Expanding the upper age limit for cervical cancer screening: a protocol for a nationwide non-randomised intervention study

Mette Tranberg, Lone Kjeld Petersen, Klara Miriam Elfström, Anne Hammer, Jan Blaakær, Mary Holten Bennetsen, Jørgen Skov Jensen, Berit Andersen, Mette Tranberg, Lone Kjeld Petersen, Klara Miriam Elfström, Anne Hammer, Jan Blaakær, Mary Holten Bennetsen, Jørgen Skov Jensen, Berit Andersen

Abstract

Introduction: Cervical cancer screening ceases between the ages of 60 and 65 in most countries. Yet, a relatively high proportion of cervical cancers are diagnosed in women above the screening age. This study will evaluate if screening of women aged 65-69 years may result in increased detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared with women not invited to screening. Invited women may choose between general practitioner (GP)-based screening or cervico-vaginal self-sampling. Furthermore, the study will assess if self-sampling is superior to GP-based screening in reaching long-term unscreened women.

Methods and analysis: This population-based non-randomised intervention study will include 10 000 women aged 65-69 years, with no record of a cervical cytology sample or screening invitation in the 5 years before inclusion. Women who have opted-out of the screening programme or have a record of hysterectomy or cervical amputation are excluded. Women residing in the Central Denmark Region (CDR) are allocated to the intervention group, while women residing in the remaining four Danish regions are allocated to the reference group. The intervention group is invited for human papillomavirus-based screening by attending routine screening at the GP or by requesting a self-sampling kit. The reference group receives standard care which is the opportunity to have a cervical cytology sample obtained at the GP or by a gynaecologist. The study started in April 2019 and will run over the next 4.5 years. The primary outcome will be the proportion of CIN2+ detected in the intervention and reference groups. In the intervention group, the proportion of long-term unscreened women attending GP-based screening or self-sampling will be compared.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has been submitted to the Ethical Committee in the CDR which deemed that the study was not notifiable to the Committee and informed consent is therefore not required. The study is approved by the Danish Data Protection Regulation and the Danish Patient Safety Authority. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT04114968.

Keywords: cytopathology; epidemiology; gynaecology; preventive medicine; public health.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Roche sponsors the Cobas HPV-DNA test kits and CINtec Plus test kits for the study. According to the contract between Roche and the Department of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Roche has commented on the protocol article, but had no influence on the scientific process and no editorial rights pertaining to this manuscript. The authors retained the right to submit the manuscript. MT, JB, JSJ and BA have participated in other studies with HPV test kits sponsored by Roche and self-sampling devices sponsored by Axlab. MT has received honoraria from Roche Diagnostics and AstraZeneca for lectures on HPV self-sampling and HPV triage-methods, respectively. AH has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca. All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Map of the intervention and reference regions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Clinical management of women attending screening at a GP. HPV other types than HPV16/18: 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66 and 68. ≥ASC-US includes:atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); atypical squamous cells cannot exclude HSIL (ASC-H); high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion(HSIL); squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); atypical glandular cells (AGC); adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS); adenocarcinoma (ACC) and malignant tumour cells. GP, general practitioner; HPV, human papillomavirus;
Figure 3
Figure 3
Clinical management of women attending self-sampling. HPVother types than HPV16/18: 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66 and 68. ≥ASC-US include: atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); atypical squamous cellscannot exclude HSIL (ASC-H); high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL); squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); atypical glandular cells (AGC), adenocarcinomain situ (AIS); adenocarcinoma (ACC) and malignant tumour cells. ≥ASC-H include:ASC-H, HSIL, SCC, AGC, AIS, ACC and malignant tumour cells. *Compliance to follow-up among HPV positive self-samplers. **Follows the same algorithm as shown in figure 2 among women having repeating HPV testing after 3 months. GP, general practitioner; HPV, human papillomavirus.

