Dynamics of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer Screening

2011 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. 243
Author(s):  
Channa E Schmeink ◽  
Leon FAG Massuger ◽  
Willem JG Melchers ◽  
Ruud LM Bekkers ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Carcinoma ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Productive Infection ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Hpv Test

Primary screening based on detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) has proved to be more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Self-sampling for specimen collection may also improve the participation rate, especially in the non-responder group. However, HPV is highly prevalent and therefore HPV detection has a lower specificity in cervical cancer screening than cytology. In addition to the clinically validated HPV test, HPV dynamics should be taken into account. It is important to identify women with a chronic productive infection likely to cause, or to already have caused, high-grade CIN or cervical carcinoma, and to limit overtreatment of women with a transient infection. Furthermore, the introduction of the HPV vaccine is likely to lower the incidence of CIN and cervical carcinoma, which will lower the positive predictive value of cervical cancer screening. This potential impact needs to be taken into account when planning for future screening guidelines.

scholarly journals De-implementation and Substitution of Clinical Care Processes: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Transition to Primary Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin E Hahn ◽  
Corrine Munoz-Plaza ◽  
Danielle Altman ◽  
Chunyi Hsu ◽  
Nancy Cannizzaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Readiness To Change ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Cost Cutting ◽  
Hpv Test

Abstract Background: New cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women age 30-65 years. Healthcare organizations are preparing to de-implement the previous recommended strategies of Pap testing or co-testing (Pap plus HPV test) and substitute primary HPV testing. However, there may be significant challenges to replacement of this entrenched clinical practice, even with an evidence-based substitution. We sought to identify stakeholder-perceived barriers and facilitators to this substitution within a large healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California.Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with clinician, administrative and patient stakeholders regarding: (a) acceptability and feasibility of the planned substitution; (b) perceptions of barriers and facilitators, with an emphasis on those related to the de-implementation/implementation cycle of substitution; and (c) perceived readiness to change. Our interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; the data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR.Results: We conducted 23 interviews: 5 patient and 18 clinical/administrative. Clinicians perceived that patients feel more tests equals better care, and clinicians and patients expressed fear of missed cancers (“…it’ll be more challenging convincing the patient that only one test is…good enough to detect cancer.”). Patients perceived practice changes resulting in “less care” are driven by desire to cut costs. In contrast, clinicians/administrators viewed changing from two tests to one as acceptable and a workflow efficiency (“…It’s very easy and half the work.”). Stakeholder-recommended strategies included focusing on the increased efficacy of primary HPV testing and developing clinician talking points incorporating national guidelines to assuage ‘cost-cutting’ fears. Conclusions: Substitution to replace an entrenched clinical practice is complex. Leveraging available facilitators is key to ease the process for clinical and administrative stakeholders—e.g., emphasizing the efficiency of going from two tests to one. Identifying and addressing clinician and patient fears regarding cost-cutting and perceived poorer quality of care is critical for substitution. Multicomponent and multilevel strategies for engagement and education will be required.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04371887

scholarly journals The Role of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Large-Scale Evaluation of the cobas HPV Test

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 1304-1310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Schiffman ◽  
Sean Boyle ◽  
Tina Raine-Bennett ◽  
Hormuzd A. Katki ◽  
Julia C. Gage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Scale Evaluation ◽  
Hpv Test

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.

scholarly journals High Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Among Nonattenders of a Public Cervical Cancer Screening Program in El Salvador

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 13s-13s
Author(s):  
Mauricio Maza ◽  
Mario Melendez ◽  
Miriam Cremer ◽  
Rachel Masch ◽  
Todd Alonzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
El Salvador ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Rural Women ◽  
Cervical Cancer Prevention ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Hpv Test

Abstract 29 Purpose In high-income countries, human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling has been demonstrated to increase adherence to cervical cancer prevention initiatives in underscreened women. El Salvador recently completed the Cervical Cancer Prevention in El Salvador (CAPE) program using a high-risk HPV test as the screening method. Although successful, 12% of targeted women did not attend their screening appointments. HPV self-sampling may offer the opportunity to reach these nonattending women. In the current study, we evaluated HPV self-sampling as a way to increase screening among CAPE nonattenders and to report factors that impact self-sampling acceptability in a low- to middle-income country. Methods Nonattending and underscreened women age 30 to 59 years from the Paracentral region of El Salvador were invited to participate (N = 2,019). Women were visited at home and offered self-sampling with an HPV test. Women who provided consent also received a series of questionnaires to collect demographic and test acceptability data. After tests were analyzed, women were provided with results during another home visit. HPV-positive women were asked to make an appointment at a local clinic to undergo colposcopy, biopsy, and, if eligible, cryotherapy treatment. Women with contraindications for cryotherapy were referred to appropriate treatment or follow-up. Results Of 1,989 eligible women, 94% accepted the HPV self-sampled test. Of these, 11.8% (n = 221) tested positive. All but 13 women attended the colposcopy appointment, and 190 women received cryotherapy. Biopsy results revealed low-grade precancer in 6.3% of women, whereas 12.6% received diagnoses of high-grade precancer. Reasons for not attending the original CAPE appointment included logistic concerns, but also discomfort with male providers, confidentiality fears, and misconceptions regarding HPV, cervical cancer, and the screening procedure. Conclusion HPV self-sampling was shown to be overwhelmingly acceptable to nonattending and underscreened rural women in El Salvador. This method may be a feasible alternative that circumvents barriers to cervical cancer screening in low- to middle-income countries. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No COIs from the authors

