Dataset Information

Home-based self-sampling vs clinician sampling for anal precancer screening: The Prevent Anal Cancer Self-Swab Study.

ABSTRACT: Sexual minority men are at increased risk for anal squamous cell carcinoma. Our objective was to compare screening engagement among individuals randomized to self-collect an anal canal specimen at home or to attend a clinic appointment. Specimen adequacy was then assessed for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA genotyping. A randomized trial recruited cisgendered sexual minority men and transgender people in the community and assigned them to use a home-based self-collection swabbing kit or attend a clinic-based swabbing. Swabs were sent for HPV genotyping. The proportions of participants completing screening in each study arm and the adequacy of their specimens for HPV genotyping were assessed. Relative risks were estimated for factors associated with screening. A total of 240 individuals were randomized. Age (median, 46 years) and HIV status (27.1% living with HIV) did not differ by study arm. A total of 89.2% and 74.2% of home-arm and clinic-arm individuals returned the swab, respectively (P = .003), difference between groups, 15.0% (95% CI 5.4%-24.6%). Among black individuals, 96.2% and 63.2% in the home and clinic arms screened (P = .006). Among individuals with HIV, 89.5% and 51.9% in the home and clinic arms screened (P < .001). Self-collected swabs and clinician-collected swabs were comparable in adequacy for HPV genotyping (96.3% and 93.3%, respectively). People at highest risk for anal cancer may be more likely to screen if they are able to self-collect swabs at home rather than attend a clinic.

SUBMITTER: Nyitray AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10330574 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Home-based self-sampling vs clinician sampling for anal precancer screening: The Prevent Anal Cancer Self-Swab Study.

Nyitray Alan G AG Nitkowski Jenna J McAuliffe Timothy L TL Brzezinski Bridgett B Swartz Michael D MD Fernandez María E ME Deshmukh Ashish A AA Ridolfi Timothy J TJ Lundeen Sarah J SJ Cockerham Leslie L Wenten Dave D Petroll Andrew A Hilgeman Brian B Smith Jennifer S JS Chiao Elizabeth Y EY Giuliano Anna R AR Schick Vanessa V

International journal of cancer 20230509 4

Sexual minority men are at increased risk for anal squamous cell carcinoma. Our objective was to compare screening engagement among individuals randomized to self-collect an anal canal specimen at home or to attend a clinic appointment. Specimen adequacy was then assessed for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA genotyping. A randomized trial recruited cisgendered sexual minority men and transgender people in the community and assigned them to use a home-based self-collection swabbing kit or attend a ...[more]

PMID: 37158105

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSquamous cell carcinoma of the anus is a common cancer among sexual minority men, especially HIV-positive sexual minority men; however, there is no evidenced-based national screening protocol for detection of anal precancers. Our objective is to determine compliance with annual anal canal self-sampling or clinician-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective, randomised, two-arm clinical study to evaluate compliance with annual home-based versus clinic-based HPV DNA screening of anal canal exfoliated cells. The setting is primary care community-based clinics. Recruitment is ongoing for 400 HIV-positive and HIV-negative sexual minority men and transgender persons, aged >25 years, English or Spanish speaking, no current use of anticoagulants other than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and no prior diagnosis of anal cancer. Participants are randomised to either receive a swab in the mail for home-based collection of an anal canal specimen at 0 and 12 months (arm 1) or attend a clinic for clinician collection of an anal canal specimen at 0 and 12 months (arm 2). Persons will receive clinic-based Digital Anal Rectal Examinations and high-resolution anoscopy-directed biopsy to assess precancerous lesions, stratified by study arm. Anal exfoliated cells collected in the study are assessed for high-risk HPV persistence and host/viral methylation. The primary analysis will use the intention-to-treat principle to compare the proportion of those who comply with 0-month and 12-month sampling in the home-based and clinic-based arms. The a priori hypothesis is that a majority of persons will comply with annual screening with increased compliance among persons in the home-based arm versus clinic-based arm.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Medical College of Wisconsin Human Protections Committee. Results will be disseminated to communities where recruitment occurred and through peer-reviewed literature and conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03489707.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.DesignCost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model.SettingEngland.ParticipantsA cohort of 10 000 women aged 25-65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).MethodsThe model was based on the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year cycle: routine screening (year 1) and recall screening (years 2/3). Parameter inputs were informed using published studies, NHSCSP reports and input from experts and manufacturers. Costs were from 2020/2021, British pound sterling (£).InterventionsThree sampling strategies were implemented: (1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, (2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine, (3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved mailing women a sampling kit.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens and cost per complete screen.Secondary outcomesnumber of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios.ResultsIn the base case, the average cost per complete screen was £56.81 for clinician-collected cervical sampling, £38.57 for FV urine self-sampling and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal) per year.ConclusionSelf-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women.