References

    1. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, et al. . European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Second edition-summary document. Ann Oncol 2010;21:448–58. 10.1093/annonc/mdp471
    1. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. . American cancer society, American society for colposcopy and cervical pathology, and American society for clinical pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;137:516–42. 10.1309/AJCPTGD94EVRSJCG
    1. Anttila A, von Karsa L, Aasmaa A, et al. . Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2649–58. 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.07.020
    1. Rustagi AS, Kamineni A, Weiss NS. Point: cervical cancer screening guidelines should consider observational data on screening efficacy in older women. Am J Epidemiol 2013;178:1020–2. 10.1093/aje/kwt167
    1. Isidean SD, Franco EL. Counterpoint: cervical cancer screening guidelines-approaching the golden age. Am J Epidemiol 2013;178:1023–6. 10.1093/aje/kwt171
    1. Wang J, Andrae B, Sundström K, et al. . Effectiveness of cervical screening after age 60 years according to screening history: nationwide cohort study in Sweden. PLoS Med 2017;14:e1002414. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002414
    1. Castañón A, Landy R, Cuzick J, et al. . Cervical screening at age 50-64 years and the risk of cervical cancer at age 65 years and older: population-based case control study. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001585. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001585
    1. Gyllensten U, Gustavsson I, Lindell M, et al. . Primary high-risk HPV screening for cervical cancer in post-menopausal women. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:343–5. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.036
    1. Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, et al. . NORDCAN–a Nordic tool for cancer information, planning, quality control and research. Acta Oncol 2010;49:725–36. 10.3109/02841861003782017
    1. Sherman SM, Castanon A, Moss E, et al. . Cervical cancer is not just a young woman's disease. BMJ 2015;350:h2729. 10.1136/bmj.h2729
    1. Hammer A, Kahlert J, Rositch A, et al. . The temporal and age-dependent patterns of hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer incidence rates in Denmark: a population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96:150–7. 10.1111/aogs.13057
    1. Darlin L, Borgfeldt C, Widén E, et al. . Elderly women above screening age diagnosed with cervical cancer have a worse prognosis. Anticancer Res 2014;34:5147–51.
    1. Hammer A, Kahlert J, Gravitt PE, et al. . Hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer mortality rates in Denmark during 2002–2015: a registry-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019;98:1063–9. 10.1111/aogs.13608
    1. Gravitt PE. Evidence and impact of human papillomavirus latency. Open Virol J 2012;6:198–203. 10.2174/1874357901206010198
    1. Maglennon GA, Doorbar J. The biology of papillomavirus latency. Open Virol J 2012;6:190–7. 10.2174/1874357901206010190
    1. Maglennon GA, McIntosh PB, Doorbar J. Immunosuppression facilitates the reactivation of latent papillomavirus infections. J Virol 2014;88:710–6. 10.1128/JVI.02589-13
    1. Hammer A, de Koning MN, Blaakaer J, et al. . Whole tissue cervical mapping of HPV infection: molecular evidence for focal latent HPV infection in humans. Papillomavirus Res 2019;7:82–7. 10.1016/j.pvr.2019.02.004
    1. Andersen B, Christensen BS, Christensen J, et al. . HPV-prevalence in elderly women in Denmark. Gynecol Oncol 2019;154:118–23. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.680
    1. Lei J, Ploner A, Lagheden C, et al. . High-risk human papillomavirus status and prognosis in invasive cervical cancer: a nationwide cohort study. PLoS Med 2018;15:e1002666. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002666
    1. Lynge E, Lönnberg S, Törnberg S. Cervical cancer incidence in elderly women-biology or screening history? Eur J Cancer 2017;74:82–8. 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.12.021
    1. Elit L. Role of cervical screening in older women. Maturitas 2014;79:413–20. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.09.012
    1. Statistics Denmark Statistik databanken 2020, 2020. Available:
    1. Andrae B, Kemetli L, Sparén P, et al. . Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:622–9. 10.1093/jnci/djn099
    1. Rosenblatt KA, Osterbur EF, Douglas JA. Case-Control study of cervical cancer and gynecologic screening: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2016;142:395–400. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.06.016
    1. Kamineni A, Weinmann S, Shy KK, et al. . Efficacy of screening in preventing cervical cancer among older women. Cancer Causes Control 2013;24:1653–60. 10.1007/s10552-013-0239-4
    1. Rustagi AS, Kamineni A, Weinmann S, et al. . Cervical screening and cervical cancer death among older women: a population-based, case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 2014;179:1107–14. 10.1093/aje/kwu035
    1. Hammer A, Soegaard V, Maimburg RD, et al. . Cervical cancer screening history prior to a diagnosis of cervical cancer in Danish women aged 60 years and older-a national cohort study. Cancer Med 2019;8:418–27. 10.1002/cam4.1926
    1. Nelson EJ, Maynard BR, Loux T, et al. . The acceptability of self-sampled screening for HPV DNA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2017;93:56–61. 10.1136/sextrans-2016-052609
