Explore the vast range of titles available.

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) causes virtually all cervical cancers. Trans masculine (TM) people (those assigned female at birth who identify with a gender other than female) have low uptake of conventional cervical cancer screening. Self-collected hrHPV DNA testing has high levels of acceptability among cisgender (non-transgender) females and may support increased cervical cancer screening uptake in TM individuals. To assess the test performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal specimens in comparison to provider-collected cervical swabs for hrHPV DNA detection in TM individuals ages 21-64 years. Between March 2015-September 2016, 150 TM participants with a cervix (mean age = 27.5 years; SD = 5.7) completed a one-time study visit comprised of a self-report survey, self-collected vaginal HPV DNA swab, clinician-administered cervical HPV swab, and brief interview on acceptability of clinical procedures. Participants were randomized to complete either self- or provider-collection first to minimize ordering effects. Self- and provider-collected samples were tested for 13 hrHPV DNA types using a DNA Hybridization Assay. The primary outcome variable was the concordance (kappa statistic) and performance (sensitivity, specificity) of self-collected vaginal HPV DNA specimens versus provider-collected cervical HPV swabs as the gold standard. Of the 131 participants completing both the self- and provider-collected HPV tests, 21 cases of hrHPV were detected by the provider cervical swab (gold standard; 16.0% hrHPV prevalence); 15 of these cases were accurately detected by the self-collected vaginal swab (71.4% concordance) (Kappa = 0.75, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.92; p<0.001). Compared to the provider-collected cervical hrHPV DNA sample (gold standard), the self-collected vaginal hrHPV DNA test demonstrated a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0495) and specificity of 98.2% (95% CI: 0.96, 1.00; p<0.0001). Over 90% of participants endorsed a preference for the self-collected vaginal swab over provider-collected cervical swab. Self-collected vaginal swabs are highly acceptable to TM as a means to test for hrHPV DNA. Test performance of this self-collection method for hrHPV detection in TM is consistent with previous studies in cisgender females. Self-collected vaginal swab testing for hrHPV DNA represents a reasonable and patient-centered strategy for primary cervical cancer screening in TM patients unwilling to undergo provider collection of specimens via speculum exam.

Background: We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect on participation in organised screening programmes of a self-sampling device mailed home or picked up at a pharmacy compared with the standard recall letter. Methods: Women aged 30–64 non-responding to screening invitation were eligible. Response rate to first invitation ranged from 30% to 60% between centres. The control was the standard reminder letter to undergo the test used by the programme (Pap test in three centres and HPV DNA test in three other centres). Home mailing of the self-sampler was preceded by a letter with a leaflet about HPV. The analysis was intention-to-treat. Results: In all, 14 041 women were randomised and recruited: 5012 in the control arm, 4516 to receive the self-sampler at home, and 4513 to pick up the self-sampler at a pharmacy. Participation was 11.9% in the control, 21.6% (relative participation: 1.75; 95% CI 1.60–1.93) in home, and 12.0% (relative participation: 0.96; 95% CI 0.86–1.07) in the pharmacy arms, respectively. The heterogeneity between centres was high (excess heterogeneity of that expected due to chance, i.e., I 2 , 94.9% and 94.1% for home and pharmacy arm, respectively). The estimated impact on the overall coverage was +4.3% for home mail self-sampling compared with +2.2% for standard reminder. Conclusions: Home mailing of self-sampler proved to be an effective way to increase participation in screening programmes, even in those with HPV as primary testing. Picking up at pharmacies showed effects varying from centre to centre.

BACKGROUND : Cervical cancer screening coverage remains insufficient in most countries. Our objective was to assess whether in-home vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing is effective and cost-effective in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening. METHODS : In March 2012, 6000 unscreened women aged 30-65 years, living in a French region covered by a screening programme, who had not responded to an initial invitation to have a Pap smear were equally randomised to three groups: 'no intervention'; 'recall', women received a letter to have a Pap smear; and 'self-sampling', women received a self-sampling kit to return to a centralised virology laboratory for PCR-based HPV testing. RESULTS : Participation was higher in the 'self-sampling' than in the 'no intervention' group (22.5% vs 9.9%, P<0.0001; OR 2.64) and 'recall' group (11.7%, P<0.0001; OR 2.20). In the 'self-sampling' group, 320 used the self-sampling kit; for 44 of these women with positive HR-HPV test results, 40 had the recommended triage Pap smear. The ICER per extra screened woman was 77.8[euro ] and 63.2[euro ] for the 'recall' and 'self-sampling' groups, respectively, relative to the 'no intervention' group. CONCLUSIONS : Offering an in-home, return-mail kit for vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab is more effective and cost-effective than a recall letter in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