Project description:BackgroundThe increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays.MethodsThe hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures.FindingsWe included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00).ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who refuse a clinical examination, self-collected screening would be a good alternative. We recommend that guidelines on how to self-collect gonorrhea and chlamydia urine, vaginal, rectal and pharyngeal specimens be published.

Project description:ImportanceHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling addresses barriers to cervical cancer screening, and mailed self-sampling kits have been reported to increase screening uptake. International research suggests mailed kits are cost-effective in certain settings. However, the cost-effectiveness of mailing HPV self-sampling kits for increasing screening uptake has not been evaluated in the US.ObjectiveTo conduct an economic evaluation of a mailed HPV self-sampling intervention among underscreened women enrolled in an integrated US health care system.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of results from a randomized clinical trial of 19 851 women aged 30 to 64 years enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), a US-based integrated health care system. Women were identified through electronic medical records, and eligible participants were enrolled in a health plan for at least 3 years and 5 months, had a primary care clinician, had not received a Papanicolaou test for at least 3 years and 5 months, and had not received a hysterectomy. Enrollment occurred from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 25, 2018. The current economic evaluation was conducted between August 2, 2021, and July 30, 2022. Intervention delivery costs were calculated from both the KPWA and Medicare perspectives and were based on either wellness visit or Papanicolaou test-only visit costs.InterventionParticipants in the control group received usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc outreach for screening. Participants in the intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.Main outcome and measuresThe primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost (intervention group minus control group) divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening (intervention group minus control group) within 6 months of randomization.ResultsAmong 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years; 76.7% White), 9960 were randomized to the intervention group, and 9891 were randomized to the control group. Baseline ICERs ranged from $85.84 (95% CI, $85.68-$85.99) using KPWA wellness visits as the cost basis to $146.29 (95% CI, $146.20-$146.38) using Medicare Papanicolaou test-only visits as the cost source. Subgroups of participants aged 50 to 64 years and participants most recently overdue for screening achieved cost-effectiveness at lower levels of willingness to pay for an additional completed screening than other subgroups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, mailing HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening was cost-effective for increased screening uptake relative to usual care. These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates among eligible women in US health care systems.

