Search

Given that high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the necessary cause of virtually all cervical cancer, the clinical meaning of HPV-negative cervical precancer is unknown. We, therefore, conducted a literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar to identify English-language studies in which (i) HPV-negative and -positive, histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (CIN2+) were detected and (ii) summarized statistics or deidentified individual data were available to summarize proportions of biomarkers indicating risk of cancer. Nineteen studies including 3,089 (91.0%) HPV-positive and 307 (9.0%) HPV-negative CIN2+ were analyzed. HPV-positive CIN2+ (vs. HPV-negative CIN2+) was more likely to test positive for biomarkers linked to cancer risk: a study diagnosis of CIN3+ (vs. CIN2; 18 studies; 0.56 vs. 0.24; P < 0.001) preceding high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology (15 studies; 0.54 vs. 0.10; P < 0.001); and high-grade colposcopic impression (13 studies; 0.30 vs. 0.18; P = 0.03). HPV-negative CIN2+ was more likely to test positive for low-risk HPV genotypes than HPV-positive CIN2+ (P < 0.001). HPV-negative CIN2+ appears to have lower cancer risk than HPV-positive CIN2+. Clinical studies of human high-risk HPV testing for screening to prevent cervical cancer may refer samples of HPV test–negative women for disease ascertainment to correct verification bias in the estimates of clinical performance. However, verification bias adjustment of the clinical performance of HPV testing may overcorrect/underestimate its clinical performance to detect truly precancerous abnormalities.

Supplemental Figures 1-2

Supplementary Data Legends

Given that high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the necessary cause of virtually all cervical cancer, the clinical meaning of HPV-negative cervical precancer is unknown. We, therefore, conducted a literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar to identify English-language studies in which (i) HPV-negative and -positive, histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (CIN2+) were detected and (ii) summarized statistics or deidentified individual data were available to summarize proportions of biomarkers indicating risk of cancer. Nineteen studies including 3,089 (91.0%) HPV-positive and 307 (9.0%) HPV-negative CIN2+ were analyzed. HPV-positive CIN2+ (vs. HPV-negative CIN2+) was more likely to test positive for biomarkers linked to cancer risk: a study diagnosis of CIN3+ (vs. CIN2; 18 studies; 0.56 vs. 0.24; P < 0.001) preceding high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology (15 studies; 0.54 vs. 0.10; P < 0.001); and high-grade colposcopic impression (13 studies; 0.30 vs. 0.18; P = 0.03). HPV-negative CIN2+ was more likely to test positive for low-risk HPV genotypes than HPV-positive CIN2+ (P < 0.001). HPV-negative CIN2+ appears to have lower cancer risk than HPV-positive CIN2+. Clinical studies of human high-risk HPV testing for screening to prevent cervical cancer may refer samples of HPV test–negative women for disease ascertainment to correct verification bias in the estimates of clinical performance. However, verification bias adjustment of the clinical performance of HPV testing may overcorrect/underestimate its clinical performance to detect truly precancerous abnormalities.

Background Women living with human immunodeficiency virus (WLWH), especially those living in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), are at increased risk of cervical cancer. The optimal cervical-cancer screening strategy for WLWH has not been determined. We therefore conducted a pilot study of screening methods in WLWH living in Limbe, Cameroon. Methods Five-hundred sixty-six WLWH, aged 25–59 years, were enrolled. After self-collecting a cervicovaginal specimen, they underwent a pelvic exam, during which a provider also collected a cervical specimen and visual inspection after acetic acid (VIA) was performed. Both self- and provider-collected specimens were tested for high-risk HPV by the Xpert HPV Test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), with the residual of the latter used for liquid-based cytology. Women testing HPV positive on either specimen and/or VIA positive were referred to colposcopy and biopsies. However, because of poor attendence for follow-up colposcopy for the screen positives due to civil strife and technical issues with biopsies, high-grade cytology and/or clinical diagnosis of cancer was used as the primary high-grade cervical abnormality endpoint. Clinical performances for high-grade cervical abnormality of HPV testing and VIA for screening WLWH, and the most carcinogenic HPV genotypes and/or VIA to triage high-risk HPV-positive WLWH, were evaluated. Results Four-hundred eighty-seven (86.0%) WLWH had results for HPV testing on both specimen, VIA, and cytology and were included in the analysis. Forty-nine (10.1%) had a high-grade cervical abnormality. HPV testing on provider- and self-collected specimens was more sensitive than VIA (95.9 and 91.8% vs. 43.8%, respectively, p p p Conclusions HPV testing was more sensitive but less specific than VIA for detection of high-grade cervical abnormality in WLWH. Improved triage methods for HPV-positive WLWH are needed. Trial registration NCT04401670 (clinicaltrials.gov); retrospectively registered on May 26, 2020

Cervical cancer disproportionately burdens lower-resourced settings, in which nearly 90% of cervical cancer and cervical cancer-related deaths occur. Targeting human papillomavirus (HPV) by prophylactic HPV vaccination in young adolescent girls and HPV-based screening in mid-adult women offers the most cost-effective strategy to reduce cervical cancer burden worldwide and mitigate the health disparities in cervical cancer burden between low-resourced and high-resourced settings. Political and social will, along with the necessary financial investments, will be necessary to realize the opportunity for significant global reductions in the cervical cancer burden. Perfect cervical cancer prevention (total eradication) is practically and financially unrealistic.

