A randomized controlled trial in non-responders from Newcastle upon Tyne invited to return a self-sample for Human Papillomavirus testing versus repeat invitation for cervical screening

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 28-37

  Cadman, Louise ^a   Wilkes, Scott ^b   Mansour, Diana ^c   Austin, Janet ^a   Ashdown Barr, Lesley ^a   Edwards, Rob ^a   Kleeman, Michelle ^a   Szarewski, Anne ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND   (United Kingdom)

^c NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cervical screening; human papillomavirus; non attenders; self sampling

Indexed keywords

COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; SCREENING; WART VIRUS; ADULT; AGED; ALPHAPAPILLOMAVIRUS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PROCEDURES; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; ALPHAPAPILLOMAVIRUS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84939453532     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: 14755793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0969141314558785     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. L.PeirsonD.Fitzpatrick-LewisD.CiliskaR.Warren. Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev2013; 2: 35–35.
2. J.PetoC.GilhamO.FletcherF.E.Matthews. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet2004; 364: 249–256.
3. NHS Cervical Screening Programme Statistical Bulletin, England 2012–2013. Health and Social Care Information Centre. 2013
4. D.BakerE.Middleton. Cervical screening and health inequality in England in the 1990s. J Epidemiol Community Health2003; 57: 417–423.
5. L.LancuckJ.PatnickM.Vessey. A cohort effect in cervical screening coverage?J Med Screen2008; 15: 27–29.
6. B.J.WilloughbyK.FaulknerE.C.StampC.J.Whitaker. A descriptive study of the decline in cervical screening coverage rates in the North East and Yorkshire and the Humber regions of the UK from 1995 to 2005. J Public Health (Oxf)2006; 28: 355–360.
7. K.MoserJ.PatnickV.Beral. Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data. Bmj2009; 338: b2025–b2025.
8. R.WebbJ.RichardsonA.EsmailA.Pickles. Uptake for cervical screening by ethnicity and place-of-birth: a population-based cross-sectional study. Journal of public health2004; 26: 293–296.
9. L.CadmanJ.WallerL.Ashdown-BarrA.Szarewski. Barriers to cervical screening in women who have experienced sexual abuse: an exploratory study. The journal of family planning and reproductive health care/Faculty of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists2012; 38: 214–220.
10. J.WallerM.JackowskaL.MarlowJ.Wardle. Exploring age differences in reasons for nonattendance for cervical screening: a qualitative study. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2012; 119: 26–32.
11. R.MullinsK.ScalzoF.Sultana. Self-sampling for cervical screening: Could it overcome some of the barriers to the Pap test?J Med Screen, 2014, Vol. 21(4) 201–206. pii: 0969141314555247. [Epub ahead of print]–2014, Vol. 21(4) 201–206. pii: 0969141314555247. [Epub ahead of print].
12. M.ArbynG.RoncoA.Anttila. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine2012; 30(Suppl 5): F88–99.
13. D.C.RijkaartJ.BerkhofF.J.van Kemenade. HPV DNA testing in population-based cervical screening (VUSA-Screen study): results and implications. British journal of cancer2012; 106: 975–981.
14. G.RoncoP.Giorgi-RossiF.Carozzi. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. The lancet oncology2010; 11: 249–257.
15. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu. Feasibility study for improvements to the population screening for cervical cancer. 2013
16. M.ArbynF.VerdoodtP.J.Snijders. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol2014; 15: 172–183.
17. P.J.SnijdersV.M.VerhoefM.Arbyn. High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer2013; 132: 2223–2236.
18. P.PetignatD.L.FaltinI.BruchimM.R.TramerE.L.FrancoF.Coutlee. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecologic oncology2007; 105: 530–535.
