scholarly journals Cross-Sectional Study on Perceptions Regarding Cervical Cancer Screening and Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Among Female Patients in Rural Taiwan

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 14-14
Author(s):  
Ruixuan J. Zhang ◽  
Madeline Bach ◽  
Julia Yip ◽  
Athena Lin
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asian Women ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Route Of Transmission ◽  
Papanicolaou Smears

PURPOSE Cervical cancer remains the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality among women in Taiwan. Despite availability of a National Health Insurance program with free yearly screenings, Papanicolaou testing and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates have been historically low in Taiwan. Even in the United States, cervical cancer screening rates for Asian women are significantly lower than other ethnic groups. The goal is to direct future interventions by providing insight on barriers leading to low screening and vaccination rates among Taiwanese and Asian women. METHODS Anonymous surveys without patient identifiers were randomly administered to patients at a traditional Chinese medicine clinic in Hualien City in June 2018. Inclusion criterion was females. No exclusion criteria were defined. Participants provided written consent. Sixty-three completed surveys were received. A χ2 test was used to determine statistical significance (α = 0.05). RESULTS Formal education level correlated with increased knowledge of HPV ( P = .001), its route of transmission ( P = .044), its link to genital cancer ( P = .0024), and HPV vaccination ( P = .0039). Women were more likely to have Papanicolaou smears if they were older than 30 years of age ( P = .0033), visited the gynecologist ( P < .001), or were recommended one by their physicians ( P < .001). Although 57% of respondents knew of the HPV vaccine, only 19% were vaccinated. Among those not vaccinated, most cited reasons included an inability to find a physician providing it (23.5%), safety concerns (16.4%), belief that it encourages sexual behavior (14.5%), and high out-of-pocket expense (9.1%). CONCLUSION Knowledge of HPV does not predict a higher adherence to cervical screening guidelines. Instead, diligent physician recommendations on Papanicolaou smears can elevate adherence rates among patients. Significant contributors to low HPV vaccination rates in rural Taiwan include lack of awareness and access to the vaccine. Our study emphasizes the physician-patient relationship as a means to target vulnerable populations and increase rates of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination.

scholarly journals Acceptability of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among never- and under-screened Indigenous and other minority women: a randomised three-arm community trial in Aotearoa New Zealand

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Brewer ◽  
Karen Bartholomew ◽  
Jane Grant ◽  
Anna Maxwell ◽  
Georgina McPherson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Asian Women ◽  
Aotearoa New Zealand ◽  
Hpv Screening

AbstractBackgroundInternationally, self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to increase participation in cervical-cancer screening. In Aotearoa New Zealand, there are long-standing ethnic inequalities in cervical-cancer screening, incidence, and mortality; particularly for indigenous Māori women, as well as Pacific, and Asian women.MethodsWe invited never- and markedly under-screened (≥5 years overdue) 30-69-year-old Māori, Pacific, and Asian women to participate in an open-label, three-arm, community-based, randomised controlled trial, with a nested sub-study. We aimed to assess whether two specific invitation methods for self-sampling improved screening participation over usual care among the least medically served populations. Women were individually randomised 3:3:1 to: clinic-based self-sampling (CLINIC – invited to take a self-sample at their usual general practice); home-based self-sampling (HOME – mailed a kit and invited to take a self- sample at home); and usual care (USUAL – invited to attend a clinic for collection of a standard cytology sample). Neither participants nor research staff could be blinded to the intervention. In a subset of general practices, women who did not participate within three months of invitation were opportunistically invited to take a self-sample, either next time they attended a clinic or by mail.FindingsWe randomised 3,553 women: 1,574 to CLINIC, 1,467 to HOME, and 512 to USUAL. Participation was highest in HOME (14.6% among Māori, 8.8% among Pacific, and 18.5% among Asian) with CLINIC (7.0%, 5.3% and 6.9%, respectively) and USUAL (2.0%, 1.7% and 4.5%, respectively) being lower. In fully adjusted models, participation was statistically significantly more likely in HOME than USUAL: Māori OR=9.7, (95%CI 3.0-31.5); Pacific OR=6.0 (1.8-19.5); and Asian OR=5.1 (2.4-10.9). There were no adverse outcomes reported. After three months, 2,780 non-responding women were invited to participate in a non-randomised, opportunistic, follow-on substudy. After 6 months,192 (6.9%) additional women had taken a self-sample.InterpretationUsing recruitment methods that mimic usual practice, we provide critical evidence that self-sampling increases screening among the groups of women (never and under-screened) who experience the most barriers in Aotearoa New Zealand, although the absolute level of participation through this population approach was modest. Follow-up for most women was routine but a small proportion required intensive support.Trial registrationANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618000367246 (date registered 12/3/2018) https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371741&isReview=true;UTN:U1111-1189-0531FundingHealth Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 16/405)Protocolhttp://publichealth.massey.ac.nz/assets/Uploads/Study-protocol-V2.1Self-sampling-for-HPV-screening-a-community-trial.pdf

scholarly journals Cervical cancer screening varies by HPV vaccination status among a National Cohort of privately insured young women in the United States 2006–2016

Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (41) ◽  
pp. e27457
Author(s):  
Djibril M. Ba ◽  
Jennifer S. McCall-Hosenfeld ◽  
Paddy Ssentongo ◽  
Vernon M. Chinchilli ◽  
Edeanya Agbese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vaccination Status ◽  
National Cohort ◽  
Privately Insured

scholarly journals Impact of COVID-19-related care disruptions on cervical cancer screening in the United States

2021 ◽  
pp. 096914132110010
Author(s):  
Emily A Burger ◽  
Erik EL Jansen ◽  
James Killen ◽  
Inge MCM de Kok ◽  
Megan A Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Cancer Intervention ◽  
The Impact

Objectives To quantify the secondary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to cervical cancer screening in the United States, stratified by step in the screening process and primary test modality, on cervical cancer burden. Methods We conducted a comparative model-based analysis using three independent NCI Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network cervical models to quantify the impact of eight alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios compared to a scenario of no disruptions. Scenarios varied by the duration of the disruption (6 or 24 months), steps in the screening process being disrupted (primary screening, surveillance, colposcopy, excisional treatment), and primary screening modality (cytology alone or cytology plus human papillomavirus “cotesting”). Results The models consistently showed that COVID-19-related disruptions yield small net increases in cervical cancer cases by 2027, which are greater for women previously screened with cytology compared with cotesting. When disruptions affected all four steps in the screening process under cytology-based screening, there were an additional 5–7 and 38–45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. In contrast, under cotesting, there were additional 4–5 and 35–45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. The majority (58–79%) of the projected increases in cases under cotesting were due to disruptions to surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, rather than to primary screening. Conclusions Women in need of surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, or whose last primary screen did not involve human papillomavirus testing, may comprise priority groups for reintroductions.

scholarly journals Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 30 to 45 years in the United States: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. e1003534
Author(s):  
Jane J. Kim ◽  
Kate T. Simms ◽  
James Killen ◽  
Megan A. Smith ◽  
Emily A. Burger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Age Limit ◽  
The Cost

Background A nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been licensed for use in women and men up to age 45 years in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination for women and men aged 30 to 45 years in the context of cervical cancer screening practice was evaluated to inform national guidelines. Methods and findings We utilized 2 independent HPV microsimulation models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extending the upper age limit of HPV vaccination in women (from age 26 years) and men (from age 21 years) up to age 30, 35, 40, or 45 years. The models were empirically calibrated to reflect the burden of HPV and related cancers in the US population and used standardized inputs regarding historical and future vaccination uptake, vaccine efficacy, cervical cancer screening, and costs. Disease outcomes included cervical, anal, oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancers, as well as genital warts. Both models projected higher costs and greater health benefits as the upper age limit of HPV vaccination increased. Strategies of vaccinating females and males up to ages 30, 35, and 40 years were found to be less cost-effective than vaccinating up to age 45 years, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) greater than a commonly accepted upper threshold of $200,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When including all HPV-related outcomes, the ICER for vaccinating up to age 45 years ranged from $315,700 to $440,600 per QALY gained. Assumptions regarding cervical screening compliance, vaccine costs, and the natural history of noncervical HPV-related cancers had major impacts on the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination strategies. Key limitations of the study were related to uncertainties in the data used to inform the models, including the timing of vaccine impact on noncervical cancers and vaccine efficacy at older ages. Conclusions Our results from 2 independent models suggest that HPV vaccination for adult women and men aged 30 to 45 years is unlikely to represent good value for money in the US.

scholarly journals Point-Counterpoint: Cervical Cancer Screening Should Be Done by Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing with Genotyping and Reflex Cytology for Women over the Age of 25 Years

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (9) ◽  
pp. 2798-2804 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark H. Stoler ◽  
R. Marshall Austin ◽  
Chengquan Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Screening Algorithm ◽  
Hpv Test

Screening for cervical cancer with cytology testing has been very effective in reducing cervical cancer in the United States. For decades, the approach was an annual Pap test. In 2000, the Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus (HPV) test was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for screening women who have atypical squamous cells of underdetermined significance (ASCUS) detected by Pap test to determine the need for colposcopy. In 2003, the FDA approved expanding the use of the test to include screening performed in conjunction with a Pap test for women over the age of 30 years, referred to as “cotesting.” Cotesting allows women to extend the testing interval to 3 years if both tests have negative results. In April of 2014, the FDA approved the use of an HPV test (the cobas HPV test) for primary cervical cancer screening for women over the age of 25 years, without the need for a concomitant Pap test. The approval recommended either colposcopy or a Pap test for patients with specific high-risk HPV types detected by the HPV test. This was based on the results of the ATHENA trial, which included more than 40,000 women. Reaction to this decision has been mixed. Supporters point to the fact that the primary-screening algorithm found more disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse [CIN3+]) and also found it earlier than did cytology or cotesting. Moreover, the positive predictive value and positive-likelihood ratio of the primary-screening algorithm were higher than those of cytology. Opponents of the decision prefer cotesting, as this approach detects more disease than the HPV test alone. In addition, the performance of this new algorithm has not been assessed in routine clinical use. Professional organizations will need to develop guidelines that incorporate this testing algorithm. In this Point-Counterpoint, Dr. Stoler explains why he favors the primary-screening algorithm, while Drs. Austin and Zhao explain why they prefer the cotesting approach to screening for cervical cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document