Abstract Purpose: Cervical cancer screening reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. In Rwanda, cervical cancer screening is conducted predominately at primary health care centers. However, a significant number of age-eligible women who have not undergone screening present at primary health care centers with cervical cancer. The aim of our paper is to understand barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening from providers' perspectives. Methods: We selected the ten top- and ten bottom-performing health centers for cervical cancer screening in the past five years within Rwanda. We identified three health care providers at each health center as key informants to be interviewed. A thematic analysis was conducted. Results: We interviewed 33 providers. Providers consistently reported barriers for women to attend cervical cancer screening included: 1) women not seeking cervical cancer screening service while asymptomatic; 2) never having given birth at a health facility; 3) too busy with daily responsibilities to seek care; 4) being unfamiliar with gynecological service procedures; and 5) feeling uncomfortable with undergoing a pelvic exam and exposing their genitals. Reported facilitators to screening women included, health education activities, and providing multiple health services at the health center Services, such as family planning and child vaccination that attract women, which makes it easier for health care providers to provide them with educational information and offer them screening. Conclusion: Health care providers reported patients with limited health-seeking behaviors as a barrier to cancer screening services but felt that educational sessions facilitated uptake among eligible women. Use of mass media to disseminate information on cervical cancer screening and prevention may encourage women to come to the clinic, at which time they may receive the education they need to undergo screening. Cervical cancer screening policies should evaluate and address existing health-seeking behaviors within their target population in order to achieve effective coverage. Citation Format: Charles Ingabire, Amanda Pierz, Josephine Gasana, Francine Umwiza, Laura Drown, Athanase Munyaneza, Lydia Businge, Gallican Kubwimana, Gad Murenzi, François Uwinkindi, Alma Adler, Philip Castle, Thomas C. Randall. “Women Are Reluctant to Make Long Journeys to Seek Screening Services While They Do Not Have Any Pain:” Providers' Experience on Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Health Care Centers in Rwanda [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Symposium on Global Cancer Research; Global Cancer Research and Control: Looking Back and Charting a Path Forward; 2021 Mar 10-11. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021;30(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 95.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the standard-of-care for cervical cancer screening globally. Urine is a promising alternative to collecting a cervical specimen during a pelvic exam for HPV testing. There are no studies to date of HPV testing of urine using the Xpert HPV test.We conducted a pilot study of 40 women; 30 women undergoing colposcopy because of a previous abnormality and 10 undergoing routine screening, to evaluate HPV detection in urine by the Xpert HPV test on the GeneXpert platform. Xpert HPV testing of urine was done according to the manufacturer's instructions for testing cervical specimens. These results were compared to a reference of combined results of 2 research HPV genotyping tests conducted on cervical specimens and to repeat Xpert HPV testing of urine.Analytic sensitivity and specificity of Xpert testing of urine for any high-risk HPV versus the cervical sample, categorized as HPV positive if at least 1 test was positive, were 64.3% (95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 42.1-76.1%) and 100% (97.5%CI = 71.5-100%), respectively. Analytic sensitivity and specificity of Xpert testing of urine for any high-risk HPV versus the cervical sample, categorized as positive if both tests were positive, were 66.7% (95%CI = 44.7-84.4%) and 86.7% (95%CI = 59.5-98.3%), respectively. Kappa values for first vs. second and first vs. third testing of urine by Xpert were 0.89 (95%CI = 0.79-1.00) and 0.90 (95%CI = 0.81-1.00), respectively.Given the call for global elimination of cervical cancer and widespread availability of GeneXpert, optimizing Xpert HPV testing of urine may be warranted.