scholarly journals Persistent Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake: Knowledge and Sociodemographic Determinants of Papanicolaou and Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Women in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 135 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-491
Author(s):  
Nicole L. Johnson ◽  
Katharine J. Head ◽  
Susanna Foxworthy Scott ◽  
Gregory D. Zimet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
Populations At Risk ◽  
Hpv Test

Objectives Cervical cancer is the second-most common type of cancer among women aged 15-44, and racial, ethnic, and economic disparities exist in survival rates despite widely available screening tests and early treatment options. The objective of this study was to describe the association among knowledge, sociodemographic characteristics, and cervical cancer screening, with the goal of developing interventions to prevent cervical cancer in populations at risk of the disease. Methods In 2017, we conducted a nationwide survey of women in the United States aged ≥18 who had ever received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test (N = 630). We conducted t tests and one-way analysis of variance to determine sociodemographic differences (age, education, race, ethnicity, income, type of health insurance) in knowledge about cervical cancer screening (Pap test and human papillomavirus [HPV] test). We used logistic regressions to define significant determinants of cervical cancer screening behaviors in the previous 5 years. Results Of 629 respondents, 407 (64.7%) had an annual household income <$30 000, and 322 of 536 (60.1%) respondents had government-provided health insurance. Of 630 women who had ever had a Pap test, 425 (67.5%) had an HPV test. Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women were more likely than Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12-4.54; P = .02) and women with government-provided health insurance (OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P = .03) were more likely than women with private health insurance to have received a Pap test in the previous 5 years. Knowledge of HPV was a significant predictor of having received an HPV test in the previous 5 years (OR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22-1.54; P < .001). Conclusion Disparities in cervical cancer screening among sociodemographic groups of women suggest the need for targeted interventions to improve knowledge about Pap and HPV tests.

scholarly journals De-implementation and substitution of clinical care processes: stakeholder perspectives on the transition to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin E. Hahn ◽  
Corrine Munoz-Plaza ◽  
Danielle E. Altman ◽  
Chunyi Hsu ◽  
Nancy T. Cannizzaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Readiness To Change ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Cost Cutting ◽  
Hpv Test

Abstract Background New cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women age 30–65 years. Healthcare organizations are preparing to de-implement the previous recommended strategies of Pap testing or co-testing (Pap plus HPV test) and substitute primary HPV testing. However, there may be significant challenges to the replacement of this entrenched clinical practice, even with an evidence-based substitution. We sought to identify stakeholder-perceived barriers and facilitators to this substitution within a large healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Methods We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with clinician, administrative, and patient stakeholders regarding (a) acceptability and feasibility of the planned substitution; (b) perceptions of barriers and facilitators, with an emphasis on those related to the de-implementation/implementation cycle of substitution; and (c) perceived readiness to change. Our interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; the data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR. Results We conducted 23 interviews: 5 patient and 18 clinical/administrative. Clinicians perceived that patients feel more tests equals better care, and clinicians and patients expressed fear of missed cancers (“…it’ll be more challenging convincing the patient that only one test is…good enough to detect cancer.”). Patients perceived practice changes resulting in “less care” are driven by the desire to cut costs. In contrast, clinicians/administrators viewed changing from two tests to one as acceptable and a workflow efficiency (“…It’s very easy and half the work.”). Stakeholder-recommended strategies included focusing on the increased efficacy of primary HPV testing and developing clinician talking points incorporating national guidelines to assuage “cost-cutting” fears. Conclusions Substitution to replace an entrenched clinical practice is complex. Leveraging available facilitators is key to ease the process for clinical and administrative stakeholders—e.g., emphasizing the efficiency of going from two tests to one. Identifying and addressing clinician and patient fears regarding cost-cutting and perceived poorer quality of care is critical for substitution. Multicomponent and multilevel strategies for engagement and education will be required. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, #NCT04371887

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of cervical cancer screening and screening–triage strategies among women living with HIV-1 in Burkina Faso and South Africa: A cohort study

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. e1003528
Author(s):  
Helen A. Kelly ◽  
Admire Chikandiwa ◽  
Bernard Sawadogo ◽  
Clare Gilham ◽  
Pamela Michelow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Visual Inspection ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Women Living With Hiv ◽  
Living With Hiv

