Cervical cancer screening using HPV tests on self-samples: attitudes and preferences of women participating in the VALHUDES study

Hélène De Pauw, Gilbert Donders, Steven Weyers, Philippe De Sutter, Jean Doyen, Wiebren A A Tjalma, Davy Vanden Broeck, Eliana Peeters, Severien Van Keer, Alex Vorsters, Marc Arbyn, Hélène De Pauw, Gilbert Donders, Steven Weyers, Philippe De Sutter, Jean Doyen, Wiebren A A Tjalma, Davy Vanden Broeck, Eliana Peeters, Severien Van Keer, Alex Vorsters, Marc Arbyn

Abstract

Background: Interventions to reach women who do not participate regularly in screening may reduce the risk of cervical cancer. Self-collection of a vaginal specimen has been shown to increase participation. The relative clinical accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on first-void urine (with Colli-Pee) and on vaginal self-samples versus on cervical clinician-collected samples is being investigated in the VALHUDES trial. The current study assesses attitudes and experiences regarding self-sampling among women enrolled in VALHUDES.

Methods: Questionnaires from 515 women (age 25-64 years [N = 498]; < 25 [N = 10], age ≥ 65 [N = 3], enrolled between December 2017 - January 2020) referred to colposcopy because of previous cervical abnormalities and enrolled in VALHUDES (NCT03064087) were analysed.

Results: Of the 515 participants, nearly all women confirmed that self-sampling may help in reaching under-screened women (93%). Nevertheless, 44% of the participants stated before starting collection that a clinician-collected sample is more effective than a self-collected sample. After self-sampling, the large majority of women (> 95%) declared that instructions for self-collection were clear, that collection was easy, and that they were confident about having performed the procedure correctly, for both urine and vaginal collection. However, a proportion of women found self-sampling unpleasant (9.5% [49/515] for urine collection; 18.6% [96/515] and 15.5% [80/515] for vaginal sampling with cotton swabs or plastic brushes, respectively). For their next screening round, 57% would prefer self-sampling whereas 41% opted for collection by a clinician. Among women preferring self-sampling, 53% would choose for urine collection, 38% for vaginal self-collection and 9% had no preference. Age did not modify preferences.

Conclusion: We conclude that both urine and vaginal self-sampling are well accepted by women, with a preference for urine sampling. Although the large majority of women are confident in their ability to perform self-sampling, four to five over ten women preferred specimen collection by a clinician.

Trial registration: The study VALHUDES was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03064087 ).

Keywords: Attitudes; Cervical cancer; HPV; Human papillomavirus; Preferences; Screening; Self-sampling; Urine; VALHUDES.

Conflict of interest statement

H De Pauw, E Peeters and M Arbyn are supported by the RISCC Network funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework of DG Research and Innovation, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium (grant No. 847845). S Van Keer is supported by a junior postdoctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), Belgium (Grant Number: 1240220 N). A Vorsters is co-founder of Novosanis (Belgium), a spin-off company of the University of Antwerp, and was minority shareholder until January 2019. D Vanden Broeck is employed by AML, a commercial lab performing cervical cytology and HPV testing. All other authors declare no personal conflicts of interest.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patients’ preferences for their next screening: self-sampling or sampling by a clinician (N = 505). aSelf-sampling (n = 288/505, blue pie). bSampling by a clinician (n = 207, orange pie) [197 by gynaecologist (gyn), 8 by general practitioner (GP), 2 by either[ GP or gyn]]; cNo preference (n = 10/505, grey pie)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Choice of devices among women preferring self-sampling at their next screening (N = 288). aUrine collection (n = 152/288, green pie); bVaginal self-sampling (n = 111/288, blue pie); cNo preference (n = 25/288, yellow pie)

References

    1. Landy R, et al. Impact of screening on cervical cancer incidence: a population-based case-control study in the United States. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(3):887–896. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32826.
    1. Arbyn M, et al. Attendance at cervical cancer screening and use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the uterine cervix assessed from individual health insurance data (Belgium, 2002-2006) PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e92615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092615.
    1. Bennett KF, et al. Barriers to cervical screening and interest in self-sampling among women who actively decline screening. J Med Screen. 2018;25(4):211-7. 10.1177/0969141318767471.
    1. Ostensson E, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of compliance with clinic-based cervical cancer screening: population-based cohort study of women aged 23-60 years. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0128270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128270.
    1. Vorsters A, et al. Overcoming barriers in HPV vaccination and screening programs. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;4:45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.pvr.2017.07.001.
    1. Blomberg K, et al. How do women who choose not to participate in population-based cervical cancer screening reason about their decision? Psychooncology. 2008;17(6):561–569. doi: 10.1002/pon.1270.
    1. Arbyn M, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine. 2012;30(Suppl 5):F88–F99. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.095.
    1. Ronco G, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;383(9916):524–532. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7.
    1. Arbyn M, Castle P. Offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing to reach women who do not attend in the regular cervical cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24(5):769–772. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1417.
    1. Arbyn M, et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(2):172–183. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70570-9.
    1. Arbyn M, et al. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018;363:k4823. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4823.
    1. Pathak N, et al. Accuracy of urinary human papillomavirus testing for presence of cervical HPV: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5264. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5264.
    1. Sellors JW, et al. Comparison of self-collected vaginal, vulvar and urine samples with physician-collected cervical samples for human papillomavirus testing to detect high-grade sqaumous intraepethelial lesions. CMAJ. 2000;163:513–518.
    1. Arbyn M, et al. VALHUDES: a protocol for VALidation of HUman papillomavirus assays and collection DEvices for HPV testing on self-samples and urine samples. J.Clin.Virol. 2018;117:52–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2018.08.006.
    1. StataCorp . STATA Base Reference Manual Release 16. College Station: Stata Press; 2019. p. 2911.
    1. Schafer J. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(1):3–15. doi: 10.1177/096228029900800102.
    1. Donders GG, et al. Change in knowledge of women about cervix cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and HPV vaccination due to introduction of HPV vaccines. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;145(1):93–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.04.003.
    1. Donders GG, et al. Knowledge of cervix cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and HPV vaccination at the moment of introduction of the vaccine in women in Belgium. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;277(4):291–298. doi: 10.1007/s00404-007-0487-1.
    1. Van Keer S, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype and viral load agreement between paired first-void urine and clinician-collected cervical samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;37(5):859–869. doi: 10.1007/s10096-017-3179-1.
    1. Leeman A, et al. HPV testing in first-void urine provides sensitivity for CIN2+ detection comparable to a physician-taken smear or brush-based self-sample: cross-sectional data from a triage population. BJOG. 2017;124(9):1356–1363. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14682.
    1. Das M. WHO launches strategy to accelerate elimination of cervical cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(1):20–21. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30729-4.
    1. Arbyn M, et al. The European response to the WHO call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. Int J Cancer. 2021;148(2):277–284. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33189.
    1. WHO . Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. Geneva: WHO; 2020. p. 52.
    1. Arbyn M, et al. Tackling cervical cancer in Europe amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(8):e425. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30122-5.
    1. Peeters E, et al. Efficacy of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: GPs offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing versus recommendations to have a pap smear taken - a randomised controlled trial. Papillomavirus Res. 2020;9:100194. doi: 10.1016/j.pvr.2020.100194.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する