Search

Background In mid-2022 Australia's National Cervical Screening Program made self-collection of a vaginal sample an option for screening for young women or people with a cervix aged 25 to 29 years for the first time. This study explored what young women thought about, and wanted to know about, self-collection, and what their future screening preferences are. Methods Young women (n =21), aged 24-29years, were recruited through social media. Semi-structured interviews explored screening history, screening preferences and thoughts about self-collection. Data were analysed using an a priori coding framework informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results Young women valued the addition of self-collection to the national cervical screening program, believing it to be less invasive and more convenient. However, they also valued the choice to opt for a clinician-collected specimen if preferred. Conclusions Self-collection is a valuable addition to the National Cervical Screening Program. This study suggests that continued efforts are needed to raise awareness of its availability, and improve understanding about its accuracy, the ease of collection, that you still need to engage with a primary healthcare service to access it and that you can still opt for a clinician-collected test.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of an HPV vaccination programme in reducing the risk of cervical abnormalities identified at subsequent screening., Design: Retrospective cohort study using administrative health data., Setting: General population of Ferrara Province, Italy., Population: Female residents born in 1986-1993 and participating in the organized cervical screening programme in 2011-2018, who were eligible for HPV vaccination in catch-up cohorts., Methods: Logistic regression to evaluate the potential association between abnormal cervical cytology and one, two, three or at least one dose of HPV vaccine., Main Outcome Measures: Cervical abnormalities, as predicted by low-grade or high-grade cytology, by number of vaccine doses, stratified by age., Results: The sample consisted of 7785 women (mean age 27.5 years, SD 2.3). Overall, 391 (5.0%) were vaccinated with ≥1 dose and 893 (11.5%) had abnormal cytology. Women receiving at least one vaccine dose were significantly less likely to have an abnormal cytology (adjusted odds ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.79). Similar results were observed for women receiving a single dose, for both bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines, and applying buffer periods (excluding cytological outcomes within 1 month, 6 months and 1 year of the first dose)., Conclusions: In the context of an organised cervical screening programme in Italy, catch-up HPV vaccination almost halved the risk of cytological abnormalities., Tweetable Abstract: Among Ferrara women, vaccination against human papillomavirus halved the risk of screening cervical abnormalities., (© 2020 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (collectively, Indigenous Australian) women experience a higher burden of cervical cancer than other women. The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) is failing to meet the needs of Indigenous Australian women, resulting in many women not regularly participating in cervical screening. However, one third of Indigenous Australian women do participate in cervical screening. The reasons that some women in this population commence and continue to screen remain unheard but could provide insights to support women who currently do not participate. We aimed to describe Indigenous Australian women's experiences and views of participation in cervical screening by yarning (a culturally-appropriate interview technique) with 50 Indigenous Australian women aged 25-70 years who had completed cervical screening in the past five years, recruited via Primary Health Care Centres (PHCCs) from three jurisdictions. Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women researchers conducted the interviews. Thematic analysis identified six themes: screening as a means of staying strong and in control; overcoming fears, shame, and negative experiences of screening; needing to talk openly about screening; the value of trusting relationships with screening providers; logistical barriers; and overcoming privacy concerns for women employed at PHCCs. Despite describing screening as shameful, invasive, and uncomfortable, women perceived it as a way of staying healthy and exerting control over their health. This ultimately supported their participation and a sense of empowerment. Women valued open discussion about screening and strong relationships with health providers. We identified logistical barriers and specific barriers faced by women employed at PHCCs. This study is strengthened by a research approach that centred Indigenous Australian women's voices. Understanding the experiences of Indigenous Australian women who participate in screening will help screening providers support women to start and continue to screen regularly. Recommendations for practice are provided., Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal's policy and have the following conflicts: The study is affiliated with Southern Queensland Centre of Excellence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care, Wuchopperen Health Service Pty Ltd and Yerin Eleanor Duncan Aboriginal Health Centre. These commercial affiliations provided support in the form of salaries for authors CM, JM, and EW, respectively. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objectives: To compare the performance of dual immunostaining of p16INK4a and Ki-67 proteins performed on self-collected vaginal specimens and clinician-collected cervical specimens, and to evaluate the performance of this technique in predicting high-grade disease., Methods: Women aged 30-59 years (n = 1005) were recruited at two well-women clinics in Papua New Guinea. Each woman provided both cervical and vaginal specimens that were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA using the Xpert HPV Test (Cepheid) at point of care. A subset of paired cervical and vaginal specimens (n = 243) were selected to undergo CINTec® PLUS (Roche) p16/Ki-67 dual-stain cytology and liquid-based cytology (LBC)., Results: Fifty-five pairs (22%) were excluded from further analysis because the smears were not assessable. Of the 189 remaining paired specimens, 74 pairs (39.1%) were positive for one or more hrHPV genotypes. When comparing results of the dual stain, the overall percent agreement, positive and negative percent agreements and κ value between the cervical and vaginal specimens were 87.8% (CI 82.3-92.1%), 64.6% (CI 49.5-77.8%), 95.7% (CI 91.0-98.0%) and 0.65 (CI 0.51-0.79%) respectively. The sensitivity of the dual stain performed on the cervical specimen to predict high-grade disease, determined by LBC, was superior to that of the dual stain performed on the vaginal specimen: 100% (CI 84.6-100%) versus 68.2% (CI 45.1-86.1%)., Conclusion: Although further evaluation may be warranted, these findings indicate that dual-stain testing of vaginal specimens cannot be advocated as part of cervical screening programmes in low- and middle-income countries. However, dual-stain cytology performed on cervical specimens may have a role in quality assurance in such settings., (Copyright © 2019 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the last decade, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been evaluated extensively for cervical screening, with studies finding