Community-randomised controlled trial embedded in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study: human papillomavirus self-sampling versus Papanicolaou cytology

• Published in: BMJ Open
• Main Authors: Zehbe, Ingeborg, Jackson, Robert, Wood, Brianne, Weaver, Bruce, Escott, Nicholas, Severini, Alberto, Krajden, Mel, Bishop, Lisa, Morrisseau, Kyla, Ogilvie, Gina, Burchell, Ann N, Little, Julian
• Other Authors: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: BMJ 2016
• Subjects: Canada; anishina*; First Nations
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011754; https://syndication.highwire.org/content/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011754

Objectives The incidence of cervical cancer is up to 20-fold higher among First Nations women in Canada than the general population, probably due to lower participation in screening. Offering human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in place of Papanicolaou (Pap) testing may eventually increase screening participation and reduce cervical cancer rates in this population. Design A community-randomised controlled screening trial. Setting First Nations communities in Northwest Ontario, Canada. Participants Women aged between 25 and 69, living in Robinson Superior Treaty First Nations. The community was the unit of randomisation. Interventions Women were asked to complete a questionnaire and have screening by HPV self-sampling (arm A) or Pap testing (arm B). Primary outcome measures The number of women who participated in cervical screening. Randomisation Community clusters were randomised to include approximately equivalent numbers of women in each arm. Results 6 communities were randomised to arm A and 5 to arm B. One community withdrew, leaving 5 communities in each group (834 eligible women). Participation was <25%. Using clustered intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, initial and cumulative averaged uptakes in arm A were 1.4-fold (20% vs 14.3%, p=0.628) and 1.3-fold (20.6% vs 16%, p=0.694) higher compared to arm B, respectively. Corresponding per protocol (PP) analysis indicates 2.2-fold (22.9% vs 10.6%, p=0.305) and 1.6-fold (22.9% vs 14.1%, p=0.448) higher uptakes in arm A compared to arm B. Screening uptake varied between communities (range 0–62.1%). Among women who completed a questionnaire (18.3% in arm A, 21.7% in arm B), the screening uptake was 1.8-fold (ITT; p=0.1132) or 3-fold (PP; p<0.01) higher in arm A versus arm B. Conclusions Pap and HPV self-sampling were compared in a marginalised, Canadian population. Results indicated a preference for self-sampling. More research on how to reach underscreened Indigenous women is necessary. Trial registration number ISRCTN84617261.