Search

Summary: Background: HPV test-based primary cervical screening is replacing cytology in Canada. In other countries, women's unpreparedness and concerns hindered the transition and post-implementation screening uptake. We investigated psychosocial correlates of intentions of screening in eligible individuals to participate in HPV-based primary cervical screening. Methods: We conducted a nationwide web-based survey of individuals aged 21–70 years in 2022 and oversampled under-screened individuals. We used five Canadian-validated scales to measure HPV test-based screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. Using the multistage Precaution Adoption Process Model, we assessed women's stage of intentions to participate in HPV testing and self-sampling. We estimated associations of psychosocial factors with intentions' stage using multinomial logistic regression. Findings: In both groups (adequately screened n = 1778; under-screened n = 1570), higher HPV knowledge was associated with intention for HPV testing and more personal barriers to the HPV test were associated with lower intentions to participate in HPV testing or use of self-sampling. In both groups, higher self-sampling concerns were associated with lower intentions for self-sampling and higher women's need for autonomy was associated with increased intentions for self-sampling. In the under-screened group, increased age was associated with lower intentions for HPV testing and self-sampling, while living in Canada for

Objective WHO recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening, with triage of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) positive women. However, there are limitations to effective triage for low-resource, high-burden settings, such as Papua New Guinea. In this exploratory study, we assessed the performance of host methylation as triage tools for predicting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in self-collected and clinician-collected samples.Design Exploratory observational study.Setting Provincial hospital, same-day cervical screen-and-treat trial, Papua New Guinea.Participants 44 hrHPV+women, with paired self/clinician-collected samples (4 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), 19 HSIL, 4 low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, 17 normal).Primary and secondary outcome measures Methylation levels of CADM1, MAL and miR124-2 analysed by methylation-specific PCRs against the clinical endpoint of HSIL or SCC (HSIL+) measured using liquid-based-cytology/p16-Ki67 stain.Results In clinician-collected samples, MAL and miR124-2 methylation levels were significantly higher with increasing grade of disease (p=0.0046 and p

Abstract Objective Primary care practitioners are crucial to engaging people in Australia's national cervical screening program. From July 2022, practitioners have been able to offer all screen‐eligible people the choice to collect their own self‐collected sample; an option introduced to increase equity. This study explored how practitioners are intending to incorporate universal access to self‐collection into their clinical care. Methods Semi‐structed interviews with 27 general practitioners, nurses, and practice managers from 10 practices in Victoria, Australia conducted between May and August 2022. Interviews were deductively coded, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Diffusion of Innovations theory was used to categorise intention to provide self‐collection. Results Participants were supportive of universal access to self‐collection, citing benefits for screen‐eligible people and that it overcame the limited adaptability of the previous policy. Most participants' practices (n = 7, 70%) had implemented or had plans to offer the option for self‐collection to all. Participants deliberating whether to provide universal access to self‐collection held concerns about the correct performance of the self‐test and the perceived loss of opportunity to perform a pelvic examination. Limited time to change practice‐level processes and competing demands within consultations were anticipated as implementation barriers. Conclusions The extent to which self‐collection can promote equity within the program will be limited without wide‐spread adoption by practitioners. Communication and education that addresses concerns of practitioners, along with targeted implementation support, will be critical to ensuring that self‐collection can increase participation and Australia's progression towards elimination of cervical cancer.

As Canadian provinces and territories prepare to transition to HPV-based primary screening for cervical cancer, failure to identify and address potential barriers to screening could hinder program implementation. We examined screening-eligible Canadians’ attitudes towards and knowledge of cervical screening. A nationally representative sample of screening-eligible Canadians (N = 3724) completed a web-based survey in the summer of 2022. Oversampling ensured that half of the sample were underscreened for cervical cancer (>3 years since previous screening or never screened). The participants completed validated scales of cervical cancer, HPV, and HPV test knowledge and HPV test and self-sampling attitudes and beliefs. Between-group differences (underscreened vs. adequately screened) were calculated for scales and items using independent sample t-tests or chi-square tests. The underscreened participants (n = 1871) demonstrated significantly lower knowledge of cervical cancer, HPV, and the HPV test. The adequately screened participants (n = 1853) scored higher on the Confidence and Worries subscales of the HPV Test Attitudes and Beliefs Scale. The underscreened participants scored higher on the Personal Barriers and Social Norms subscales. The underscreened participants also endorsed greater Autonomy conferred by self-sampling. Our findings suggest important differential patterns of knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs between the underscreened and adequately screened Canadians. These findings highlight the need to develop targeted communication strategies and promote patient-centered, tailored approaches in cervical screening programs.