19. A.SzarewskiL.CadmanS.Mallett. Human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling: assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting. J Med Screen2007; 14: 34–42.
20. S.ForrestK.McCafferyJ.Waller. Attitudes to self-sampling for HPV among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in Manchester, UK. J Med Screen2004; 11: 85–88.
21. J.HuynhM.HowardA.Lytwyn. Self-collection for vaginal human papillomavirus testing: systematic review of studies asking women their perceptions. J Low Genit Tract Dis2010; 14: 356–362.
22. H.E.JonesK.BrudneyD.J.SawoR.LantiguaC.L.Westhoff. The acceptability of a self-lavaging device compared to pelvic examination for cervical cancer screening among low-income women. J Womens Health (Larchmt)2012; 21: 1275–1281.
23. J.WallerK.McCafferyS.Forrest. Acceptability of unsupervised HPV self-sampling using written instructions. J Med Screen2006; 13: 208–213.
24. A.G.BaisF.J.van KemenadeJ.Berkhof. Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer2007; 120: 1505–1510.
25. P.Giorgi RossiL.M.MarsiliL.Camilloni. The effect of self-sampled HPV testing on participation to cervical cancer screening in Italy: a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN96071600). British journal of cancer2011; 104: 248–254.
26. M.GokD.A.HeidemanF.J.van Kemenade. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study. BMJ2010; 340: c1040–c1040.
27. M.GokD.A.HeidemanF.J.van Kemenade. Offering self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing to non-attendees of the cervical screening programme: Characteristics of the responders. European journal of cancer2012; 48: 1799–1808.
28. K.SannerI.WikstromA.StrandM.LindellE.Wilander. Self-sampling of the vaginal fluid at home combined with high-risk HPV testing. British journal of cancer2009; 101: 871–874.
29. A.SzarewskiL.CadmanD.Mesher. HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer2011; 104: 915–920.
30. A.VirtanenP.NieminenT.LuostarinenA.Anttila. Self-sample HPV tests as an intervention for nonattendees of cervical cancer screening in Finland: a randomized trial. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2011; 20: 1960–1969.
31. I.WikstromM.LindellK.SannerE.Wilander. Self-sampling and HPV testing or ordinary Pap-smear in women not regularly attending screening: a randomised study. Br J Cancer2011; 105: 337–339.
32. Office for National Statistics. 2011 Census: KS201EW Ethnic group local authorities in England and Wales,. 2011 Census - Key Statistics for Local Authorities in England and Wales,. Office for National Statistics, 2011
33. Schulz KF, Altman DG and Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 340: c332
34. M.Zelen. New Design for Randomized Clinical-Trials. New England Journal of Medicine1979; 300: 1242–1245.
35. H.Sancho-GarnierC.TamaletP.Halfon. HPV self-sampling or the Pap-smear: a randomized study among cervical screening nonattenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France. Int J Cancer2013; 133: 2681–2687.
36. A.VirtanenA.AnttilaT.LuostarinenP.Nieminen. Self-sampling versus reminder letter: effects on cervical cancer screening attendance and coverage in Finland. Int J Cancer2011; 128: 2681–2687.
37. J.CuzickA.SzarewskiH.Cubie. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet2003; 362: 1871–1876.
38. Department for Communities and Local Government. English Indices of Deprivation 2010. In: Department for Communities and Local Government, (ed.). London 2011
39. H.C.KitchenerM.AlmonteC.Gilham. ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. Health Technol Assess2009; 13: 1–150. iii–iv.
40. M.ArbynS.de SanjoséM.Saraiya. EUROGIN 2011 roadmap on prevention and treatment of HPV-related disease. International Journal of Cancer2012; 131: 1969–1982.
41. G.S.OgilvieS.MitchellM.Sekikubo. Results of a community-based cervical cancer screening pilot project using human papillomavirus self-sampling in Kampala, Uganda. Int J Gynaecol Obstet2013; 122: 118–123.
42. Kang LN, Jeronimo J, Qiao YL, et al. The optimal positive cutpoints of careHPV testing on clinician- and self-collected specimens in primary cervical cancer screening: an analysis from rural China. J Clin Microbiol. 2014