Mailed self-sample HPV testing kits to improve cervical cancer screening in a safety net health system: protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial

Jane R Montealegre, Matthew L Anderson, Susan G Hilsenbeck, Elizabeth Y Chiao, Scott B Cantor, Susan L Parker, Maria Daheri, Shaun Bulsara, Betsy Escobar, Ashish A Deshmukh, Maria L Jibaja-Weiss, Mohammed Zare, Michael E Scheurer, Jane R Montealegre, Matthew L Anderson, Susan G Hilsenbeck, Elizabeth Y Chiao, Scott B Cantor, Susan L Parker, Maria Daheri, Shaun Bulsara, Betsy Escobar, Ashish A Deshmukh, Maria L Jibaja-Weiss, Mohammed Zare, Michael E Scheurer

Abstract

Background: Almost 20% of U.S. women remain at risk for cervical cancer due to their inability or unwillingness to participate in periodic clinic-based screening. Self-sampling has been shown to be an effective strategy for screening women for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection in specific contexts. However, its effectiveness among medically underserved women in safety net health systems has not been evaluated. Furthermore, it is also unclear whether implementation strategies such as patient navigation can be used to improve the success of self-sample screening programs by addressing patient-level barriers to participation.

Methods/design: The Prospective Evaluation of Self-Testing to Increase Screening (PRESTIS) trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation pragmatic randomized controlled trial of mailed self-sample HPV testing. The aim is to assess the effectiveness of mailed self-sample HPV testing kits to improve cervical cancer screening participation among patients in a safety net health system who are overdue for clinic-based screening, while simultaneously assessing patient navigation as an implementation strategy. Its setting is a large, urban safety net health system that serves a predominantly racial/ethnic minority patient population. The trial targets recruitment of 2268 participants randomized to telephone recall (enhanced usual care, n = 756), telephone recall with mailed self-sample HPV testing kit (intervention, n = 756), or telephone recall with mailed self-sample HPV testing kit and patient navigation (intervention + implementation strategy, n = 756). The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of primary screening, defined as completion and return of mailed self-sample kit or completion of a clinic-based Pap test. Secondary effectiveness outcomes are predictors of screening and attendance for clinical follow-up among women with a positive screening test. Implementation outcomes are reach, acceptability, fidelity, adaptations, and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion: Hybrid designs are needed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of self-sample HPV testing in specific populations and settings, while incorporating and evaluating methods to optimize its real-world implementation. The current manuscript describes the rationale and design of a hybrid type 2 trial of self-sample HPV testing in a safety net health system. Trial findings are expected to provide meaningful data to inform screening strategies to ultimately realize the global goal of eliminating cervical cancer.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03898167 . Registered on 01 April 2019.

Trial status: Study start data: February 13, 2020. Recruitment status: Enrolling by invitation. Estimated primary completion date: February 15, 2023. Estimated study completion date: May 31, 2024. Protocol version 1.6 (February 25, 2020).

Keywords: Cervical cancer screening; Hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs; Hybrid type 2 designs; Patient navigation; Pragmatic trials; Self-sample HPV testing.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have not competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Hybrid effectiveness implementation trials
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Design of the PRESTIS (Prospective Evaluation of Self-Testing to Increase Screening) trial

