
Home-Based Cervical Cancer Screening Kits Show Promise
Although screening and follow-up rates were lower than expected in this trial, the option of testing for HPV at home may prove to be a game-changer.
Cervical cancer almost always can be prevented if women get screened for human papillomavirus (HPV). Unfortunately, too many women skip the recommended screenings, which is when cervical abnormalities typically are caught; half of all cervical cancers are found in women who have not been adequately screened for it. In an effort to determine whether
The investigators, from the University of Washington and Kaiser Permanente, both in Seattle, used electronic medical records to identify women between ages 30 and 64 years who had Kaiser Permanente health insurance for more than 3 years, had a primary healthcare provider, had not had a hysterectomy, and had no record of a recent Papanicolaou test (Pap smear). Nearly 20,000 women were enrolled in the study between February 2014 and August 2016. Half were randomly assigned to the standard of care study arm, which meant reminders to go to a clinic for screening, and half were assigned to the intervention arm, which entailed receiving screening reminders plus an at-home screening kit.
The primary outcomes of the study, which was published in
Overall, the mailed test kits significantly increased the rate of HPV screening: 26% of women who received 1 either used it and returned it or saw their health care provider for in-office testing, while just 17% of women in the standard of care group got screened.
This initial screening resulted in 12 women in the intervention group who had abnormal results, which call for repeat testing or colposcopy—a procedure that involves closely examining the cervix, vagina and vulva for evidence of disease—compared with 8 women in the control arm. However, the number of cervical precancers diagnosed in the 2 groups was similar.
“When we designed the trial, we thought that the increase in screening with mailed HPV kits would be even higher than we observed,” Rachel L. Winer, PhD, a professor in the department of epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health, and an author of the study, told Contagion®. “This is 1 reason why we think there was not a significant increase in detection of precancers in the intervention group versus the control group. Cervical precancers are not very common, so we would have needed a larger difference in screening between the 2 groups in order to see a statistically significant difference in the number of precancers detected.”
In an invited
Part of the problem, according to Winer, is the oft-changing clinical guidelines for cervical cancer screening, which in 2018 evolved to include
Newsletter
Stay ahead of emerging infectious disease threats with expert insights and breaking research. Subscribe now to get updates delivered straight to your inbox.