Background Cervical cancer is a leading cause of death among Cameroon women. The burden of cervical cancer is in part traceable to the inadequate understanding of socio-contextual determinants of access to screening and prevention opportunities. We explored multilevel individual, community and structural factors that facilitate or inhibit cervical cancer prevention in women at risk in a low-income, high HIV prevalence context. Methods We utilized an exploratory qualitative approach to obtain data through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews from May to August, 2018. A two-stage purposive sampling strategy was used to select 80 women and 20 men who participated in 8 focus group discussions and 8 in-depth interviews. The socio-ecological model guided data analyses to identify micro-, meso-, and macro-level determinants of cervical cancer screening. Results Micro-level factors including lack of awareness and knowledge about cervical cancer, lack of access to information, excessive cost of cervical cancer screening, low risk perceptions, and poor health seeking behaviors were major barriers for women seeking cervical cancer screening. Meso-level factors, such as social networks, socio-cultural norms, perceptions of the role of men and HIV-related stigma when screening is integrated into HIV care, also engender negative attitudes and behaviors. Macro-level barriers to cervical cancer screening included poorly equipped health facilities and a lack of national cancer prevention policies and programs. Conclusion In the context of the call for elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem, our findings highlight challenges and opportunities that should be considered when implementing interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening in low-middle income settings.

Highlights • Resources are required to close gaps in patient knowledge & provider education. • The need to task shift from physicians to nurses & other health care workers. • Decentralized policy adaptions should be tailored to a rural-specific SSA context. • Establishment of political will to increase investments in cancer prevention. • Further study on facilitators & barriers to cancer care in national contexts., To address gaps in access to cervical cancer screening and early diagnosis of breast cancer services in Sub-Saharan African (SSA), this scoping review was conducted to explore facilitators and barriers that exist on the patient-, provider-, and system-level. An extensive literature search was conducted in accordance with scoping review methodology and the Cochrane guidelines. Our search criteria were limited to original research studies conducted in community or clinical settings in SSA within the last 10 years (2010–2020). Themes found from this review included patient knowledge and provider education, access to screening services, trust, health-related behaviors, attitudes, values, and practices, community and social values, health infrastructure, resource allocation, and political will. Identified barriers included lack of knowledge about cervical and breast cancer among patients, gaps in education and training among providers, and lack of resources and health infrastructure at the facility level and within the overall health system. Facilitators included perceived risk of cancer, support and encouragement of the provider, and utilization of novel approaches in low-resource settings by health systems. To better address individual-, provider-, and health system and facility-based facilitators and barriers to care, there is a need for political and financial investment and further research on the health service delivery in specific national health systems, especially in the context of the global campaign to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem.

Introduction Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the standard-of-care for cervical cancer screening globally. Urine is a promising alternative to collecting a cervical specimen during a pelvic exam for HPV testing. There are no studies to date of HPV testing of urine using the Xpert HPV test. Methods We conducted a pilot study of 40 women; 30 women undergoing colposcopy because of a previous abnormality and 10 undergoing routine screening, to evaluate HPV detection in urine by the Xpert HPV test on the GeneXpert platform. Xpert HPV testing of urine was done according to the manufacturer’s instructions for testing cervical specimens. These results were compared to a reference of combined results of 2 research HPV genotyping tests conducted on cervical specimens and to repeat Xpert HPV testing of urine. Results Analytic sensitivity and specificity of Xpert testing of urine for any high-risk HPV versus the cervical sample, categorized as HPV positive if at least 1 test was positive, were 64.3% (95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 42.1–76.1%) and 100% (97.5%CI = 71.5–100%), respectively. Analytic sensitivity and specificity of Xpert testing of urine for any high-risk HPV versus the cervical sample, categorized as positive if both tests were positive, were 66.7% (95%CI = 44.7–84.4%) and 86.7% (95%CI = 59.5–98.3%), respectively. Kappa values for first vs. second and first vs. third testing of urine by Xpert were 0.89 (95%CI = 0.79–1.00) and 0.90 (95%CI = 0.81–1.00), respectively. Discussion Given the call for global elimination of cervical cancer and widespread availability of GeneXpert, optimizing Xpert HPV testing of urine may be warranted.