Abstract Objective: To compare Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage against historical data from the former National HPV Vaccination Program Register and estimate two‐dose vaccination coverage. Methods: Cross‐sectional analysis of registry data for adolescent birth cohorts (1998‐2007). Denominator populations were Medicare enrolments (AIR) and ABS estimated resident populations (HPV register). Results: For adolescents aged

Cervical cancer has killed millions of women over the past decade. In 2019 the World Health Organization launched the Cervical Cancer Elimination Strategy, which included ambitious targets for vaccination, screening, and treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted progress on the strategy, but lessons learned during the pandemic – especially in vaccination, self-administered testing, and coordinated mobilization on a global scale – may help with efforts to achieve its targets. However, we must also learn from the failure of the COVID-19 response to include adequate representation of global voices. Efforts to eliminate cervical cancer will only succeed if those countries most affected are involved from the very start of planning. In this article we summarize innovations and highlight missed opportunities in the COVID response, and make recommendations to leverage the COVID experience to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer globally.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for primary screening for cervical cancer by several health authorities. Several countries that have implemented HPV testing programs have encountered resistance against extended screening intervals and older age of initiation. As Canada prepares to implement HPV testing programs, it is important to understand women's preferences toward cervical cancer screening to ensure a smooth transition. The objective of this study was to assess Canadian women's current preferences toward cervical cancer screening. Using a web-based survey, we recruited underscreened ( > 3 years since last Pap test) and adequately screened (< 3 years since last Pap test) Canadian women aged 21–70 who were biologically female and had a cervix. We used Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) methodology to collect data on women's preferences for different screening methods, screening intervals, and ages of initiation. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate preferences in both subgroups. In both subgroups, women preferred screening every three years compared to every five or ten years, and initiating screening at age 21 compared to age 25 or 30. Adequately screened women (n = 503) most preferred co-testing, while underscreened women (n = 524) preferred both co-testing and HPV self-sampling over Pap testing. Regardless of screening status, women preferred shorter screening intervals, an earlier age of initiation, and co-testing. Adequate communication from public health authorities is needed to explain the extended screening intervals and age of initiation to prevent resistance against these changes to cervical cancer screening.

Australia has been a world leader in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and was the first country to implement a fully funded national HPV vaccination program, from 2007 for girls and 2013 for boys. In 2018 the program changed from a 4-valent to 9-valent HPV vaccine and a 3-dose to 2-dose standard schedule. We assessed stakeholder perspectives on factors influencing program outcomes and impact as part of a comprehensive program evaluation. In late 2019 and early 2020, we conducted 26 interviews with 42 key stakeholder participants and received 1513 survey responses from stakeholders including general practice staff and school-based nurse immunisers. Findings included that the 2-dose schedule is better accepted by schools and students and has reduced program cost and resource requirements. However, course completion rates have not increased as much as anticipated due to the 6–12 month dosing interval and reduced opportunities for school-based catch-up vaccination. Major reported barriers to increased vaccine coverage were absenteeism and consent form return. Vaccine hesitancy is not currently a major issue but remains a potential threat to the program. While Australia’s HPV vaccination program is perceived as highly successful, measures to further enhance the program’s impact and mitigate potential threats are important.

The performance of different clinical screening algorithms comprising point-of-care HPV-DNA testing using self-collected vaginal (‘V’) specimens, and visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) was evaluated in Papua New Guinea.Women aged 30–59 years provided V specimens that were tested at point-of-care using the Xpert HPV Test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA). A clinician-collected cervical (‘C’) specimen was then collected for point-of-care Xpert testing, and liquid-based cytology (LBC). Following this, VIA examination was conducted, blind to HPV test results, and ablative cervical cryotherapy provided if indicated. Detection of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) by LBC was the reference standard used to evaluate clinical screening algorithms.Of 1005 women, 36 had HSIL+. Xpert HPV Test performance using V specimens (sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 87.0%, PPV 34.0%, NPV 99.3%) was superior to VIA examination alone (51.5%, 81.4%, 17.5%, 95.6% respectively) in predicting underlying HSIL+. A screening algorithm comprising V specimen HPV testing followed by VIA examination had low sensitivity (45.5%) but comparable specificity, PPV and NPV to HPV testing alone (96.3%, 45.5%, 96.3% respectively).A ‘test-and-treat’ screening algorithm based on point-of-care HPV testing of V specimens had superior performance compared with either VIA examination alone, or a combined screening algorithm comprising HPV testing plus VIA. Keywords: Cervical cancer, HPV, Screening, Self-collect, Papua New Guinea, Visual inspection with acetic acid

Background: Australian adolescents are routinely offered HPV and dTpa (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccines simultaneously in the secondary school vaccination program. We identified schools where HPV initiation was lower than dTpa coverage and associated school-level factors across three states. Methods: HPV vaccination initiation rates and dTpa vaccination coverage in 2016 were calculated using vaccine databases and school enrolment data. A multivariate analysis assessed sociodemographic and school-level factors associated with HPV initiation being >5% absolute lower than dTpa coverage. Results: Of 1280 schools included, the median school-level HPV initiation rate was 85% (interquartile range (IQR):75–90%) and the median dTpa coverage was 86% (IQR:75–92%). Nearly a quarter (24%) of all schools had HPV vaccination initiation >5% lower than dTpa coverage and 11 % had >10% difference. School-level factors independently associated with >5% difference were remote schools (aOR:3.5, 95% CI = 1.7–7.2) and schools in major cities (aOR:1.8, 95% CI = 1.0–3.0), small schools (aOR:3.3, 95% CI = 2.3–5.7), higher socioeconomic advantage (aOR:1.7, 95% CI = 1.1–2.6), and lower proportions of Language-background-other-than-English (aOR:1.9, 95% CI = 1.2–3.0). Conclusion: The results identified a quarter of schools had lower HPV than dTpa initiation coverage, which may indicate HPV vaccine hesitancy, and the difference was more likely in socioeconomically advantaged schools. As hesitancy is context specific, it is important to understand the potential drivers of hesitancy and future research needs to understand the reasons driving differential uptake.