    1. Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, et al. . Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ 2018;363:k4823. 10.1136/bmj.k4823
    1. Lynge E, Clausen LB, Guignard R, et al. . What happens when organization of cervical cancer screening is delayed or stopped? J Med Screen 2006;13:41–6. 10.1258/096914106776179773
    1. Lynge E, Rygaard C, Baillet MV-P, et al. . Cervical cancer screening at crossroads. APMIS 2014;122:667–73. 10.1111/apm.12279
    1. Danish Health Authority Screening for livmoderhalskræft-anbefalinger 2012 [In English: Cervical cancer screening-recommendations 2012]. Copenhagen [in Danish with English summary], 2012. Available:
    1. Lynge E, Andersen B, Christensen J, et al. . Cervical screening in Denmark - a success followed by stagnation. Acta Oncol 2018;57:354–61. 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1355110
    1. Erichsen R, Lash TL, Hamilton-Dutoit SJ, et al. . Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: the Danish national pathology registry and data bank. Clin Epidemiol 2010;2:51–6. 10.2147/CLEP.S9908
    1. Bjerregaard B, Larsen OB. The Danish pathology register. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:72–4. 10.1177/1403494810393563
    1. Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT. The Danish civil registration system as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 2014;29:541–9. 10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3
    1. Bärnighausen T, Tugwell P, Røttingen J-A, et al. . Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 4: uses and value. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;89:21–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.012
    1. Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Sandegaard JL, et al. . The Danish national patient registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 2015;7:449–90. 10.2147/CLEP.S91125
    1. The Danish Agency for Digitisation About NemID, 2020. Available:
    1. Pedersen KM, Andersen JS, Søndergaard J. General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25 Suppl 1:S34–8. 10.3122/jabfm.2012.02.110216
    1. van Baars R, Bosgraaf RP, ter Harmsel BWA, et al. . Dry storage and transport of a cervicovaginal self-sample by use of the evalyn brush, providing reliable human papillomavirus detection combined with comfort for women. J Clin Microbiol 2012;50:3937–43. 10.1128/JCM.01506-12
    1. Tranberg M, Bech BH, Blaakær J, et al. . Study protocol of the choice trial: a three-armed, randomized, controlled trial of home-based HPV self-sampling for non-participants in an organized cervical cancer screening program. BMC Cancer 2016;16:835. 10.1186/s12885-016-2859-z
    1. Tranberg M, Bech BH, Blaakær J, et al. . Preventing cervical cancer using HPV self-sampling: direct mailing of test-kits increases screening participation more than timely opt-in procedures - a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2018;18:273. 10.1186/s12885-018-4165-4
    1. Tranberg M, Jensen JS, Bech BH, et al. . Good concordance of HPV detection between cervico-vaginal self-samples and general practitioner-collected samples using the COBAS 4800 HPV DNA test. BMC Infect Dis 2018;18:348. 10.1186/s12879-018-3254-y
    1. Heideman DAM, Hesselink AT, Berkhof J, et al. . Clinical validation of the COBAS 4800 HPV test for cervical screening purposes. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:3983–5. 10.1128/JCM.05552-11
    1. Rao A, Young S, Erlich H, et al. . Development and characterization of the COBAS human papillomavirus test. J Clin Microbiol 2013;51:1478–84. 10.1128/JCM.03386-12
    1. Ejegod DM, Hansen M, Christiansen IK, et al. . Clinical validation of the COBAS 4800 HPV assay using cervical samples in SurePath medium under the VALGENT4 framework. J Clin Virol 2020;128:104336. 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104336
    1. Petersen LK. National clinical guideline for cervical dysplasia. Examination, treatment, and management of women aged 60 and older [Only in Danish]: DSOG, 2019. Available:
    1. Petersen LK. Examination, treatment and control of cervical dysplasia [Only in Danish]: 2013: DSOG, 2013. Available:
    1. Gustafson LW HA, Petersen LK, Andersen B. “See and Treat” in an outpatient setting in women above 45 years with cervical dysplasia. For study protocol. See . NCT:04298957, 2020
    1. Sahlgren H, Elfström KM, Lamin H, et al. . Colposcopic and histopathologic evaluation of women with HPV persistence exiting an organized screening program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222:253.e1–253.e8. 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.039
    1. Gravitt PE, Landy R, Schiffman M. How confident can we be in the current guidelines for exiting cervical screening? Prev Med 2018;114:188–92. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.07.005
    1. Diaz A, Kang J, Moore SP, et al. . Association between comorbidity and participation in breast and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol 2017;47:7–19. 10.1016/j.canep.2016.12.010
    1. Thygesen LC, Daasnes C, Thaulow I, et al. . Introduction to Danish (nationwide) registers on health and social issues: structure, access, legislation, and archiving. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:12–16. 10.1177/1403494811399956
    1. Sawaya GF. Cervical cancer screening in women over 65. Con: reasons for uncertainty. Gynecol Oncol 2016;142:383–4. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.229
    1. Gjerstorff ML. The Danish cancer registry. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:42–5. 10.1177/1403494810393562

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel