Cargando…
HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND: A randomised trial to ascertain whether women who do not attend for cervical screening are more likely to respond to the opportunity to collect a self-sample for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or to a further invitation to attend for cervical screening. METHODS: The study was carrie...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3065284/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21343937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.48 |
_version_ | 1782200962760310784 |
---|---|
author | Szarewski, A Cadman, L Mesher, D Austin, J Ashdown-Barr, L Edwards, R Lyons, D Walker, J Christison, J Frater, A Waller, J |
author_facet | Szarewski, A Cadman, L Mesher, D Austin, J Ashdown-Barr, L Edwards, R Lyons, D Walker, J Christison, J Frater, A Waller, J |
author_sort | Szarewski, A |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A randomised trial to ascertain whether women who do not attend for cervical screening are more likely to respond to the opportunity to collect a self-sample for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or to a further invitation to attend for cervical screening. METHODS: The study was carried out in a Primary Care Trust (PCT) in London between June 2009 and December 2009. In total, 3000 women were randomly selected from persistent non-responders (i.e., who had not responded to at least two invitations to attend for screening). The women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to either receive an HPV self-sampling kit or a further invitation to attend for cervical cytology. The main outcome measures were (1) percentage of women attending for cervical cytology compared with those returning a self-sample HPV test or attending for cytology subsequent to receiving the kit and (2) percentage of those testing positive for HPV who attended further investigation. RESULTS: The total response in the self-sampling group for screening was 10.2%. Of the 1500 women in the control group sent a further invitation for cervical screening, 4.5% attended for cytology screening. This difference is highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). Of the 8 women who tested positive for HPV, 7 attended for a cervical smear and had a concurrent colposcopy. Three of these (43%) had high-grade disease (defined as CIN 2+), with one found to have an invasive cancer (stage 1b) and one CIN 3. CONCLUSIONS: The value of this intervention relies on the detection of high-grade CIN and early stage cancer with a good prognosis. The relatively high yield of abnormalities found is consistent with that expected among a hard to reach and relatively high-risk group of women. Our study suggests that self-sampling could increase participation among non-responders in England, but further work is needed to ascertain whether the low response rate seen here is likely to be representative of the rest of the country. Other studies are needed to investigate the response to self-sampling in different demographic and geographic settings. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3065284 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30652842012-03-15 HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial Szarewski, A Cadman, L Mesher, D Austin, J Ashdown-Barr, L Edwards, R Lyons, D Walker, J Christison, J Frater, A Waller, J Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: A randomised trial to ascertain whether women who do not attend for cervical screening are more likely to respond to the opportunity to collect a self-sample for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or to a further invitation to attend for cervical screening. METHODS: The study was carried out in a Primary Care Trust (PCT) in London between June 2009 and December 2009. In total, 3000 women were randomly selected from persistent non-responders (i.e., who had not responded to at least two invitations to attend for screening). The women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to either receive an HPV self-sampling kit or a further invitation to attend for cervical cytology. The main outcome measures were (1) percentage of women attending for cervical cytology compared with those returning a self-sample HPV test or attending for cytology subsequent to receiving the kit and (2) percentage of those testing positive for HPV who attended further investigation. RESULTS: The total response in the self-sampling group for screening was 10.2%. Of the 1500 women in the control group sent a further invitation for cervical screening, 4.5% attended for cytology screening. This difference is highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). Of the 8 women who tested positive for HPV, 7 attended for a cervical smear and had a concurrent colposcopy. Three of these (43%) had high-grade disease (defined as CIN 2+), with one found to have an invasive cancer (stage 1b) and one CIN 3. CONCLUSIONS: The value of this intervention relies on the detection of high-grade CIN and early stage cancer with a good prognosis. The relatively high yield of abnormalities found is consistent with that expected among a hard to reach and relatively high-risk group of women. Our study suggests that self-sampling could increase participation among non-responders in England, but further work is needed to ascertain whether the low response rate seen here is likely to be representative of the rest of the country. Other studies are needed to investigate the response to self-sampling in different demographic and geographic settings. Nature Publishing Group 2011-03-15 2011-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3065284/ /pubmed/21343937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.48 Text en Copyright © 2011 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Szarewski, A Cadman, L Mesher, D Austin, J Ashdown-Barr, L Edwards, R Lyons, D Walker, J Christison, J Frater, A Waller, J HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial |
title | HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial |
title_full | HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial |
title_short | HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | hpv self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3065284/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21343937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.48 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT szarewskia hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT cadmanl hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT mesherd hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT austinj hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT ashdownbarrl hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT edwardsr hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT lyonsd hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT walkerj hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT christisonj hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT fratera hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT wallerj hpvselfsamplingasanalternativestrategyinnonattendersforcervicalscreeningarandomisedcontrolledtrial |