Project description:Background & aimWomen with HIV/HPV coinfection and cervical lesions are at increased risk of developing HPV related anal cancer. Self-collection of anal swabs may facilitate HPV molecular testing in anal cancer screening, especially in high-risk groups, and yet it is not adequately studied. We evaluated level of agreement between self-collected anal swabs (SCAS) and clinician-collected anal swabs (CCAS) when used for HPV genotyping. We also described the anal HPV genotype distribution and HIV/HPV coinfection.MethodsWe performed a cross sectional study with participants from a visual-inspection-with-acetic-acid and cervicography (VIAC) clinic, in Harare, Zimbabwe. In a clinic setting, the women aged ≥18 years provided anal swabs in duplicate; first CCAS and then SCAS immediately after. HPV detection and genotyping were performed using next generation amplicon sequencing of a 450bp region of the HPV L1 gene. Level of agreement of HPV genotypes between CCAS and SCAS was calculated using the kappa statistic. McNemar tests were used to evaluate agreement in the proportion of genotypes detected by either method.ResultsThree-hundred women provided 600 samples for HPV genotyping. HPV genotypes were detected in 25% of SCAS and in 22% of CCAS. The most common genotypes with CCAS were HPV52, HPV62 and HPV70 and with SCAS were HPV62, HPV44, HPV52, HPV53 and HPV68. Total HPV genotypes detected in CCAS were more than those detected in SCAS, 32 versus 27. The agreement of HPV genotypes between the two methods was 0.55 in kappa value (k). The test of proportions using McNemar gave a Chi-square value of 0.75 (p = 0.39). Multiple HPV infections were detected in 28/75 and 29/67 women for CCAS and SCAS respectively.ConclusionsSCAS and CCAS anal swabs showed moderate agreement, with no statistically significant difference in the proportion of genotypes detected by either methods. Although the differences between the two methods were not statistically significant, CCAS detected more HPV genotypes than SCAS and more HPV infections were detected in SCAS than in CCAS. Our data suggest that self-collected anal swabs can be used as an alternative to clinician-collected anal swabs for HPV genotyping.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization has set ambitious goals to eliminate cervical cancer, necessitating evidence on increasing coverage and access to screening and treatment in high-burden areas. We implemented a pilot program to assess the feasibility of obtaining self-collected specimens for high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) testing in Nzulezo stilt village, a hard-to-reach community in Ghana, and inviting only hr-HPV-positive women to a central location for colposcopy and possible treatment. Subsequently, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence of hr-HPV infection and cervical lesions among the women and to explore factors potentially associated with hr-HPV infection among them.MethodsThis pilot community-based cross-sectional study utilized data from screening sessions held from 2 to 20 November 2021 with specimens collected by participants using Evalyn brushes. HPV DNA testing was performed using the Sansure MA-6000 platform, while visual inspection utilized the Enhanced Visual Assessment (EVA) mobile colposcope. Univariate and multivariable nominal logistic regression was employed to explore factors associated with hr-HPV positivity.ResultsAmong 100 women screened (mean age, 43.6 ± 14.5 years), the overall hr-HPV prevalence rate was 39.0% (95% CI, 29.4-49.3). The prevalence rates of hr-HPV genotypes were stratified as follows: HPV16-8.0% (95% CI, 3.5-15.2), HPV18-5.0% (95% CI, 1.6-11.2), and other genotype(s) - 31.0% (95% CI, 22.1-41.0). Single-genotype infections with HPV16 and HPV18 were found in 4.0% (95% CI, 1.1-9.9) and 3.0% (95% CI, 0.6-8.5) of women, respectively. Mixed infections were observed in 1.0% (95% CI, 0.0-5.4) for HPV16 + 18, 3.0% (95% CI, 0.6-8.5) for HPV16 + other type(s), and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.0-5.4) for HPV18 + other type(s). The prevalence of cervical lesions among hr-HPV-positive women screened via colposcopy was 11.4% (95% CI, 3.2-26.7). In the multivariable model, reliance on other sources for medical bill payment was associated with hr-HPV infection (aOR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.93), whereas age was not (aOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.05).ConclusionsA high hr-HPV infection prevalence was recorded among the women. Utilizing technologies such as self-sampling, HPV DNA testing, and mobile colposcopy enables screening and treatment in remote and hard-to-reach communities where access to cervical cancer screening and treatment would otherwise be limited. Further research is warranted to assess the value and scalability of this approach in similar remote areas and its potential implementation in future programs.

Dataset Information

Home-based self-sampling vs clinician sampling for anal precancer screening: The Prevent Anal Cancer Self-Swab Study.

Publications

Home-based self-sampling vs clinician sampling for anal precancer screening: The Prevent Anal Cancer Self-Swab Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets