Young women's attendance at cervical screening in the UK is continuing to fall, and the incidence of invasive cervical cancer is rising. Objectives: We assessed the preferences of non‐attending young women for alternative ways of delivering cervical screening. Design: Postal discrete choice experiment (DCE) conducted during the STRATEGIC study of interventions for increasing cervical screening uptake. Attributes included action required to arrange a test, location of the test, availability of a nurse navigator and cost to the National Health Service. Setting and participants: Non‐attending young women in two UK regions. Main outcome measures: Responses were analysed using a mixed multinomial logit model. A predictive analysis identified the most preferable strategy compared to current screening. Preferences from the DCE were compared with observed behaviours during the STRATEGIC trial. Results: The DCE response rate was 5.5% (222/4000), and 94% of respondents agreed screening is important. Preference heterogeneity existed around attributes with strong evidence for test location. Relative to current screening, unsolicited self‐sampling kits for home use appeared most preferable. The STRATEGIC trial showed this same intervention to be most effective although many women who received it and were screened, attended for conventional cytology instead. Conclusions: The DCE and trial identified the unsolicited self‐sampling kit as the most preferred/effective intervention. The DCE suggested that the decision of some women receiving the kit in the trial to attend for conventional cytology may be due to anxieties around home testing coupled with a knowledge that ignoring the kit could potentially have life‐changing consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC trial). Methods We performed an economic analysis alongside the STRATEGIC trial, comparing each of seven novel interventions for improving cervical screening uptake with control general practices in Greater Manchester and Grampian (United Kingdom). A template was developed to measure the intervention costs. Trial estimates of screening uptake were combined with data from the literature to estimate healthcare costs of each intervention. The added lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of attending cervical screening were estimated by a systematic literature review, with relevant results pooled and weighted by study quality. Trial results and estimated lifetime costs and benefits of screening were then combined in a decision analytic model, giving an incremental cost per QALY gained for each intervention. Uncertainty was addressed in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Intervention costs per screening round per woman attending varied from about £1.20 (2014 UK) for the nurse navigator intervention to £62 for the unrequested HPV self-sampler kit. The meta-analysis revealed a lifetime discounted benefit from screening of 0.043 QALYs per woman attending, at an additional lifetime discounted cost of £234. The incremental cost per QALY gained in all interventions was below £13,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that only unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments have a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions Unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments are likely to be cost-effective interventions. Further research is required on the duration of effects and on implementing combinations of interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common malignancy diagnosed in women worldwide. Nearly all cases of cervical cancer result from infection with the human papillomavirus, and the prevention of cervical cancer includes screening and vaccination. Primary treatment options for patients with cervical cancer may include surgery or a concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy with external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Cervical cancer causes more than one quarter of a million deaths per year as a result of grossly deficient treatments in many developing countries. This warrants a concerted global effort to counter the shocking loss of life and suffering that largely goes unreported. This article provides a review of the biology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer, and discusses the global cervical cancer crisis and efforts to improve the prevention and treatment of the disease in underdeveloped countries. Cancer 2017;123:2404-12. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eighty-seven percent of cervix cancer occurs in less-developed regions of the world, and there is up to an 18-fold difference in mortality rate for cervix cancer depending on the region of the world. The Cervix Cancer Research Network (CCRN) was founded through the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup with the aim of improving access to clinical trials in cervix cancer worldwide, and in so doing improving standards of care. The CCRN recently held its first international educational symposium in Bangkok. Sixty-two participants attended from 16 different countries including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Columbia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. The focus of this symposium was to evaluate progress, to promote new clinical trials for the CCRN, and to provide education regarding the role of brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Persistent infection with one or more high-risk human papillomavirus [HR-HPV] types increases the risk of intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer. A nested case-control study was conducted to investigate the importance of cervical cell folate concentration and tumour suppressor gene methylation as risk factors for HR-HPV persistence. Methods: Cervical cell samples from 955 women with HR-HPV infection and normal, borderline or mild dyskaryosis were retrieved from the archive of a population-based screening trial. Women were classified as cases or controls, reflecting the presence or absence [respectively] of any HR-HPV infection at a follow-up clinic at least 6 months from baseline. Cervical cell folate concentration and promoter methylation of five tumour suppressor genes were measured in independent samples from cases and controls. Results: A higher cervical cell folate concentration [P = 0.015] was an independent predictor of infection at follow-up, together with infection with HPV-16 or infection with multiple HR-HPV types. Methylation of the tumour suppressor gene DAPK was associated with a 2.64-fold [95% CI, 1.35-5.17] increased likelihood of HPV infection whilst CDH1 methylation was associated with a 0.53-fold [95% CI, 0.331-0.844] likelihood of HR-HPV infection at follow-up. When considering women with normal or abnormal cytology, the predictive effect of higher cervical cell folate was only seen in women with mild cytology [P = 0.021]; similarly the effect of DAPK methylation was seen in women with mild or borderline cytology [P < 0.05]. Conclusions: Higher cervical cell folate concentration and promoter methylation of the tumour suppressor gene, DAPK, in women with cervical cell dyskaryosis, are associated with increased risk of HR-HPV persistence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]