Offering self-sampling to non-attendees of organized primary HPV screening: When do harms outweigh the benefits?

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling might be a promising tool to increase effectiveness of primary HPV screening programs when offered to non-attendees. However, effectiveness could decrease if regular attendees "switch" to self-sampling, because self-sampling test characteristics may be inferior. We examined under which conditions the harms would outweigh the benefits. Methods: The MISCAN-cervix model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and costs of offering HPVself-sampling to non-attendees. Wevaried the relative CIN2⁺ sensitivity and specificity (self-sampling vs. regular sampling), extra attendance, risk of extra attendees, and the switching percentage. Results: Without switching, offering self-sampling is (cost-) effective under every studied condition. If the attendance due to self-sampling increases by ≥6 percentage points, higher primary background risk women (unscreened women who will never attend regular screening) attend and the relative CIN2⁺ sensitivity and specificity are ≥0.95; it is (cost-)effective to offer self-sampling to non-attendees, even if all regular attendees switch. If the relative sensitivity decreases to 0.90 combined with either a 3 percentage points extra attendance or the absence of higher primary background risk women, QALYs are lost when more than 30% to 20% of the regular attendees switch. Conclusions: Offering self-sampling will gain health effects if the relative CIN2⁺ sensitivity is ≥0.95, unscreened attendees are recruited, and the total attendance increases by ≥6 percentage points. Otherwise, switching of regular attendees may decrease the total effectiveness of the program. Impact: Self-sampling needs to be implemented with great care and advantages of office-based sampling need to be emphasized to prevent switching.

• View at Publisher
• View at Scopus