Search

Cervical cancer remains a significant public health burden in low-resourced countries. Thus, the WHO prioritized cervix screening, and recently recommended thermal ablation treatment for cervical precancer. However, there is limited information on side effects during treatment and recovery, and acceptability among those treated. The ASPIRE Mayuge trial recruited women to participate in self-collection cervix screening between 2019 and 2020 (N = 2019). Screen-positive women (N = 531, 26.3%) were referred for visual inspection with acetic acid and thermal ablation treatment, per Uganda Ministry of Health recommendations; 71.2% of those referred attended follow-up. Six months post-screening, a subset of trial participants were recontacted. Those who received thermal ablation completed a survey assessing side effects during and after the procedure, and willingness to recommend the treatment to others. We summarized the results to describe the side effects and acceptability of thermal ablation treatment. Of 2019 participants, 349 (17%) received thermal ablation. A subset of 135 completed the follow-up survey, where 90% reported pain during treatment; however, intensity and duration were low. Over a third of women reported problems with recovery for reasons including pain, discharge and bleeding. Regardless, 98% reported they would recommend the treatment to others. The use of thermal ablation to treat cervical precancer appears to be highly acceptable in this population. While many women reported side effects during the procedure and recovery, the majority said they would recommend the treatment to others. However, given the substantial proportion who reported problems with recovery, efforts should be made to provide additional resources to women after receiving thermal ablation treatment for cervical precancer., (© 2022 UICC.)

While cervix screening using cytology is recommended at 2- to 3-year intervals, given the increased sensitivity of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening to detect precancer, HPV-based screening is recommended every 4- to 5-years. As organized cervix screening programs transition from cytology to HPV-based screening with extended intervals, there is some concern that cancers will be missed between screens. Participants in HPV FOr CervicAL Cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial received cytology (Cytology Arm) at 24-month intervals or HPV-based screening (HPV Arm) at 48-month intervals; both arms received co-testing (cytology and HPV testing) at exit. We investigated the results of the co-test to identify participants with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) who would not have had their precancer detected if they had only their arm's respective primary screen. In the Cytology Arm, 25/62 (40.3%) identified CIN2+s were missed by primary screen (ie, normal cytology/positive HPV test) and all 25 had normal cytology at the prior 24-month screen. In the HPV arm, three CIN2+s (3/49, 6.1%) were missed by primary screen (ie, negative HPV test/abnormal cytology). One of these three misses had low-grade cytology findings and would also not have been referred to colposcopy outside of the trial. Multiple rounds of cytology did not detect some precancerous lesions detected with one round of HPV-based screening. In our population, cytology missed more CIN2+, even at shorter screening intervals, than HPV-based screening. This assuages concerns about missed detection postimplementation of an extended interval HPV-based screening program. We recommend that policymakers consider a shift from cytology to HPV-based cervix screening., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Cervical cancer, a preventable disease associated with the human papillomavirus, is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality globally. Primary human papillomavirus testing is more sensitive in detecting precancerous cervical lesions than cytologic screening and can be conducted using either DNA- or RNA-based assays. Screening programs must select the most appropriate assay from several available assays for their population. It is not yet known whether these assays perform equivalently in the long term, particularly among women with a negative human papillomavirus test result. This study aims to compare long-term safety after a negative human papillomavirus test result across both DNA- and RNA-based testing assays., Objective: This study aimed to compare long-term high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade 2 or higher and grade 3 or higher) outcomes of 2 DNA-based assays (Digene Hybrid Capture 2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test and cobas 4800 HPV Test) and 1 messenger RNA-based assay (Aptima HPV Assay) using data from the Human Papillomavirus For Cervical Cancer Trial-DECADEl (FOCAL-DECADE) cohort, by first comparing the positive and negative rates between the assays and then investigating the cumulative incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and higher and grade 3 or higher detection among participants in the FOCAL DECADE cohort over follow-up according to human papillomavirus testing assays., Study Design: The FOCAL Trial was a randomized controlled trial that evaluated human papillomavirus testing for primary cervical cancer screening. The FOCAL-DECADE cohort subsequently followed FOCAL Trial participants passively through the British Columbia Cervix Screening Program Database for approximately 10 years after the FOCAL Trial study exit to examine the rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher and grade 3 or higher. For this study, eligible participants had baseline human papillomavirus-negative results from at least 1 assay and had 1 or more cytologic screens after baseline (9509 participants for DNA-based and 3473 participants for DNA- vs RNA-based assay comparisons). We constructed cumulative incidence curves and compared the hazard ratios for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher and grade 3 or higher detection according to the assays., Results: Over 10 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher and grade 3 or higher did not significantly differ between the DNA-based assays (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.06; P=.35 and hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01; P=.06 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher, respectively) or between the DNA- and RNA-based assays (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.06; P=.48 and hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.13; P=.52 