Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Oct 8;6(10):e011754.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011754.

Community-randomised controlled trial embedded in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study: human papillomavirus self-sampling versus Papanicolaou cytology

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Community-randomised controlled trial embedded in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study: human papillomavirus self-sampling versus Papanicolaou cytology

Ingeborg Zehbe et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: The incidence of cervical cancer is up to 20-fold higher among First Nations women in Canada than the general population, probably due to lower participation in screening. Offering human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in place of Papanicolaou (Pap) testing may eventually increase screening participation and reduce cervical cancer rates in this population.

Design: A community-randomised controlled screening trial.

Setting: First Nations communities in Northwest Ontario, Canada.

Participants: Women aged between 25 and 69, living in Robinson Superior Treaty First Nations. The community was the unit of randomisation.

Interventions: Women were asked to complete a questionnaire and have screening by HPV self-sampling (arm A) or Pap testing (arm B).

Primary outcome measures: The number of women who participated in cervical screening.

Randomisation: Community clusters were randomised to include approximately equivalent numbers of women in each arm.

Results: 6 communities were randomised to arm A and 5 to arm B. One community withdrew, leaving 5 communities in each group (834 eligible women). Participation was <25%. Using clustered intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, initial and cumulative averaged uptakes in arm A were 1.4-fold (20% vs 14.3%, p=0.628) and 1.3-fold (20.6% vs 16%, p=0.694) higher compared to arm B, respectively. Corresponding per protocol (PP) analysis indicates 2.2-fold (22.9% vs 10.6%, p=0.305) and 1.6-fold (22.9% vs 14.1%, p=0.448) higher uptakes in arm A compared to arm B. Screening uptake varied between communities (range 0-62.1%). Among women who completed a questionnaire (18.3% in arm A, 21.7% in arm B), the screening uptake was 1.8-fold (ITT; p=0.1132) or 3-fold (PP; p<0.01) higher in arm A versus arm B.

Conclusions: Pap and HPV self-sampling were compared in a marginalised, Canadian population. Results indicated a preference for self-sampling. More research on how to reach underscreened Indigenous women is necessary.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN84617261.

Keywords: HPV self-sampling; Indigenous health; Pap testing; cervical screening; cluster randomized controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The ACCSS team received support from Roche Diagnostics (RD) for the HPV analyses of the self-collected samples. However, RD was not involved with the study design, the analyses or the writing of the manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study. The figure illustrates the breakdown of participants during the study, from recruitment to second follow-up.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al. . GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2013. http://globocan.iarc.fr (accessed 21 Jun 2014).
    1. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J et al. . Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999;318:904–8. 10.1136/bmj.318.7188.904 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moore SP, Antoni S, Colquhoun A et al. . Cancer incidence in indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: a comparative population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:1483–92. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00232-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marrett LD, Chaudhry M. Cancer incidence and mortality in Ontario First Nations,1968 1991. Cancer Cause Control 2003;14:259–68. 10.1023/A:1023632518568 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Demers A, Kliewer E, Remes O et al. . Cervical cancer among Aboriginal women in Canada (Commentary). CMAJ 2012;18:743–4. 10.1503/cmaj.110523 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

Grants and funding