Participation in interventions and recommended follow-up for non-attendees in cervical cancer screening -taking the women's own preferred test method into account-A Swedish randomised controlled trial.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:Cervical cancer is a highly preventable disease. To not attend an organized cervical cancer screening program increases the risk for cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer. The aim was to investigate the participation rate in three different intervention groups for non- attendees in the Swedish national program for cervical screening. The participation in the recommended follow up, and the histology found were also examined. METHOD:Population-based randomized control trial. It included10,614 women that had not participated in the cervical cancer screening programme during the last six years (ages 30-49) and the last eight years (ages 50-64) were randomised 1:1:1(telephone call from a midwife (offering the choice between a visit for a pap smear or an HPV self-sampling test); an HPV self-sampling test only; or the routine procedure with a yearly invitation). RESULTS:In the intention to treat analysis the participation rates were 25.5% (N = 803/3146) vs 34.1% (N = 1047/3068) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p<0.001) for telephone, HPV self-test and control groups respectively. In the by protocol analysis including women that answered the phone call the participation rates were 31.7% (N = 565/1784) vs 26.1% (N = 788/3002) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p<0.001) for telephone, HPV self-test and control groups. The corresponding results in the by protocol analysis including women that did not answer the phone call was 19.7% (N = 565/2870) vs 26.1% (N = 788/3002) and 7.0% (N = 250/3538) (p< 0.001). The majority of the women 63,4% (1131/1784) who answered the telephone wanted to participate either by booking a visit for pap smear (38,5%) or to be sent a HPV self- sampling test (24,9%) (p<0.001). Women who chose an HPV self-test were older and gave anxiety/ fear as a reason to decline participation, and they were also less likely to participate in the follow-up if found to be HPV-positive compared to the women who chose a Pap smear. The attendance to the recommended follow-up after abnormality was in total 87%. The non-attendees had a three or eight times higher risk of having a cytology result of HSIL or suspected SCC respectively, in the index sample compared to women screened as recommended (OR 3.3 CI 95% 1.9-5.2, OR 8.6 CI 1.6-30). A total of ten SCC and one adenocarcinoma were found in the histopathology results from the non-attendee group with a study intervention, while there was only one SCC in the non-attendee group without any study intervention (p = 0.02, OR 8.1 CI 95% 1.2-350). CONCLUSIONS:Our study suggests, according to intention to treat analysis, that the best intervention to get as many non-attendees as possible to participate is to send an HPV self-sampling test together with an invitation letter. Almost 90% of women in the study with an abnormal index sample attended follow-up. This is high enough to indicate that interventions to increase the participation among non-attendees are meaningful. REGISTRY:International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registration number ISRCTN78719765.