References

    1. Gustafsson L, Pontén J, Zack M, Adami H-O. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8(5):755–763. doi: 10.1023/A:1018435522475.
    1. Chesson HW, Ekwueme DU, Saraiya M, Watson M, Lowy DR, Markowitz LE. Estimates of the annual direct medical costs of the prevention and treatment of disease associated with human papillomavirus in the United States. Vaccine. 2012;30(42):6016–6019. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.07.056.
    1. White A, Thompson TD, White MC, Sabatino SA, de Moor J, Doria-Rose PV, et al. Cancer screening test use - United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(8):201–206. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6608a1.
    1. Watson M, Benard V, King J, Crawford A, Saraiya M. National assessment of HPV and Pap tests: changes in cervical cancer screening, national health interview survey. Prev Med. 2017;100:243–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.004.
    1. Howlader NNA, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2012. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2015.
    1. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, Lowell DM, Meigs JW, Merino MJ, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health. 1995;85(6):791–794. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.85.6.791.
    1. Benard VB, Thomas CC, King J, Massetti GM, Doria-Rose VP, Saraiya M. Vital signs: cervical cancer incidence, mortality, and screening - United States, 2007-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(44):1004–1009.
    1. Goel MS, Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Ngo-Metzger Q, Phillips RS. Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screening: the importance of foreign birth as a barrier to care. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(12):1028–1035. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2003.20807.x.
    1. Bosgraaf RP, Ketelaars PJW, Verhoef VMJ, Massuger LFAG, Meijer CJLM, Melchers WJG, et al. Reasons for non-attendance to cervical screening and preferences for HPV self-sampling in Dutch women. Prev Med. 2014;64:108–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.011.
    1. Crawford A, Benard V, King J, Thomas CC. Understanding barriers to cervical cancer screening in women with access to care, behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E154. doi: 10.5888/pcd13.160225.
    1. Ogunwale AN, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Montealegre J, Cui Y, Jibaja-Weiss M, Anderson ML. Non-utilization of the pap test among women with frequent health system contact. J Immigr Minor Health. 2016;18(6):1404–1412. doi: 10.1007/s10903-015-0287-9.
    1. Tota J, Ramana-Kumar A, El-Khatib Z, Franco E. The road ahead for cervical cancer prevention and control. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(2):e255–e264. doi: 10.3747/co.21.1720.
    1. Gok M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Spruyt JW, et al. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study. BMJ. 2010;340:c1040. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1040.
    1. Gok M, van Kemenade FJ, Heideman DA, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Spruyt JW, et al. Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program. Int J Cancer. 2012;130(5):1128–1135. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26128.
    1. Giorgi Rossi P, Marsili LM, Camilloni L, Iossa A, Lattanzi A, Sani C, et al. The effect of self-sampled HPV testing on participation to cervical cancer screening in Italy: a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN96071600) Br J Cancer. 2011;104(2):248–254. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606040.
    1. Sanner K, Wikstrom I, Strand A, Lindell M, Wilander E. Self-sampling of the vaginal fluid at home combined with high-risk HPV testing. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(5):871–874. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605194.
    1. Wikstrom I, Lindell M, Sanner K, Wilander E. Self-sampling and HPV testing or ordinary pap-smear in women not regularly attending screening: a randomised study. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(3):337–339. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.236.
    1. Piana L, Leandri FX, Le Retraite L, Heid P, Tamalet C, Sancho-Garnier H. HPV-Hr detection by home self sampling in women not compliant with pap test for cervical cancer screening. Results of a pilot programme in Bouches-du-Rhone. Bull Cancer. 2011;98(7):723–731. doi: 10.1684/bdc.2011.1388.
    1. Virtanen A, Nieminen P, Luostarinen T, Anttila A. Self-sample HPV tests as an intervention for nonattendees of cervical cancer screening in Finland: a randomized trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2011;20(9):1960–1969. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0307.
    1. Bais AG, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, Verheijen RH, Snijders PJ, Voorhorst F, et al. Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(7):1505–1510. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22484.
    1. Tranberg M, Bech BH, Blaakaer J, Jensen JS, Svanholm H, Andersen B. 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(1):835. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2859-z.
    1. Broberg G, Gyrd-Hansen D, Miao Jonasson J, Ryd ML, Holtenman M, Milsom I, et al. Increasing participation in cervical cancer screening: offering a HPV self-test to long-term non-attendees as part of RACOMIP, a Swedish randomized controlled trial. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(9):2223–2230. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28545.
    1. Enerly E, Bonde J, Schee K, Pedersen H, Lönnberg S, Nygård M. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing among non-attenders increases attendance to the Norwegian cervical cancer screening programme. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0151978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151978.
    1. Bouchard-Fortier G, Hajifathalian K, McKnight MD, Zacharias DG, Gonzalez-Gonzalez LA. Co-testing for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer compared with cytology alone: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Public Health. 2014;36(1):46–55. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt057.
    1. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, Barry MJ, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674–686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.8024.