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher, respectively)., Conclusion: Among participants who tested negative for human papillomavirus at baseline, the long-term risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher and grade 3 or higher did not significantly differ regardless of whether DNA- or RNA-based human papillomavirus testing assays were used. Screening program decision makers can be confident that for women who test negative for human papillomavirus, DNA- and RNA-based assays exhibit similar cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher outcomes over several years., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study participant's acceptability of and attitudes towards human papillomavirus (HPV) testing compared with cytology for cervical cancer screening and what impact having an HPV positive result may have in future acceptability of screening., Design: Cross-sectional online survey of clinical trial participants., Setting: Primary care, population-based Cervix Screening Program, British Columbia, Canada., Participants: A total of 5532 participants from the HPV FOCAL trial, in which women received HPV and cytology testing at study exit, were included in the analysis. Median age was 54 years. The median time of survey completion was 3 years after trial exit., Outcome Measures: Acceptability of HPV testing for primary cervical cancer screening (primary); attitudes and patient perceptions towards HPV testing and receipt of HPV positive screen results (secondary)., Results: Most respondents (63%) were accepting of HPV testing, with the majority (69%) accepting screening to begin at age 30 years with HPV testing. Only half of participants (54%) were accepting of an extended screening interval of 4-5 years. In multivariable logistic regression, women who received an HPV positive screen test result during the trial (OR=1.41 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80) or were older (OR=1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02) were more likely to report HPV testing as acceptable., Conclusions: In this evaluation of acceptability and attitudes regarding HPV testing for cervix screening, most are accepting of HPV testing for screening; however, findings indicate heterogeneity in concerns and experiences surrounding HPV testing and receipt of HPV positive results. These findings provide insights for the development of education, information and communication strategies during implementation of HPV-based cervical cancer screening., Trial Registration Numbers: ISRCTN79347302 and NCT00461760., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MK and AJC were principal investigators, and GSO, DvN and ELF were coinvestigators on industry-funded (Hologic Inc and Roche) investigator-led adjunct studies to the HPV FOCAL trial, designed to compare the performance of different HPV testing assays. No investigators personally benefitted financially. Funding for these adjunct studies was not applied to the operation of the HPV FOCAL results presented in this paper. ELF served as an occasional advisor for companies involved with HPV vaccines (Merck, GSK) and HPV diagnostics (Roche). He also holds a patent 'DNA methylation markers for early detection of cervical cancer', registered at the Office of Innovation and Partnerships, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The Human Papillomavirus FOr CervicAL cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial is a large randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of primary HPV testing to cytology among women in the population-based Cervix Screening Program in British Columbia, Canada. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the HPV FOCAL trial to estimate the incremental cost per detected high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse lesions (CIN2+). A total of 19,009 women aged 25 to 65 were randomized to one of two study groups. Women in the intervention group received primary HPV testing with reflex liquid-based cytology (LBC) upon a positive finding with a screening interval of 48 months. Women in the control group received primary LBC testing, and those negative returned at 24 months for LBC and again at 48 months for exit screening. Both groups received HPV and LBC co-testing at the 48-month exit. Incremental costs during the course of the trial were comparable between the intervention and control groups. The intervention group had lower overall costs and detected a larger number of CIN2+ lesions, resulting in a lower mean cost per CIN2+ detected ($7551) than the control group ($8325), a difference of -$773 [all costs in 2018 USD]. Cost per detected lesion was sensitive to the costs of sample collection, HPV testing, and LBC testing. The HPV FOCAL Trial results suggest that primary HPV testing every 4 years produces similar outcomes to LBC-based testing every 2 years for cervical cancer screening at a lower cost., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Long-term safety of a single negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test for cervical cancer screening is unclear. The HPV FOr cerviCAL Cancer Trial (FOCAL) was a randomized trial comparing HPV testing with cytology. The FOCAL-DECADE cohort tracked women who received one HPV test during FOCAL, and were HPV negative, for up to 10 years to identify cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detected through a provincial screening program., Methods: FOCAL participants who received one HPV test, were negative, and had at least one post-FOCAL cervix screen were included ( N = 5,537). We constructed cumulative incidence curves of CIN2+/CIN3+ detection, analyzed cumulative risk of detection at intervals post-HPV test, calculated average incidence rates for detection, and compared hazard across ages., Results: Ten years after one negative HPV test, the probability of CIN2+ detection was lower than 1%, with most lesions detected 7 years or later. Average incidence rates of CIN2+/CIN3+ lesions over follow-up were 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.78] and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.07-0.36) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Hazards were higher for younger ages (nonsignificant trend)., Conclusions: Among women with a single negative HPV test, long-term risk of CIN2+ detection was low, particularly through 7 years of follow-up; thus, one negative HPV test appears to confer long-term protection from precancerous lesions. Even 10-year risk is sufficiently low to support extended testing intervals in average-risk