HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Identifying and reaching women at higher risk for cervical cancer is all-important for achieving the ambitious endpoints set in 2020 by the WHO for global cervical cancer control by 2030. HPV-based (vaginal) self-sampling (SS) represents a cost-effective screening strategy, which has been successfully implemented during the last decade both in affluent and constrained settings. Among other advantages, SS strategies offer convenience, diminished costs, flexibility to obtain a sample in the office or home, avoiding a pelvic exam and uncomfortable appointment with a healthcare professional, as well as social and cultural acceptability. SS implementation has been globally boosted during the COVID-19 pandemic. In pragmatic terms, social distancing, local lockdowns, discontinuation of clinics and reallocation of human and financial resources challenged established clinician-based screening; self-collection strategies apparently surpassed most obstacles, representing a viable and flexible alternative. With time, sufficient reassuring data has accumulated regarding specially designed SS devices, aspects of sample preparation, transport and storage and, importantly, optimization of validated PCR-based HPV testing platforms for self-collected specimens. Suboptimal rates of clinical follow-up post-SS screening, as well as overtreatment with reliance solely on molecular assays, have both been documented and remain concerning. Therefore, effective strategies are still required to ensure linkage to follow-up testing and management following positive SS results by trained health professionals with knowledge of HPV biology and management algorithms. Because of the prolonged SS screening intervals, implementation data are limited regarding subsequent screening rounds of SS-screened individuals; however, these are accumulating gradually. With further refinement of assays and validation of novel biomarkers in self-collected samples, there is a clear potential for increasing SS accuracy and PPV. The potential differentiation of self-collection protocols for vaccinated versus non-vaccinated individuals also represents an open issue. In conclusion, HPV-based self-collection techniques can effectively address limited uptake alongside other conventional cervical screening drawbacks; however, assays, logistics and infrastructures need further optimization to increase the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SS approaches.

Related collections

Most cited references 58

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses

Marc Arbyn, Sara Smith, Sarah Temin … (2018)

Abstract Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women. Design Updated meta-analysis. Data sources Medline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review). Review methods Accuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women. Results 56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman’s home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I2>95%). Conclusions When used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.

0 comments Cited 243 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis.

Marc Arbyn, Freija Verdoodt, Peter J. F. Snijders … (2014)

Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians. We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models. We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69-82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72-92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83-89) and 87% (84-90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85-0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83-0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95-0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93-0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples. In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs. The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 116 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ping Teresa Yeh, Caitlin Kennedy, Hugo De Vuyst … (2019)

Introduction Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling test kits may increase screening for and early detection of cervical cancer and reduce its burden globally. To inform WHO self-care guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling among adult women on cervical (pre-)cancer screening uptake, screening frequency, social harms/adverse events and linkage to clinical assessment/treatment. Methods The included studies compared women using cervical cancer screening services with HPV self-sampling with women using standard of care, measured at least one outcome, and were published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CNIAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Embase through October 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR). Results 33 studies in 34 articles with 369 017 total participants met the inclusion criteria: 29 RCTs and 4 observational studies. All studies examined HPV self-sampling; comparison groups were standard of care (eg, Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, clinician-collected HPV testing). 93% of participants were from high-income countries. All 33 studies measured cervical cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis found greater screening uptake among HPV self-sampling participants compared with control (RR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.40). Effect size varied by HPV test kit dissemination method, whether mailed directly to home (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.71), offered door-to-door (RR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) or requested on demand (RR: 1.28, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.82). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in linkage to clinical assessment/treatment between arms (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.57). No studies measured screening frequency or social harms/adverse events. Conclusion A growing evidence base, mainly from high-income countries and with significant heterogeneity, suggests HPV self-sampling can increase cervical cancer screening uptake compared with standard of care, with a marginal effect on linkage to clinical assessment/treatment. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO CRD42018114871.