BACKGROUND:Using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and invasive cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) compared to cytology, but no evaluation has been conducted in a population previously offered HPV vaccination. We aimed to assess colposcopy referral and CIN2+ detection rates for HPV-screened versus cytology-screened women in Australia's HPV-vaccinated population (by 2014, resident women ≤33 years had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination, with 3-dose uptake across age cohorts being about 50%-77%). METHODS AND FINDINGS:Compass is an open-label randomised trial of 5-yearly HPV screening versus 2.5-yearly liquid-based cytology (LBC) screening. In the first phase, consenting women aged 25-64 years presenting for routine screening at 47 primary practices in Victoria, Australia, provided a cervical sample and were randomised at a central laboratory at a 1:2:2 allocation to (i) image-read LBC screening with HPV triage of low-grade cytology ('LBC screening'), (ii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with LBC triage for other oncogenic (OHR) types ('HPV+LBC triage'), or (iii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with dual-stained cytology triage for OHR types ('HPV+DS triage'). A total of 5,006 eligible women were recruited from 29 October 2013 to 7 November 2014 (recruitment rate 58%); of these, 22% were in the group age-eligible for vaccination. Data on 4,995 participants were analysed after 11 withdrawals; 998 were assigned to, and 995 analysed (99.7%) in, the LBC-screened group; 1,996 assigned to and 1,992 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+LBC triage group; and 2,012 assigned to and 2,008 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+DS triage group. No serious trial-related adverse events were reported. The main outcomes were colposcopy referral and detected CIN2+ rates at baseline screening, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis after follow-up of the subgroup of triage-negative women in each arm referred to 12 months of surveillance, and after a further 6 months of follow-up for histological outcomes (dataset closed 31 August 2016). Analysis was adjusted for whether women had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination or not. For the LBC-screened group, the overall referral and detected CIN2+ rates were 27/995 (2.7% [95% CI 1.8%-3.9%]) and 1/995 (0.1% [95% CI 0.0%-0.6%]), respectively; for HPV+LBC triage, these were 75/1,992 (3.8% [95% CI 3.0%-4.7%]) and 20/1,992 (1.0% [95% CI 0.6%-1.5%]); and for HPV+DS triage, these were 79/2,008 (3.9% [95% CI 3.1%-4.9%]) and 24/2,008 (1.2% [95% CI 0.8%-1.6%]) (p = 0.09 for difference in referral rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women; p = 0.003 for difference in CIN2+ detection rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women, with p = 0.62 between HPV screening groups). Limitations include that the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated population, that individual women's vaccination status was unknown, and that long-term follow-up data on disease detection in screen-negative women are not yet available. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, primary HPV screening was associated with significantly increased detection of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions compared to cytology, in a population where high vaccine uptake was reported in women aged 33 years or younger who were offered vaccination. It had been predicted that increased disease detection might be associated with a transient increase in colposcopy referral rates in the first round of HPV screening, possibly dampened by HPV vaccine effect; in this study, although the point estimates for referral rates in women in each HPV-screened group were 41%-44% higher than in cytology-screened women, the difference in referral rate between cytology- and HPV-screened women was not significant. These findings provide initial support for the implementation of primary HPV screening in vaccinated populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001207707.

Abstract Objective: To identify among self‐reported current screeners: (1) predictors of never attendance at BreastScreen NSW (BSNSW); (2) predictors of late or lapsed attendance to BSNSW (attendance to alternative providers). Methods: Random samples of women aged 50–69 years were selected from the BSNSW database and NSW electoral roll as: current attenders to BSNSW (27 months since last screen); or women who had never attended BSNSW. The response rate was 71% (3,104) for a telephone interview that asked questions concerning demographics, medical status and health service usage, and opinions and behaviours related to mammography. Results: Never attendance at BSNSW was predicted by higher income, advice from a doctor or nurse to have their last mammogram, recent clinical breast examination and belief that a referral letter is necessary. Late or lapsed attendance to BSNSW (and attendance to alternate providers) was associated with higher education, health insurance coverage, recent clinical breast examination and a family history of breast cancer. Conclusions: Currently screened women who do not attend BSNSW, or who are late or lapsed for a mammogram, appear to be influenced by referral patterns of their health care providers and their higher socio‐economic status. Implications: BSNSW should be promoted to eligible women and general practitioners as a specialty mammography screening service that does not require a referral.