<div>Abstract<p>Given that high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the necessary cause of virtually all cervical cancer, the clinical meaning of HPV-negative cervical precancer is unknown. We, therefore, conducted a literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar to identify English-language studies in which (i) HPV-negative and -positive, histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (CIN2+) were detected and (ii) summarized statistics or deidentified individual data were available to summarize proportions of biomarkers indicating risk of cancer. Nineteen studies including 3,089 (91.0%) HPV-positive and 307 (9.0%) HPV-negative CIN2+ were analyzed. HPV-positive CIN2+ (vs. HPV-negative CIN2+) was more likely to test positive for biomarkers linked to cancer risk: a study diagnosis of CIN3+ (vs. CIN2; 18 studies; 0.56 vs. 0.24; <i>P</i> < 0.001) preceding high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology (15 studies; 0.54 vs. 0.10; <i>P</i> < 0.001); and high-grade colposcopic impression (13 studies; 0.30 vs. 0.18; <i>P</i> = 0.03). HPV-negative CIN2+ was more likely to test positive for low-risk HPV genotypes than HPV-positive CIN2+ (<i>P</i> < 0.001). HPV-negative CIN2+ appears to have lower cancer risk than HPV-positive CIN2+. Clinical studies of human high-risk HPV testing for screening to prevent cervical cancer may refer samples of HPV test–negative women for disease ascertainment to correct verification bias in the estimates of clinical performance. However, verification bias adjustment of the clinical performance of HPV testing may overcorrect/underestimate its clinical performance to detect truly precancerous abnormalities.</p></div>
Abstract Background Women living with human immunodeficiency virus (WLWH), especially those living in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), are at increased risk of cervical cancer. The optimal cervical-cancer screening strategy for WLWH has not been determined. We therefore conducted a pilot study of screening methods in WLWH living in Limbe, Cameroon. Methods Five-hundred sixty-six WLWH, aged 25–59 years, were enrolled. After self-collecting a cervicovaginal specimen, they underwent a pelvic exam, during which a provider also collected a cervical specimen and visual inspection after acetic acid (VIA) was performed. Both self- and provider-collected specimens were tested for high-risk HPV by the Xpert HPV Test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), with the residual of the latter used for liquid-based cytology. Women testing HPV positive on either specimen and/or VIA positive were referred to colposcopy and biopsies. However, because of poor attendence for follow-up colposcopy for the screen positives due to civil strife and technical issues with biopsies, high-grade cytology and/or clinical diagnosis of cancer was used as the primary high-grade cervical abnormality endpoint. Clinical performances for high-grade cervical abnormality of HPV testing and VIA for screening WLWH, and the most carcinogenic HPV genotypes and/or VIA to triage high-risk HPV-positive WLWH, were evaluated. Results Four-hundred eighty-seven (86.0%) WLWH had results for HPV testing on both specimen, VIA, and cytology and were included in the analysis. Forty-nine (10.1%) had a high-grade cervical abnormality. HPV testing on provider- and self-collected specimens was more sensitive than VIA (95.9 and 91.8% vs. 43.8%, respectively, p < 0.01 for both comparisons) for identifying women with high-grade cervical abnormalities. HPV testing on provider- and self-collected specimens was less specific than VIA (57.5 and 51.6% vs. 89.7%, respectively, p < 0.01 for both comparisons) for identifying women with high-grade cervical abnormalities; HPV testing on provider-collected specimens was more specific than on self-collected specimens ( p < 0.01). Among HPV-positive women, HPV16/18/45 detection or VIA positivity had a sensitivity and positive predictive value of 73.5 and 29.0%, respectively, for provider-collected specimens and 68.8 and 22.9%, respectively, for self-collected specimens for high-grade cervical abnormalities. Conclusions HPV testing was more sensitive but less specific than VIA for detection of high-grade cervical abnormality in WLWH. Improved triage methods for HPV-positive WLWH are needed. Trial registration NCT04401670 (clinicaltrials.gov); retrospectively registered on May 26, 2020