populations., Impact: Our findings support the safety of screening policies using HPV testing alone at 5-year or longer intervals., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Importance: There is limited information about the relative effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing alone compared with cytology in North American populations., Objective: To evaluate histologically confirmed cumulative incident cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detected up to and including 48 months by primary HPV testing alone (intervention) or liquid-based cytology (control)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in an organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Canada. Participants were recruited through 224 collaborating clinicians from January 2008 to May 2012, with follow-up through December 2016. Women aged 25 to 65 years with no history of CIN2+ in the past 5 years, no history of invasive cervical cancer, or no history of hysterectomy; who have not received a Papanicolaou test within the past 12 months; and who were not receiving immunosuppressive therapy were eligible., Interventions: A total of 19 009 women were randomized to the intervention (n = 9552) and control (n = 9457) groups. Women in the intervention group received HPV testing; those whose results were negative returned at 48 months. Women in the control group received liquid-based cytology (LBC) testing; those whose results were negative returned at 24 months for LBC. Women in the control group who were negative at 24 months returned at 48 months. At 48-month exit, both groups received HPV and LBC co-testing., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of CIN3+ 48 months following randomization. The cumulative incidence of CIN2+ was a secondary outcome., Results: Among 19 009 women who were randomized (mean age, 45 years [10th-90th percentile, 30-59]), 16 374 (8296 [86.9%] in the intervention group and 8078 [85.4%] in the control group) completed the study. At 48 months, significantly fewer CIN3+ and CIN2+ were detected in the intervention vs control group. The CIN3+ incidence rate was 2.3/1000 (95% CI, 1.5-3.5) in the intervention group and 5.5/1000 (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) in the control group. The CIN3+ risk ratio was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.25-0.69). The CIN2+ incidence rate at 48 months was 5.0/1000 (95% CI, 3.8-6.7) in the intervention group and 10.6/1000 (95% CI, 8.7-12.9) in the control group. The CIN2+ risk ratio was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.67). Baseline HPV-negative women had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of CIN3+ at 48 months than cytology-negative women (CIN3+ incidence rate, 1.4/1000 [95% CI, 0.8-2.4]; CIN3+ risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.13-0.48])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among women undergoing cervical cancer screening, the use of primary HPV testing compared with cytology testing resulted in a significantly lower likelihood of CIN3+ at 48 months. Further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN79347302.

Background: HPV FOCAL is a randomized trial (ISRCTN79347302, registered 20 Apr 2007) comparing high-risk (hr) HPV testing vs. liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25-65. We compared the Digene Hybrid Capture® 2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test® (HC2) and the Roche cobas® 4800 HPV Test (COBAS) for primary screening., Methods: Women (n=6,172) were screened at baseline by HC2 and COBAS and by LBC 24 months later. We assessed HPV genotyping and reflex LBC for colposcopy triage of baseline HPV positive women., Results: Overall HC2/COBAS agreement was 96.1% (kappa 0.75) and positive agreement was 77.5%. Baseline CIN2 and CIN3+ rates based on HPV screening were 8.6/1,000 and 6.6/1,000 respectively; 24 month rates were 0.7/1,000 and 0.4/1,000 (LBC screening). HC2 and COBAS were concordant positive for 91% of round 1 CIN2 and 98% of CIN3+. CIN3+ was significantly associated with HPV 16 (Odds Ratio [OR] 5.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.30, 11.37), but not HPV 18 (OR 2.62; 95% CI 0.73, 9.49), vs. non-HPV 16/18 HPV at baseline. There was no significant association between HPV genotype and CIN2. CIN3+ was significantly more likely for high-grade (OR 5.99; 95% CI 2.53, 14.18), but not low-grade (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.20, 1.49), vs. negative LBC. No significant association was observed between LBC grade and CIN2. HPV 16 and 18 were associated with 33% of CIN2 and 68% of CIN3+ identified at baseline., Conclusions: For hrHPV positive women, abnormal reflex LBC is appropriate for colposcopy triage. In addition, immediate referral of women with HPV 16/18 and normal cytology may allow for earlier detection of CIN2+ lesions which would not be detected until after follow-up testing.

Background: In the HPV FOCAL trial, we will establish the efficacy of hr-HPV DNA testing as a stand-alone screening test followed by liquid based cytology (LBC) triage of hr-HPV-positive women compared to LBC followed by hr-HPV triage with > or = CIN3 as the outcome., Methods/design: HPV-FOCAL is a randomized, controlled, three-armed study over a four year period conducted in British Columbia. It will recruit 33,000 women aged 25-65 through the province's population based cervical cancer screening program. Control arm: LBC at entry and two years, and combined LBC and hr-HPV at four years among those with initial negative results and hr-HPV triage of ASCUS cases; Two Year Safety Check arm: hr-HPV at entry and LBC at two years in those with initial negative results with LBC triage of hr-HPV positives; Four Year Intervention Arm: hr-HPV at entry and combined hr-HPV and LBC at four years among those with initial negative results with LBC triage of hr-HPV positive cases, Discussion: To date, 6150 participants have a completed sample and epidemiologic questionnaire. Of the 2019 women enrolled in the control arm, 1908 (94.5%) were cytology negative. Women aged 25-29 had the highest rates of HSIL (1.4%). In the safety arm 92.2% of women were hr-HPV negative, with the highest rate of hr-HPV positivity found in 25-29 year old women (23.5%). Similar results were obtained in the intervention arm HPV FOCAL is the first randomized trial in North America to examine hr-HPV testing as the primary screen for cervical cancer within a population-based cervical cancer screening program., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register, ISRCTN79347302.