Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: An interview study with women in England

Objectives: The introduction of primary HPV testing in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme in England means the screening interval for 25-49-year-olds can be extended from 3 to 5 years. We explored womens responses to the proposed interval extension. Methods: We conducted semi-structured phone/video interviews with 22 women aged 25-49 years. Participants were selected to vary in age, socioeconomics, and screening history. We explored attitudes to the current 3-year interval, then acceptability of a 5-year interval. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. Results: Attitudes to the current 3-year interval varied; some wanted more frequent screening, believing cancer develops quickly. Some participants worried about the proposed change; others trusted it was evidence-based. Frequent questions concerned the rationale and safety of longer intervals, speed of cancer development, the possibility of HPV being missed or cell changes occurring between screens. Many participants felt reassured when the interval change was explained alongside the move to HPV primary screening, of which most had previously been unaware. Conclusions: Communication of the interval change should be done in the context of broader information about HPV primary screening, emphasising that people who test negative for HPV are at lower risk of cell changes so can safely be screened every 5 years. The long time needed for HPV to develop into cervical cancer provides reassurance about safety, but it is important to be transparent that no screening test is perfect.

Rates of cervical screening amongst females admitted to the psychiatric inpatient hospital in Jersey, Channel Islands

AimsPatients with enduring mental health conditions are known to have higher morbidity and mortality rates than the general population. It has been identified that this is due to lifestyle risk factors, medication side effects and barriers to receiving physical health care. National screening programmes; including cervical screening, save lives, however depends upon patient engagement. We hypothesised that due to the factors stated above, psychiatric inpatients are more at risk of cervical cancer and less likely to engage in cervical screening. This study aimed to assess the cervical screening history of patients discharged from the psychiatric inpatient hospital in Jersey, Channel Islands.MethodUsing computerised laboratory records, the cervical smear history of female patients discharged from the paychiatric inpatient hospital was analysed. Inclusion criteria were: being aged between 25–64 years and having a cervix in situ. Exclusion criteria were total hysterectomy. Cervical smear history was compared to the national guidelines of having routine smears every 3 years for women aged 25–49 and every 5 years for women aged between 50–64 years.ResultIn the period 1 December 2019–1 December 2020 there were 45 females discharged from the psychiatric inpatient hospital that fit the inclusion criteria. 26 (58%) were up to date with their cervical smears in accordance with national guidelines. 12 (27%) had previously had a smear but were not up to date. 19 smears were done at the GP, 13 at the sexual health clinic and 6 at gynaecology clinic. 7 (16%) had never had a cervical smear. Of these 7 patients it was identified that one patient was in a same sex relationship and one was a victim of sexual assault.Conclusion58% of women discharged from the psychiatric inpatient hospital were up to date with their smears. This is down from the 72.2% coverage rate of the general population. Although this was a small study, it highlights that engagement with cervical screening amongst psychiatric inpatients is less than the general population. Admission presents a crucial contact between patients and healthcare services and this could be utilised to engage patients in physical health screening. Cervical screening history could be checked upon admission and patients not adequately screened, assisted to make an appointment on discharge.

Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in an organized screening program: the “ItaVision” Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective Endocuff Vision (EV, Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, England) has shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicentre study assessed possible benefits and harms of implementing EV in a Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)-based screening program. Design Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT+ test were randomised 1:1 to receive colonoscopy with EV or standard colonoscopy, stratified by gender, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR, Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists’ ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time (WT), and adverse events (AE). Results Overall, 1,864 patients were enrolled in 13 centres. After exclusions, 1,813 (males: 53.7%; mean age: 60.1 years) were randomised, 908 in the EV arm and 905 in the control. ADR was significantly higher in the EV arm (47.8% vs 40.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 1.06-1.30) with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists’ ADR, only low detectors (ADR< 33.3%) showed a statistically significant ADR increase (EV = 41.1%, 95%CI 35.7-46.7 vs control = 26%, 95%CI 21.3-31.4 . AADR (24.8% vs 20.5%, RR 1.21; 95%CI 1.02-1.43) and APC (0.94 vs. 0.77, p=0.001) were higher in the EV arm. WT and AE were similar between arms. Conclusion EV increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program, supporting a complete exploration of colonic mucosa. Its utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR. ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03612674