BackgroundCervical cancer is a leading cause of death among Cameroon women. The burden of cervical cancer is in part traceable to the inadequate understanding of contextual determinants of access to expanding screening and prevention opportunities. We explored multilevel individual, community and structural factors that facilitate or inhibit cervical cancer prevention in women at risk in a high HIV prevalence context. MethodsWe utilized an exploratory qualitative approach to obtain data through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. A two-stage sampling strategy was used to select 80 women and 20 men who participated in 8 focus group discussions and 8 in-depth interviews. The socio-ecological model guided the analysis of data to identify micro, meso and macro level determinants of cervical cancer screening. ResultsMicro-level factors-low level of awareness and knowledge about cervical cancer, lack of access to information about screening, low risk perceptions, poor health seeking behaviors and excessive cost of cervical cancer screening were major barriers for women seeking cervical cancer screening. Meso-level factors, such as social networks, socio-cultural norms, perceptions of the role of men and HIV-related stigma when screening is integrated into HIV care, also engender negative attitudes and behaviors. Poorly equipped health facilities and a lack of national cancer prevention policies and programs were among macro-level barriers limiting access to cervical cancer screening. ConclusionThe success of efforts to reduce the burden of cervical cancer in Cameroon rests on eliminating the myriad individual, familial, community and structural factors that limit access to screening among women in the study communities.

BACKGROUND. There are limited data on cervical HPV prevalence in Cameroon and none from its Anglophone region. We investigated cervical HPV prevalence in HIV-uninfected (HIV[−]) and HIV-infected (WLWH) women living in the region. METHODS. A convenience sample of consecutively recruited HIV[−] women (n=295) and women living with HIV (WLWH) (n=560) attending the Limbé Regional Hospital were enrolled into a cervical screening study. Women underwent screening that included HPV testing of self-collected and provider-collected specimens. We calculated the HPV prevalence by HIV status, overall and stratified by age, and among WLWH, stratified by CD4 counts. We compared the concordance for the detection of HPV between self- and provider-collected specimens. RESULTS. Crude HPV prevalence was 21.69% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]=17.21–26.48%) for HIV[−] women and 46.43% (95%CI=42.24–50.66%) for WLWH (p

Most cervical cancers occur in women who do not participate in cervical-cancer screening. We therefore evaluated adherence to screening for clinic-based Pap testing, self-collected sampling for HPV testing, and choice of the 2 among 483 unscreened/underscreened women in Brazil. Three public Basic Health Units (BHU) were each randomly assigned to three arms: (i) Pap testing at the BHU (N = 160), (ii) “Self&HPV” (self-collection for HPV testing) (N = 161), and (iii) “Choice” between self-collection and HPV testing and Pap test at the local BHU (N = 162). The theory-based (PEN-3 and Health Belief Model) intervention in all three arms was implemented by trained Community Health Workers (CHW) at participants’ home. With the first invitation, 60.0% in the Pap arm, 95.1% [154 of 161 (95.7%) who selected Self&HPV and 0 of 1 (0.0%) who selected Pap] in the Choice arm, and 100% in the Self&HPV arm completed screening. By the second invitation to choose a method of screening in the Choice arm, 100% completed screening. After three invitations, 75.0% of women in the Pap arm completed screening. Adherence to screening differed by study arm (P < 0.001). In conclusion, Self&HPV testing is a promising strategy for unscreened/underscreened women who are recalcitrant or unable to undergo clinic-based cervical screening to complement the screening modality used in the general population. In Brazil, where Pap testing is recommended for routine cervical screening, training CHWs in behavior change strategies and offering Self&HPV or Choice could greatly improve screening population coverage by reaching the unscreened/underscreened populations.

Background There remains uncertainty about the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in causing small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNC) and large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNC) of the cervix. To clarify the role of HPV in the development of SCNC and LCNC, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses. Methods PubMed and Embase were searched to initially identify 143 articles published on or before June 1, 2017. Studies were limited to methods that tested for HPV in the cancer tissue directly to minimize misattribution. Thirty-two studies with 403 SCNC and 9 studies of 45 LCNC were included in the analysis. Results For SCNC, 85% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]=71%–94%) were HPV positive, 78% (95%CI=64%–90%) were HPV16 and/or HPV18 positive, 51% (95%CI=39%–64%) were singly HPV18 positive, and 10% (95%CI=4%–19%) were singly HPV16 positive. In a subset of 5 SCNC studies (75 cases), 93% were positive for p16 INK4a by immunohistochemistry and 100% were HPV positive. For LCNC, 88% (95%CI=72%–99%) were HPV positive, 86% (95%CI=70%–98%) were positive for HPV16 or HPV18, 30% were singly HPV18 positive (95%CI=4%–60%), and 29% (95%CI=2%–64%) were singly HPV16 positive. Conclusions In conclusion, most SCNC and LCNC are caused by HPV, primarily HPV18 and HPV16. Therefore, most if not all SCNC and LCNC will be prevented by currently available prophylactic HPV vaccines.