Speculum lubrication may help to reduce the pain experienced during Pap-smear collection and hence increase uptake of cervical cancer screening and repeat testing, but there are fears of its interference with cytological results. To determine and compare the adequacy of cervical cytology smears and the mean pain scores of women undergoing cervical cancer screening with or without speculum lubrication. This was a randomised controlled study of 132 women having cervical cancer screening at a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. Sixty-six participants were randomly assigned to the 'Gel' and 'No Gel' groups, respectively. Pap smears were collected from each participant with a lubricated speculum ('Gel group') or a non-lubricated speculum ('No Gel group'). The primary outcome measures were the proportion of women with unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears and the mean numeric rating scale pain scores, while the secondary outcome measures were the proportion of women who were willing to come for repeat testing and the cytological diagnosis of Pap-smear results. The baseline socio-demographic variables were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in the proportion of unsatisfactory cervical smear results between the two groups (13.6% vs. 21.2%, p = 0.359). However, the mean pain scores were significantly lower in the gel group than in the no gel group (45.04 vs. 87.96; p<0.001). An equal proportion of the participants in each group (90.9% vs. 90.9%; p > 0.999) were willing to come for repeat cervical smears in the future. Speculum lubrication did not affect the adequacy of cervical smears but significantly reduced the pain experienced during pap smear collection. Also, it did not significantly affect the willingness to come for repeat cervical smears in the future. The trial was registered with the Pan-African Clinical Trial Registry with a unique identification and registration number: PACTR2020077533364675.

Cytology is a widely used method of triaging women who test positive for human papillomavirus (HPV). However, self-sampled specimens, which can substantially increase participation in screening programmes, are not suitable for accurate cytological assessment. We investigated whether direct DNA methylation-based molecular triage on self-sampled cervicovaginal specimens was non-inferior to cytology triage on additional physician-collected cervical samples in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse in women who did not attend cervical screening programmes. In this randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, we invited women (aged 33–63 years) registered as non-attendees of cervical screening in the Netherlands in 2007 to submit a self-collected cervicovaginal sample for HPV testing. Using a computer-generated sequence, we randomly allocated women who tested positive for high-risk hrHPV on a self-sample to either triage by cytology on an additional physician-taken smear or direct triage on the self-sample by methylation analysis of MAL and miR-124-2 genes (1:1; stratified by age and region, with block sizes by age group). Triage-positive women in either group were referred for colposcopy. The primary endpoint was detection of CIN2 or worse, analysed by intention to treat. The non-inferiority margin was 0·80. This study is registered in the Primary Trial Register of the Netherlands, number NTR6026. We invited 46 001 women to participate, 12 819 of whom returned self-sampled material; 1038 samples tested positive for high-risk HPV. Between Nov 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2011, after exclusion of women who were ineligible, we enrolled and randomly allocated 515 women to methylation triage and 509 to cytology triage. The detection of CIN2 or worse with methylation triage was non-inferior to that with cytology triage (90 [17%] of 515 women vs 75 [15%] of 509 women; relative risk 1·19, 95% CI 0·90–1·57). Referral for colposcopy was more common in the molecular group (284 [55%] women) than in the cytology group (149 [29%] women; p<0·0001). Mean time to CIN2 or worse diagnosis was shorter in the molecular triage group (96 days, range 44–101) than in the cytology triage group (158 days, 71–222; p=0·00084). DNA methylation analysis of MAL and miR-124-2 genes on HPV-test-positive self-samples is non-inferior to cytology triage in the detection of CIN2 or worse, opening the way to full molecular screening. Midden-West and Oost Screening Organisations and Stichting Achmea Gezondheidszorg.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing of self-collected vaginal samples has potential to improve coverage of cervical screening programmes, but current guidelines mostly require those HPV positive on a self-sample to attend for routine screening. A pragmatic modified stepped-wedge implementation feasibility trial was conducted at primary care practices in England. Individuals aged 25 to 64 years who were at least 6 months overdue for cervical screening could provide a self-collected sample. The primary outcomes included the monthly proportion of non-attenders screened, changes in coverage, and uptake within 90 days. Self-samples from 7,739 individuals were analysed using Roche Cobas 4800. Individuals with a positive self-sample were encouraged to attend clinical screening. In this post hoc study of the trial, we related the HPV type (HPV16, HPV18, or other high-risk type) and cycle threshold (Ct) value on the self-sample to the results of clinician-collected sample and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). We wished to triage HPV-positive individuals to immediate colposcopy, clinician sampling, or 12-month recall depending on risk. A total of 1,001 women tested positive through self-samples, and 855 women who had both an HPV-positive self-sample and a subsequent clinician-sample were included in this study. Of these, 71 (8.3%) had CIN2+. Self-sample Ct values were highly predictive of HPV in the clinician sample. Combining HPV type and Ct value allowed stratification into 3 risk groups; 44/855 (5%) were high-risk of whom 43% (19/44, 95% confidence interval [29.7%, 57.8%]) had CIN2+. The majority (52.9%, 452/855) were low-risk, of whom 4% (18/452, 95% CI [2.5%, 6.2%]) had CIN2+. The main limitation of our study was the colposcopy assessment was restricted to individuals who had abnormal cytology after positive results of both self-sample and clinician-collected sample. HPV type and Ct value on HPV-positive self-samples may be used for triage. The difference in the risk of CIN2+ in these groups appears sufficient to justify differential clinical management. A prospective study employing such triage to evaluate laboratory workflow, acceptability, and follow-up procedure and to optimise clinical performance seems warranted. ISRCTN12759467.

