Lim Anita W W, Landy Rebecca, Rigney Jane, North Bernard, Sasieni Peter D
Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
EClinicalMedicine. 2025 Jul 28;86:103357. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103357. eCollection 2025 Aug.
Offering self-sampling to non-attenders increases cervical screening uptake, but the optimal approach for offering kits remains unclear.
Randomised controlled trial offering self-sampling. 13 GP (general practitioner) practices were randomised (1:1) to flagging women ≥6-months overdue cervical screening so that they could be offered a self-sampling kit if they attended their GP for any reason (N = 6080 women), or no opportunistic offer (N = 6577 women). Additionally, never screened women and those overdue screening by 15- or 27-months were individually randomised (2:1:1) to usual care (no systematic offer), a letter inviting them to order a kit (letter), or being sent a self-sampling kit (kit). The study ran from April 2019 to March 2020. The primary outcome was returning a self-sampling kit, and the secondary outcome was any cervical screening. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) is 23940319.
In opportunistic offer practices, 342 (5.6%) returned a self-sample compared with 1.9% (123/6577) in practices not randomised to opportunistic offering (adjusted risk difference 4.4% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.0%)). Half (234/449) of women offered self-sampling opportunistically returned a sample. Among 6400 women individually randomised to no systematic offer vs letter vs kit, 1.7% (54/3197), 4.8% (76/1587; difference relative to no systematic offer 3.1% 95% CI: 2.0-4.2%) and 12.3% (198/1616; difference relative to no systematic offer 10.5%, 95% CI: 8.9-12.2%), returned a self-sample (the primary outcome), respectively. These observed differences were maintained in the secondary outcome, any cervical screening. No adverse effects were reported.
In-person offers were most effective, but only a small proportion of non-attenders received such an offer. Postal invitations without a kit were less effective. The secondary outcome suggests those screened by self-sampling would not have been screened otherwise and contribute to increased screening coverage.
Cancer Research UKC8162/A16892 to PS (consumables), C8162/A29083 to PS (JR, AL), C8162/A25356 to PS (BN); National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID: 36156 (AL); Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (RL).
为未按时参加筛查者提供自我采样可提高宫颈癌筛查的参与率,但提供检测试剂盒的最佳方式仍不明确。
开展一项提供自我采样的随机对照试验。13家全科医生(GP)诊所被随机分为两组(1:1),一组标记出宫颈筛查逾期≥6个月的女性,以便她们因任何原因就诊时能获得自我采样试剂盒(N = 6080名女性),另一组则不进行机会性提供(N = 6577名女性)。此外,从未接受过筛查以及筛查逾期15个月或27个月的女性被单独随机分为三组(2:1:1),分别接受常规护理(无系统提供)、收到邀请订购试剂盒的信件(信件组)或收到自我采样试剂盒(试剂盒组)。该研究于2019年4月至2020年3月进行。主要结局是返还自我采样试剂盒,次要结局是进行任何宫颈癌筛查。国际标准随机对照试验编号(ISRCTN)为23940319。
在机会性提供组的诊所中,342名(5.6%)女性返还了自我采样样本,而未被随机分配到机会性提供组的诊所中这一比例为1.9%(123/6577)(调整后风险差异为4.4%(95%置信区间:2.8% - 6.0%))。机会性获得自我采样的女性中有一半(234/449)返还了样本。在6400名被单独随机分为无系统提供组、信件组和试剂盒组的女性中,返还自我采样样本(主要结局)的比例分别为1.7%(54/3197)、4.8%(76/1587;相对于无系统提供组的差异为3.1%,95%置信区间:2.0 - 4.2%)和12.3%(198/1616;相对于无系统提供组的差异为10.5%,95%置信区间:8.9 - 12.2%)。在次要结局即任何宫颈癌筛查中,观察到的这些差异依然存在。未报告有不良反应。
当面提供最为有效,但只有一小部分未按时参加筛查者获得了这种机会。没有试剂盒的邮寄邀请效果较差。次要结局表明,通过自我采样进行筛查的人若不采用这种方式本不会接受筛查,这有助于提高筛查覆盖率。
英国癌症研究中心为PS提供资金C8162/A16892(耗材);为PS提供资金C8162/A29083(JR、AL);为PS提供资金C8162/A25356(BN);国家卫生研究院临床研究网络(NIHR CRN)中央项目管理系统(CPMS)编号:36156(AL);国家癌症研究所癌症流行病学与遗传学部门内部研究项目(RL)。