increased sensitivity compared to cytology. Another advantage of HPV based-screening is the ability to test vaginal samples that can be collected by women themselves. Self-collection has the potential to extend cervical screening coverage by increasing participation rates, particularly among women who are under-screened or have never screened. This could have a significant impact on cervical cancer prevention, as the majority of invasive cervical cancer cases occur among under-screened women. Both the Netherlands and Australia have transitioned their national programs from cytology to HPV as the primary screening test and both countries include a pathway for self-collection., Objectives: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP)., Study Design: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex., Results: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73)., Conclusions: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The test kits for this study were supplied free of charge from Abbott, BD, Roche, Seegene and Cepheid. None of the manufacturers had any influence on the study design, analysis or production of this manuscript. KC is a co-PI of an investigator-initiated trial of cervical cytology and primary HPV screening in Australia (`Compass'), which is conducted and funded by the VCS foundation, a government-funded health promotion charity. DH, MS, JMLB, ELOI, MHTK, MM, FS were employed by VCS Foundation. The VCS foundation have received equipment and a funding contribution for the Compass trial from Roche Molecular Systems and Ventana Inc USA. However neither I nor my institution on my behalf (Cancer Council NSW) receives direct funding from industry for this trial or any other project. DH has received travel funding to attend conferences and meetings from Roche, Abbott and Seegene but has had no personal gain from any diagnostics manufacturer., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in Australia underwent major changes on December 1st, 2017. The program changed from 2-yearly Pap testing for women aged 18-69 years to 5-yearly HPV testing for women aged 25-74 years including differential management pathways for oncogenic HPV 16/18 positive versus HPV non16/18 positive test results and the option of self-collection for under-screened women. We conducted a survey among cervical screening providers in primary care to assess their level of preparedness in undertaking cervical screening before (pre-renewal) and after (post-renewal) the new program was implemented. Surveys were conducted between 14th August and 30th November 2017 (pre-renewal) and 9th February and 26th October 2018 (post-renewal) among cervical screening providers who attended education sessions related to the new guidelines. Preparedness was assessed in three areas: 1) level of comfort implementing the new guidelines (7 questions), 2) level of confidence in their ability to convey information about the new guidelines (9 questions) and 3) level of agreement regarding access to resources to support implementation (11 questions). Proportions were calculated for each question response and pre- and post-renewal periods compared using generalised linear models. Open-ended questions related to anticipated barriers and ways to overcome barriers were also included in the questionnaires. Compared to the pre-renewal period, a higher proportion of practitioners in the post-renewal period were more comfortable offering routine screening to women ≥25 years (p = 0.005) and more confident explaining the rationale for not screening before 25 years (p = 0.015); confident explaining a positive HPV 16/18 (p = 0.04) and HPV non 16/18(p = 0.013) test result and were comfortable with not referring women with a positive HPV non 16/18 test result and low grade/negative cytology for colposcopy (p = 0.01). A higher proportion of Victorian practitioners in the post-renewal period sample were also comfortable (p = 0.04) and confident (p = 0.015) recommending self-collection to under-screened women and agreed that self-collection is a reliable test (p = 0.003). The most commonly reported suggestion was to provide information, education and communication materials to both patients and practitioners. Compared to the pre-renewal period, practitioners in the post-renewal period were better prepared to implement the renewed screening program. Healthcare providers require further support to implement the self-collection pathway., Competing Interests: JMLB and MS are chief investigators of the NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control (APP1135172) from which FS (formerly) & TLM receives salary support. JMLB, MS and LR are investigators of a trial of primary HPV screening in Australia (Compass) that has received a part funding contribution from Roche Molecular Systems, Ventana Inc. USA. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objectives: To compare the performance of self-collected vaginal (V) specimens with clinician-collected cervical (C) specimens for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and cervical disease using the Cepheid Xpert HPV, Roche Cobas 4800 HPV and Hologic Aptima HPV assays., Methods: Women aged 30-59 years (n = 1005) were recruited at two clinics in Papua New Guinea, and they provided specimens for testing at point-of-care using the Xpert HPV Test, and for subsequent testing using the Cobas HPV (n = 981) and Aptima HPV (n = 983) assays. Liquid-based cytology was performed on C specimens to predict underlying high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). V specimen results of each assay were evaluated against a constructed reference standard and for detection of HSIL or worse., Results: There was substantial (κ >0.6) agreement in hrHPV detection between V and C specimens across all three assays. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Xpert HPV using self-collected V specimens for the detection of HPV type 16 according to the constructed reference standard were 92.1%, 93.1%, 63.6% and 98.9%, respectively; compared with 90.4%, 94.3%, 67.8% and 98.7% for Cobas 4800 HPV; and 63.2%, 97.2%, 75.0% and 95.3% for Aptima HPV. Similar results were observed for all hrHPV types (combined) and for HPV types 18/45, on all three assays. The detection of any hrHPV using self-collected specimens had high sensitivity (86%-92%), specificity (87%-94%) and negative predictive value (>98%) on all assays for HSIL positivity., Conclusions: Xpert HPV, using self-collected vaginal specimens, has sufficient accuracy for use in point-of-care 'test-and-treat' cervical screening strategies in high-burden, low-resource settings., (Copyright © 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study demonstrates that the clinical sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the novel cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test on the cobas 6800 system for high-risk HPV types fulfills the criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. The criteria were formulated by an international consortium, using the cobas 4800 HPV test as a validated reference assay. The cobas HPV test detected over 98% of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) lesions in women age 30 years or older, with a specificity of 98.9% compared with the reference cobas 4800 test. Both the intra- and interlaboratory agreement for the cobas HPV test were 98%. The clinical performance of the cobas HPV test is comparable to those of longitudinally validated HPV assays and fulfills the criteria for its use in primary cervical screening., (Copyright © 2019 Saville et al.)