Search

Background Host-cell DNA methylation analysis can be used to triage women with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive self-collected cervicovaginal samples, but current data are restricted to under-/never-screened women and referral populations. This study evaluated triage performance in women who were offered primary HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening. Methods Self-collected samples from 593 HPV-positive women who participated in a primary HPV self-sampling trial (IMPROVE study; NTR5078), were tested for the DNA methylation markers ASCL1 and LHX8 using quantitative multiplex methylation-specific PCR (qMSP). The diagnostic performance for CIN3 and cervical cancer (CIN3 + ) was evaluated and compared with that of paired HPV-positive clinician-collected cervical samples. Results Significantly higher methylation levels were found in HPV-positive self-collected samples of women with CIN3 + than control women with no evidence of disease (P values ASCL1/LHX8 yielded a sensitivity for CIN3 + detection of 73.3% (63/86; 95% CI 63.9–82.6%), with a corresponding specificity of 61.1% (310/507; 95% CI 56.9–65.4%). The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN3+ was 0.95 (95% CI 0.82–1.10) for self-collection versus clinician-collection, and the relative specificity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.75–0.90). Conclusions The ASCL1/LHX8 methylation marker panel constitutes a feasible direct triage method for the detection of CIN3 + in HPV-positive women participating in routine screening by self-sampling.

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of delayed invitation on screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers (CRC) within a faecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based CRC screening programme.DesignAll individuals that participated in 2017 and 2018 with a negative FIT and were eligible for CRC screening in 2019 and 2020 were included using individual-level data. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between either the different time periods (ie, ‘before’, ‘during’ and ‘after’ the first COVID-19 wave) or the invitation interval on screen-detected and interval CRCs.ResultsPositive predictive value for advanced neoplasia (AN) was slightly lowerduring(OR=0.91) andafter(OR=0.95) the first COVID-19 wave, but no significant difference was observed for the different invitation intervals. Out of all individuals that previously tested negative, 84 (0.004%) had an interval CRC beyond the 24 months since their last invitation. The time period of invitation as well as the extended invitation interval was not associated with detection rates for AN and interval CRC rate.ConclusionThe impact of the first COVID-19 wave on screening yield was modest. A very small proportion of the FIT negatives had an interval CRC possibly due to an extended interval, which potentially could have been prevented if they had received the invitation earlier. Nonetheless, no increase in interval CRC rate was observed, indicating that an extended invitation interval up to 30 months had no negative impact on the performance of the CRC screening programme and a modest extension of the invitation interval seems an appropriate intervention.