Background Cervical cancer screening strategies using visual inspection or cytology may have suboptimal diagnostic accuracy for detection of precancer in women living with HIV (WLHIV). The optimal screen and screen–triage strategy, age to initiate, and frequency of screening for WLHIV remain unclear. This study evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of different cervical cancer strategies in WLHIV in Africa. Methods and findings WLHIV aged 25–50 years attending HIV treatment centres in Burkina Faso (BF) and South Africa (SA) from 5 December 2011 to 30 October 2012 were enrolled in a prospective evaluation study of visual inspection using acetic acid (VIA) or visual inspection using Lugol’s iodine (VILI), high-risk human papillomavirus DNA test (Hybrid Capture 2 [HC2] or careHPV), and cytology for histology-verified high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+) at baseline and endline, a median 16 months later. Among 1,238 women (BF: 615; SA: 623), median age was 36 and 34 years (p < 0.001), 28.6% and 49.6% ever had prior cervical cancer screening (p < 0.001), and 69.9% and 64.2% were taking ART at enrolment (p = 0.045) in BF and SA, respectively. CIN2+ prevalence was 5.8% and 22.4% in BF and SA (p < 0.001), respectively. VIA had low sensitivity for CIN2+ (44.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36.9%–52.7%) and CIN3+ (56.1%, 95% CI 43.3%–68.3%) in both countries, with specificity for ≤CIN1 of 78.7% (95% CI 76.0%–81.3%). HC2 had sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI 82.9%–93.2%) for CIN2+ and 86.4% (95% CI 75.7%–93.6%) for CIN3+. Specificity for ≤CIN1 was 55.4% (95% CI 52.2%–58.6%), and screen positivity was 51.3%. Specificity was higher with a restricted genotype (HPV16/18/31/33/35/45/52/58) approach (73.5%, 95% CI 70.6%–76.2%), with lower screen positivity (33.7%), although there was lower sensitivity for CIN3+ (77.3%, 95% CI 65.3%–86.7%). In BF, HC2 was more sensitive for CIN2+/CIN3+ compared to VIA/VILI (relative sensitivity for CIN2+ = 1.72, 95% CI 1.28–2.32; CIN3+: 1.18, 95% CI 0.94–1.49). Triage of HC2-positive women with VIA/VILI reduced the number of colposcopy referrals, but with loss in sensitivity for CIN2+ (58.1%) but not for CIN3+ (84.6%). In SA, cytology high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or greater (HSIL+) had best combination of sensitivity (CIN2+: 70.1%, 95% CI 61.3%–77.9%; CIN3+: 80.8%, 95% CI 67.5%–90.4%) and specificity (81.6%, 95% CI 77.6%–85.1%). HC2 had similar sensitivity for CIN3+ (83.0%, 95% CI 70.2%–91.9%) but lower specificity compared to HSIL+ (42.7%, 95% CI 38.4%–47.1%; relative specificity = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52–0.63), resulting in almost twice as many referrals. Compared to HC2, triage of HC2-positive women with HSIL+ resulted in a 40% reduction in colposcopy referrals but was associated with some loss in sensitivity. CIN2+ incidence over a median 16 months was highest among VIA baseline screen-negative women (2.2%, 95% CI 1.3%–3.7%) and women who were baseline double-negative with HC2 and VIA (2.1%, 95% CI 1.3%–3.5%) and lowest among HC2 baseline screen-negative women (0.5%, 95% CI 0.1%–1.8%). Limitations of our study are that WLHIV included in the study may not reflect a contemporary cohort of WLHIV initiating ART in the universal ART era and that we did not evaluate HPV tests available in study settings today. Conclusions In this cohort study among WLHIV in Africa, a human papillomavirus (HPV) test targeting 14 high-risk (HR) types had higher sensitivity to detect CIN2+ compared to visual inspection but had low specificity, although a restricted genotype approach targeting 8 HR types decreased the number of unnecessary colposcopy referrals. Cytology HSIL+ had optimal performance for CIN2+/CIN3+ detection in SA. Triage of HPV-positive women with HSIL+ maintained high specificity but with some loss in sensitivity compared to HC2 alone.

scholarly journals Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States: Is It Time?

2018 ◽  
Vol 142 (6) ◽  
pp. 688-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina B. Flanagan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Screening Guidelines

Context.— The most recent update to cervical cancer screening guidelines offers interim guidance on the use of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening, with algorithms for management of results. After decades of screening with pure cytology and a shorter time with adjunctive HPV or cotesting with Papanicolaou (Pap) test and HPV, this is a significant change to our screening methods. Objective.— To briefly review the history of cervical cancer screening, the evidence upon which these interim guidelines were based, the arguments for and against primary HPV testing, and the current state of the field. Data Sources.— Primary studies, review articles, and commentaries were reviewed. Conclusions.— While there is evidence both for and against primary HPV testing, there are a growing number of countries adopting the practice. It would be worthwhile to be informed and prepared for such a change in the United States as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document