Background:In Italy, cervical cancer screening programmes actively invite women aged 25–64 years. Programmes are hindered by low participation.Methods:A sample of non-responder women aged 35–64 years, belonging to three different programmes (in Rome, Florence and Teramo), was randomly split into four arms: two control groups received standard recall letters to perform either Pap-test (first group) or human papillomavirus (HPV) test (second group) at the clinic. A third arm was sent letters offering a self-sampler for HPV testing, to be requested by phone, whereas a fourth group was directly sent the self-samplers home.Results:Compliance with standard recall was 13.9% (N619). Offering HPV test at the clinic had a nonsignificant effect on compliance (N616, relative risk (RR)=1.08; 95% CI=0.82–1.41). Self-sampler at request had the poorest performance, 8.7% (N622, RR=0.62; 95% CI=0.45–0.86), whereas direct mailing of the self-sampler registered the highest compliance: 19.6% (N616, RR=1.41; 95% CI=1.10–1.82). This effect on compliance was observed only in urban areas, Florence and Rome (N438, RR=1.69; 95% CI=1.24–2.30), but not in Abruzzo (N178, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.61–1.50), a prevalently rural area.Conclusions:Mailing self-samplers to non-responders may increase compliance as compared with delivering standard recall letters. Nevertheless, effectiveness is context specific and the strategy costs should be carefully considered.

No abstract

Aim: In 2013, the Local Health Unit Roma 2 ex C screening laboratory introduced a new set of indicators for quality assurance. We compare 2 sets of indicators based on routine multiple readings (peer review) for their ability to identify problems in single-reader accuracy. Methods: All suspect slides were blindly reviewed by all the cytologists of the laboratory. The standard set of indicators includes interreader Cohen's kappa, positivity rate and atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance/squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-US/SIL) ratio. The new set included sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), positive predictive value (PPV) and percentage of positive high-risk (HR)-HPV cases among ASC-US. In order to estimate sensitivity and PPV, we considered all women for whom there was a consensus of negative cytology, negative HR-HPV test, negative colposcopy or negative histology true negative. Results: Kappa values ranged from 0.521 to 0.753, with narrow 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Positivity rate ranged from 73.9 to 85.7 and the ASC-US/SIL ratio from 0.61 to 0.81. Sensitivity for CIN2+ at the low-grade SIL threshold ranged from 85.8 to 94.2, PPV ranged from 14.8 to 19.4, and both had a broad 95% CI. Readers with low sensitivity did not show low kappa values. The percentage proportion of HR-HPV-positives (HR-HPV+) among ASC-US ranged from 39.9 to 43.8% with a narrow 95% CI. Conclusion: The proportion of HR-HPV+ among ASC-US cases is a powerful indicator to address in training.

No abstract