The standard for reading cervical cytology is for a cytoscreener to manually search across an entire slide for abnormal cells using a conventional microscope. Automated technology can select fields of view to assess abnormal cells, which allows targeted reading by cytoscreeners. In the Manual Assessment Versus Automated Reading In Cytology (MAVARIC) trial, we compared the accuracy of these techniques for the detection of underlying disease. For this randomised controlled trial, women aged 25–64 years undergoing primary cervical screening in Manchester, UK, were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive either manual reading only or paired reading (automation-assisted reading and manual reading), between March 1, 2006, and Feb 28, 2009. In the paired arm, two automated systems were used—the ThinPrep Imaging System and the FocalPoint GS Imaging System. General practices and community clinics were randomised to either ThinPrep or to SurePath (for the FocalPoint system) liquid-based cytology with block randomisation stratified by deprivation index. Samples were then individually randomised to manual reading only or paired reading only. Laboratory staff were unaware of the allocation of each slide and concealment was maintained until the end of the reporting process. The primary outcome was sensitivity of automation-assisted reading relative to manual reading for the detection of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) in the paired arm. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN66377374. 73 266 liquid-based cytology samples were obtained from women undergoing primary cervical screening; 24 688 allocated to the manual-only arm and 48 578 to the paired-reading arm. Automation-assisted reading was 8% less sensitive than manual reading (relative sensitivity 0·92, 95% CI 0·89–0·95), which was equivalent to an absolute reduction in sensitivity of 6·3%, assuming the sensitivity of manual reading to be 79%. Specificity of automation-assisted reading relative to manual reading increased by 0·6% (1·006, 95% CI 1·005–1·007). The inferior sensitivity of automation-assisted reading for the detection of CIN2+, combined with an inconsequential increase in specificity, suggests that automation-assisted reading cannot be recommended for primary cervical screening. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Vaginal self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing could increase rates of screening participation. In clinic-based settings, vaginal HPV testing is at least as sensitive as cytology for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse; however, effectiveness in home settings is unknown. We aimed to establish the relative sensitivity and positive predictive value for HPV screening of vaginal samples self-collected at home as compared with clinic-based cervical cytology. We did a community-based, randomised equivalence trial in Mexican women of low socioeconomic status aged 25–65 years. Participants came from 540 medically underserved, predominantly rural communities in Morelos, Guerrero, and the state of Mexico. Our primary endpoint was CIN 2 or worse, detected by colposcopy. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly allocate patients to HPV screening or cervical cytology. Eight community nurses who were masked to patient allocation received daily lists of the women's names and addresses, and did the assigned home visits. We referred women with positive results in either test to colposcopy. We did per-protocol and intention-to-screen analyses. This trial was registered with the Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico, INSP number 590. 12 330 women were randomly allocated to HPV screening and 12 731 to cervical cytology; 9202 women in the HPV screening group adhered to the protocol, as did 11 054 in the cervical cytology group. HPV prevalence was 9·8% (95% CI 9·1–10·4) and abnormal cytology rate was 0·38% (0·23–0·45). HPV testing identified 117·4 women with CIN 2 or worse per 10 000 (95·2–139·5) compared with 34·4 women with CIN 2 or worse per 10 000 (23·4–45·3) identified by cytology; the relative sensitivity of HPV testing was 3·4 times greater (2·4–4·9). Similarly, HPV testing detected 4·2 times (1·9–9·2) more invasive cancers than did cytology (30·4 per 10 000 [19·1–41·7] vs 7·2 per 10 000 [2·2–12·3]). The positive predictive value of HPV testing for CIN 2 or worse was 12·2% (9·9–14·5) compared with 90·5% (61·7–100) for cytology. Despite the much lower positive predictive value for HPV testing of self-collected vaginal specimens compared with cytology, such testing might be preferred for detecting CIN 2 or worse in low-resource settings where restricted infrastructure reduces the effectiveness of cytology screening programmes. Because women at these sites will be screened only a few times in their lives, the high sensitivity of a HPV screen is of paramount importance. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, the Health Ministry of Mexico, QiAGEN Corp