    1. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, Sellors JW, Petric M, Chambers K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81(3):207–212. doi: 10.1136/sti.2004.011858.
    1. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramer MR, Franco EL, Coutlee F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2):530–535. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.023.
    1. Winer RL, Tiro JA, Miglioretti DL, Thayer C, Beatty T, Lin J, et al. Rationale and design of the HOME trial: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in a U.S. healthcare system. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;64:77–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2017.11.004.
    1. Lewin MEAS. America’s health care safety net: intact but endangered. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
    1. Chokshi DA, Chang JE, Wilson RM. Health reform and the changing safety net in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1790–1796. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr1608578.
    1. Watson M, Saraiya M, Benard V, Coughlin SS, Flowers L, Cokkinides V, et al. Burden of cervical cancer in the United States, 1998-2003. Cancer. 2008;113(10 Suppl):2855–2864. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23756.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Human papillomavirus-associated cancers - United States, 2004-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:258–261.
    1. Yoo W, Kim S, Huh WK, Dilley S, Coughlin SS, Partridge EE, et al. Recent trends in racial and regional disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in United States. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172548.
    1. Freeman HP. Patient navigation: a community based strategy to reduce cancer disparities. J Urban Health. 2006;83(2):139–141. doi: 10.1007/s11524-006-9030-0.
    1. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Breslow RA, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Melillo S, et al. Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(1 Suppl):S34–S55. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.04.002.
    1. Paskett ED, Harrop JP, Wells KJ. Patient navigation: an update on the state of the science. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(4):237–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.20111.
    1. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–226. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
    1. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):117. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
    1. Landes SJ, McBain SA, Curran GM. An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Psychiatry Res. 2019;280:112513. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112513.
    1. Aarons GA, Sklar M, Mustanski B, Benbow N, Brown CH. “Scaling-out” evidence-based interventions to new populations or new health care delivery systems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0640-6.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Green LW, Kreuter M, Deeds SG, Partridge KB. Health education planning: a diagnostic approach. Mayfield: Mountain View; 1980.
    1. Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;350:h2147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147.
    1. Montealegre JR, Gossey JT, Anderson ML, Chenier RS, Chauca G, Rustveld LO, et al. Implementing targeted cervical cancer screening videos at the point of care. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(3):426–429. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.09.003.
    1. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):829–846. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182883a34.
    1. Huh WK, Ault KA, Chelmow D, Davey DD, Goulart RA, Garcia FA, et al. Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):330–337. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000669.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O'Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
    1. de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L, Geraets DT, Klaustermeier JE, Lloveras B, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(11):1048–1056. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70230-8.
    1. Nghiem VT, Davies KR, Beck JR, Follen M, Cantor SB. Overtreatment and cost-effectiveness of the see-and-treat strategy for managing cervical precancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25(5):807–814. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-1044.
    1. Rozemeijer K, de Kok IM, Naber SK, van Kemenade FJ, Penning C, van Rosmalen J, et al. Offering self-sampling to non-attendees of organized primary HPV screening: when do harms outweigh the benefits? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24(5):773–782. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0998.
    1. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselbad V, Hickey J, et al. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology: Summary. 1999. In: AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 1998-2005. Available from: .
    1. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151(12):1158–1171. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010166.
    1. Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, Meijer CJ, Hoyer H, Ratnam S, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 2006;119(5):1095–1101. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21955.
    1. Verdoodt F, Jentschke M, Hillemanns P, Racey CS, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M. Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(16):2375–2385. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.006.
    1. Brouwers MC, De Vito C, Bahirathan L, Carol A, Carroll JC, Cotterchio M, et al. What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):111. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-111.
    1. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mesher D, Austin J, Ashdown-Barr L, Edwards R, et al. HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;104(6):915–920. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.48.
    1. Ghebreyesus TA. Global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem. 2019.
    1. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.
    1. International Committee of Medican Journal Editors. Roles and Responsibilities of Authors, Contributors, Reviewers, Editors, Publishers, and Owners. Available at . Accessed 17 Sept 2020.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다