We have developed a new set of information brochures which appear to serve the purpose of providing adequate information, without causing patients undue anxiety.

IntroductionWe evaluated colposcopy in the routine diagnostic workup of women with abnormal cervical cytology, as well as the diagnostic value of endocervical curettage material and biopsies taken from colposcopy‐positive and colposcopy‐negative quadrants of the cervix.Material and methodsThis cross‐sectional study included 297 nonpregnant women with abnormal cervical cytology and no prior treatment for cervical dysplasia or cancer. All women underwent gynecological examination, colposcopy, endocervical curettage, and had cervical biopsies taken. Colposcopy was considered satisfactory if the squamocolumnar junction was fully visible, and biopsies were taken from all four quadrants of the cervix, regardless of colposcopy results.ResultsIn all, 130 of the women in our study had satisfactory colposcopy results and were diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), 61% via a colposcopy‐positive biopsy and 39% via a colposcopy‐negative biopsy. Eighty‐seven of them had positive colposcopy results, but CIN2+ was histologically verified from colposcopy‐positive biopsies in 91% (n = 79) and from colposcopy‐negative biopsies in 9% (n = 8). The remaining 43 women with CIN2+ had negative colposcopy findings, so their diagnosis was verified in colposcopy‐negative biopsies. The sensitivity of colposcopy alone to detect CIN2+ was 61% (95% CI 52–69).ConclusionsIn the present study, colposcopy was not a stand‐alone diagnostic method. Colposcopy‐negative biopsies had a clear additive value, identifying a substantial proportion of women with both positive and negative colposcopy results with treatment‐worthy cervical dysplasia. Endocervical curettage material had little diagnostic value in this study.

Anyplex II HPV28 (`Anyplex`) is a semi-quantitative DNA PCR assay divided into set A, comprising 14 high risk (hr)HPV types; and set B, comprising 5 possibly hrHPV types and 9 low risk (lr)HPV types. We compared the ability of Anyplex to that of Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and PreTect HPV-Proofer (`Proofer`) to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse (CIN2+) by HPV types and viral load. This cross-sectional study included 296 women referred to colposcopy with abnormal cervical cytology and/or persistent HPV infection. CIN2+ was identified in 175/296 women. Liquid based cytology samples were used to perform HPV testing. The sensitivity of Anyplex to detect CIN2+ was 98.9% (95% CI 95.9–99.9) and specificity 43.0% (95% CI 34.0–52.3). Restricting to medium and high viral loads in Anyplex set A, sensitivity and specificity were 97.1% (95% CI 93.5–99.1) and 59.5% (95% CI 50.2–68.3) with positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) 77.6% and 93.5%, respectively, comparable to HC2. Restricting Anyplex to the hrHPV types in Proofer, HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45, sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ were 85.1% (95% CI 79.0–90.1) and 71.1% (95% CI 62.1–79.0), comparable to Proofer`s. When adding HPV52 and 58, the sensitivity for CIN2+ was 92.6% (95% CI 87.6–96.0) and CIN3+ 96.5% (95% CI 92.0–98.8). No value of Anyplex set B was found in detecting CIN2+. In conclusion, the clinical performance of medium and high viral loads in Anyplex set A was comparable to HC2. Restricting the test to the 7 hrHPV types included in the 9-valent HPV-vaccine, HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, satisfies the international criteria for cervical cancer screening with relative sensitivity compared to HC2 for CIN2+ and CIN3+ of 0.98 and 1.01, respectively. Detecting all 28 Anyplex HPV types adds no benefit in a referral population.

Background Cervical cancer screening participation is suboptimal in most settings. We assessed whether human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling may increase screening participation among long-term non-attenders in Norway. Methods A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with participation as the primary outcome was initiated in the national cervical screening programme in March 2019. A random sample of 6000 women aged 35–69 years who had not attended screening for at least 10 years were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self-sampling kit (opt-in) for HPV testing or (iii) a self-sampling kit unsolicited (send-to-all) for HPV testing. Results Total participation was 4.8%, 17.0% and 27.7% among control, opt-in and send-to-all (P < 0.0001; participation difference (%) send-to-all vs. control: 22.9 (95%CI: 20.7, 25.2); opt-in vs. control: 12.3 (95%CI: 10.3, 14.2); send-to-all vs. opt-in: 10.7 (95% CI: 8.0, 13.3)). High-risk HPV was detected in 11.5% of self-samples and 9.2% of clinician-collected samples (P = 0.40). Most women (92.5%) who returned a positive self-sample attended the clinic for triage testing. Of the 933 women screened, 33 (3.5%) had CIN2 + (1.1%, 3.7%, 3.8% among control, opt-in, and send-to-all, respectively), and 11 (1.2%) had cervical cancer (0%, 1.2%, 1.3% among control, opt-in, send-to-all, respectively). Conclusion Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling increased screening participation among long-term, higher-risk non-attenders. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03873376.