Sociodemographic Characteristics and Screening Outcomes of Women Preferring Self-Sampling in the Dutch Cervical Cancer Screening Programme: A Population-Based Study

Clare A. Aitken, Federica Inturrisi, Sylvia Kaljouw, Daan Nieboer, Albert G. Siebers, Willem J.G. Melchers, Adriaan J.C. van den Brule, Anco Molijn, John W.J. Hinrichs, Hubert G.M. Niesters, Folkert J. van Kemenade, Johannes Berkhof, Inge M.C.M. de Kok*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)
18 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, lower high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) positivity but higher cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection were found in self-collected compared with clinician-collected samples. To investigate the possible reason for these differences, we compared sociodemographic and screening characteristics of women and related these to screening outcomes. METHODS: We extracted data from PALGA on all primary hrHPV screens and associated follow-up tests for 857,866 screened women, invited in 2017 and 2018. We linked these data with sociodemographic data from Statistics Netherlands. Logistic regression was performed for hrHPV positivity and CIN 2+/3+ detection. RESULTS: Out of the 857,866 women, 6.8% chose to use a self-sampling device. A higher proportion of self-sampling users was ages 30 to 35 years, was not previously screened, was living in a one-person household, or was the breadwinner in the household. After adjustment for these factors self-sampling had lower hrHPV positivity (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68)) as compared with clinician-collected sampling, as well as lower odds of CIN 2+ (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) and CIN 3+ (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95) detection. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that the observed differences between the two sampling methods are not only related to sociodemographic differences, but related to differences in screening test accuracy and/or background risk. IMPACT: Self-sampling can be used for targeting underscreened women, as a more convenient screening tool. Further investigation is required to evaluate how to implement self-sampling, when it is used as a primary instrument in routine screening. See related commentary by Arbyn et al., p. 159.

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Sociodemographic Characteristics and Screening Outcomes of Women Preferring Self-Sampling in the Dutch Cervical Cancer Screening Programme: A Population-Based Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this