Could HPV Testing on Self-collected Samples Be Routinely Used in an Organized Cervical Screening Program? A Modeled Analysis.

Background: Cervical screening on self-collected samples has mainly been considered for targeted use in underscreened women. Updated evidence supports equivalent sensitivity of PCR-based human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected and clinician-collected samples.
Methods: Using a well-established model, we compared the lifetime impact on cancer diagnoses and deaths resulting from cervical screening using self-collected samples only, with and without the existing restriction in Australia to women aged 30+ years and ≥2 years overdue, compared with the mainstream program of 5-yearly HPV screening on clinician-collected samples starting at 25 years of age. We conservatively assumed sensitivity of HPV testing on self-collected relative to clinician-collected samples was 0.98. Outcomes were estimated either in the context of HPV vaccination ("routinely vaccinated cohorts;" uptake as in Australia) or in the absence of HPV vaccination ("unvaccinated cohorts").
Results: In unvaccinated cohorts, the health benefits of increased participation from self-collection outweighed the worst case (2%) loss of relative test sensitivity even if only 15% of women, who would not otherwise attend, used it ("additional uptake"). In routinely vaccinated cohorts, population-wide self-collection could be marginally (0.2%-1.0%) less effective at 15% additional uptake but 6.2% to 12.4% more effective at 50% additional uptake. Most (56.6%-65.0%) of the loss in effectiveness in the restricted self-collection pathway in Australia results from the requirement to be 2 or more years overdue.
Conclusions: Even under pessimistic assumptions, any potential loss in test sensitivity from self-collection is likely outweighed by improved program effectiveness resulting from feasible levels of increased uptake.
Impact: Consideration could be given to offering self-collection more widely, potentially as an equal choice for women. See related commentary by Lim, p. 245 .
(©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)