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
Review
. 2023 Jul 1;153(1):8-19.
doi: 10.1002/ijc.34358. Epub 2022 Nov 23.

Widening the offer of human papillomavirus self-sampling to all women eligible for cervical screening: Make haste slowly

Affiliations
Review

Widening the offer of human papillomavirus self-sampling to all women eligible for cervical screening: Make haste slowly

Matejka Rebolj et al. Int J Cancer. .

Abstract

Self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has the potential to increase the uptake of cervical screening among underscreened women and will likely form a crucial part of the WHO's strategy to eliminate cervical cancer by 2030. In high-income countries with long-standing, organised cervical screening programmes, self-collection is increasingly becoming available as a routine offer for women regardless of their screening histories, including under- and well-screened women. For these contexts, a validated microsimulation model determined that adding self-collection to clinician collection is likely to be cost-effective on the condition that it meets specific thresholds relating to (1) uptake and (2) sensitivity for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). We used these thresholds to review the 'early-adopter' programme-level evidence with a mind to determine how well and how consistently they were being met. The available evidence suggested some risk to overall programme performance in the situation where low uptake among underscreened women was accompanied by a high rate of substituting clinician sampling with self-collection among well-screened women. Risk was further compounded in a situation where the slightly reduced sensitivity of self-sampling vs clinician sampling for the detection of CIN2+ was accompanied with lack of adherence to a follow-up triage test that required a clinician sample. To support real-world programmes on their pathways toward implementation and to avoid HPV self-collection being introduced as a screening measure in good faith but with counterproductive consequences, we conclude by identifying a range of mitigations and areas worthy of research prioritisation.

Keywords: cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; human papillomavirus; mass screening; self-collection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Matejka Rebolj: Public Health England provided financing for the epidemiological evaluation of the English HPV screening pilot and the HPValidate study in HPV self‐sampling; member of various expert groups providing advice to the English Cervical Screening Programme including on HPV self‐sampling; attended meetings with various HPV assay manufacturers; fee for lecture from Hologic paid to employer. Alexandra Sargent: Member of various expert groups providing advice to the English Cervical Screening Programme including on HPV self‐sampling; holds an honorary contract with The University of Manchester to support research into HPV testing in urine samples and Professional Clinical Advisor to the English Cervical Screening Programme. Sisse Helle Njor: Declares no conflict of interest related to this review. Kate Cuschieri: Research funding or consumables to support research in the last 3 years from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis Seegene, Roche, Abbott and Hologic, paid to employer. Professional Clinical Advisor to the English Cervical Screening Programme; member of various expert groups providing advice to the English Cervical Screening Programme including on HPV self‐sampling; member of the working group that has provided advice to the Scottish Cervical Screening Programme on the potential use of HPV self‐sampling within the programme.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Serrano B, Ibanez R, Robles C, Peremiquel‐Trillas P, de Sanjose S, Bruni L. Worldwide use of HPV self‐sampling for cervical cancer screening. Prev Med. 2022;154:106900. - PubMed
    1. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV‐based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow‐up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;383:524‐532. - PubMed
    1. Korfage IJ, van Ballegooijen M, Wauben B, Looman CW, Habbema JD, Essink‐Bot ML. Having a Pap smear, quality of life before and after cervical screening: a questionnaire study. BJOG. 2012;119:936‐944. - PubMed
    1. Nelson EJ, Maynard BR, Loux T, Fatla J, Gordon R, Arnold LD. The acceptability of self‐sampled screening for HPV DNA: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2017;93:56‐61. - PubMed
    1. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu . Monitor bevolkingsonderzoek baarmoederhalskanker 2009‐2021. https://www.rivm.nl/bevolkingsonderzoek‐baarmoederhalskanker/professiona.... Accessed June 30, 2022.

Publication types