Introduction: Like many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Cameroon has a high burden of cervical cancer and low availability and uptake of screening. Self-collection has the potential to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening among Cameroon women. This paper explores patient and community insights surrounding self-collection among women living with HIV and HIV[-] women as well as the barriers and facilitators to obtaining and utilizing self-collected specimens in cervical cancer screening programs. Materials and methods: We utilized an exploratory qualitative approach to obtain data through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews during data collection that took place from May to August 2018. A two-stage sampling strategy was used to select 80 women who participated in six focus group discussions and eight in-depth interviews. We utilized the socio-ecological framework to guide data analysis. Results: All participants indicated that self-sampling was an acceptable method of specimen collection and should be offered as an option for cervical cancer screening in Cameroon. Whereas, most women, regardless of HIV status, preferred the option for self-collection, barriers were identified, such as lack of education about self-collection procedure, being uncomfortable, embarrassed or in pain from the procedure, fear of consequences, perceived competence about ability to self-collect and privacy and confidentiality. We also found that HIV-related stigma was a major concern for HIV[-] women that could prevent them from accessing cervical cancer screening integrated within HIV treatment settings. Conclusions: To promote self-collection for cervical cancer screening, educational interventions with both patients and providers are necessary to increase knowledge of and overall willingness to utilize self-collection. Further research is recommended to examine the role of stigma for HIV[-] women in screening locations associated with HIV treatment.
Abstract Most cervical cancers occur in women who do not participate in cervical-cancer screening. We therefore evaluated adherence to screening for clinic-based Pap testing, self-collected sampling for HPV testing, and choice of the 2 among 483 unscreened/underscreened women in Brazil. Three public Basic Health Units (BHU) were each randomly assigned to three arms: (i) Pap testing at the BHU (N = 160), (ii) “Self&HPV” (self-collection for HPV testing) (N = 161), and (iii) “Choice” between self-collection and HPV testing and Pap test at the local BHU (N = 162). The theory-based (PEN-3 and Health Belief Model) intervention in all three arms was implemented by trained Community Health Workers (CHW) at participants’ home. With the first invitation, 60.0% in the Pap arm, 95.1% [154 of 161 (95.7%) who selected Self&HPV and 0 of 1 (0.0%) who selected Pap] in the Choice arm, and 100% in the Self&HPV arm completed screening. By the second invitation to choose a method of screening in the Choice arm, 100% completed screening. After three invitations, 75.0% of women in the Pap arm completed screening. Adherence to screening differed by study arm (P < 0.001). In conclusion, Self&HPV testing is a promising strategy for unscreened/underscreened women who are recalcitrant or unable to undergo clinic-based cervical screening to complement the screening modality used in the general population. In Brazil, where Pap testing is recommended for routine cervical screening, training CHWs in behavior change strategies and offering Self&HPV or Choice could greatly improve screening population coverage by reaching the unscreened/underscreened populations.
'%3e%3cg id='b'%3e%3cpath id='a' fill='%23E5BE01' d='M116.1 0 35.692 4.699l76.452 25.35L33.26 13.777l67.286 44.273L28.56 21.915l53.534 60.18-60.18-53.534 36.135 71.985L13.777 33.26l16.272 78.884-25.35-76.452L0 116.1-1-1z'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='scale(1 -1)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' transform='scale(-1 1)'/%3e%3ccircle r='34.3' fill='%23E5BE01' stroke='%2300A1DE' stroke-width='3.4'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3ccircle r='20' fill='%23008'/%3e%3ccircle r='17.5' fill='%23fff'/%3e%3ccircle r='3.5' fill='%23008'/%3e%3cg id='d'%3e%3cg id='c'%3e%3cg id='b'%3e%3cg id='a' fill='%23008'%3e%3ccircle r='.875' transform='rotate(7.5 -8.75 133.5)'/%3e%3cpath d='M0 17.5.6 7 0 2l-.6 5L0 17.5z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(15)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' transform='rotate(30)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23c' transform='rotate(60)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' transform='rotate(120)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' transform='rotate(-120)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)