BackgroundMost women who are high-risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) positive in a cervical cancer screening test will spontaneously heal from their infection. Visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) is recommended by the World Health Organization as a triage test for cervical screening, however its accuracy as a triage test has been questioned. In this study, we aimed to examine the sensitivity and specificity of VIA with and without Lugol’s iodine as a triage test to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) among women who tested positive for hrHPV after self-sampling.MethodThis two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) took place in Adama, Ethiopia. The women who tested positive for vaginal hrHPV (Anyplex ΙΙ, Seegene) after self-sampling were randomized to VIA with or without iodine and appointed to a midwife-led clinic. The result of the triage test was categorized as positive, negative, suspicion of cancer or inconclusive, and treated accordingly. Cervical biopsies were collected from women who were hrHPV positive to serve as a gold standard.Results22.4% (197/878) of women tested hrHPV positive. Sensitivity and specificity for VIA to detect CIN2+was 25.0% (95% CI 0.6 to 80.0) and 82.7% (95% CI 69.7 to 91.8), respectively. For VIA with iodine, the sensitivity was 50.0% (95% CI 0.7 to 93.2) and the specificity 86.3% (95% CI 71.4 to 93.0). The difference between the two methods was not statistically significant, p=0.5. The odds of detecting CIN2+ was 5.4 times higher if positive for VIA with iodine compared with a negative result. For VIA without iodine, the odds of detecting CIN2+ was 1.6 compared with a negative result. The odds of detecting CIN2+ was 6.4 times higher if the women were HIV positive than for those who were HIV negative.ConclusionVIA with iodine improved detection of CIN2+ in women who were hrHPV DNA positive but was not significantly better than VIA alone.Trial registration numberNCT05125380.

Background Women living with HIV (WLWH) face a significantly higher risk of developing cervical cancer (CC) due to immune system suppression, which impairs the body's ability to clear high-risk HPV infections. Despite this increased risk, cervical cancer screening rates remain low among WLWH in Ghana, hindered by financial, logistical, and cultural barriers. Evidence-based interventions, such as HPV self-sampling and the 3R communication model (reframe, reprioritize, and reform) offer promising strategies to improve screening uptake. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based self-sampling for cervical cancer Prevention Education (HOPE) toolkit in increasing CC screening among WLWH in Ghana. Secondary objectives include assessing the feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness and adoptability of the HOPE intervention, as well as identifying key factors that influence its implementation. Methods The study will be conducted at the Cape Coast Teaching Hospital (CCTH) in Ghana, using a Hybrid Type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. A total of 108 WLWH will be randomly assigned to either the HOPE intervention group, which includes HPV self-sampling and 3R messaging, or a control group receiving standard care. Data will be collected through structured surveys, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. The study will also engage a stakeholder advisory board (SAB) comprising WLWH, healthcare providers and community members to co-develop and adapt the intervention through nominal group technique. Discussion By leveraging existing healthcare infrastructure and community engagement, this study seeks to provide a scalable, evidence-based approach to improving CC screening among WLWH in Ghana. Findings will inform national strategies for integrating HPV self-sampling and health communication interventions to enhance early detection and reduce cervical cancer-related morbidity and mortality in this high-risk population. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06739772. Registered on 18 December 2024.