New standard of care—HPV testing for cervical cancer screening

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 194-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip E. Castle
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e001351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Teresa Yeh ◽  
Caitlin E Kennedy ◽  
Hugo de Vuyst ◽  
Manjulaa Narasimhan

IntroductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling test kits may increase screening for and early detection of cervical cancer and reduce its burden globally. To inform WHO self-care guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling among adult women on cervical (pre-)cancer screening uptake, screening frequency, social harms/adverse events and linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.MethodsThe included studies compared women using cervical cancer screening services with HPV self-sampling with women using standard of care, measured at least one outcome, and were published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CNIAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Embase through October 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).Results33 studies in 34 articles with 369 017 total participants met the inclusion criteria: 29 RCTs and 4 observational studies. All studies examined HPV self-sampling; comparison groups were standard of care (eg, Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, clinician-collected HPV testing). 93% of participants were from high-income countries. All 33 studies measured cervical cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis found greater screening uptake among HPV self-sampling participants compared with control (RR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.40). Effect size varied by HPV test kit dissemination method, whether mailed directly to home (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.71), offered door-to-door (RR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) or requested on demand (RR: 1.28, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.82). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in linkage to clinical assessment/treatment between arms (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.57). No studies measured screening frequency or social harms/adverse events.ConclusionA growing evidence base, mainly from high-income countries and with significant heterogeneity, suggests HPV self-sampling can increase cervical cancer screening uptake compared with standard of care, with a marginal effect on linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018114871.


2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (6) ◽  
pp. E743-E750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Marie Tebeu ◽  
Joël Fokom-Domgue ◽  
Victoria Crofts ◽  
Emmanuel Flahaut ◽  
Rosa Catarino ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 138 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bari Laskow ◽  
Ruben Figueroa ◽  
Karla M. Alfaro ◽  
Isabel C. Scarinci ◽  
Elizabeth Conlisk ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 233339361878363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne Wood ◽  
Virginia L. Russell ◽  
Ziad El-Khatib ◽  
Susan McFaul ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
...  

In this study, we examine from multiple perspectives, women’s shared decision-making needs when considering cervical screening options: Pap testing, in-clinic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, self-collected HPV testing, or no screening. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided the development of the interview schedule. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven screen-eligible women and five health care professionals (three health care providers and two health system managers). Women did not perceive that cervical screening involves a “decision,” which limited their knowledge of options, risks, and benefits. Women and health professionals emphasized how a trusted primary care provider can support women making a choice among cervical screening modalities. Having all cervical screening options recommended and funded was perceived as an important step to facilitate shared decision making. Supporting women in making preference-based decisions in cervical cancer screening may increase screening among those who do not undergo screening regularly and decrease uptake in women who are over-screened.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 1136-1144
Author(s):  
Kofi Effah ◽  
Joseph Emmanuel Amuah ◽  
Priscilla Dunyo ◽  
Gladys Akwada ◽  
Yusra Kalmoni ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (S5) ◽  
pp. S993-S999
Author(s):  
Donna L. Williams ◽  
Michael Hagensee ◽  
Ruijuan Gao ◽  
Danny Barnhill ◽  
Elizabeth T. H. Fontham

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document