It’s that time of year again – to sit back, relax, and get stuck into one of our papers over the festive period! Below are 15 hand-picked papers from our group over the last year. Author names in bold are current or former members of the CPG.
Happy reading – and happy holidays!
| Paper Name | Objective | Journal & Authors |
| 1. UK Women’s Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study | To explore women’s attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. | Charlotte Kelley-Jones, Suzanne Scott, Jo Waller |
| 2. Testing the content for a targeted age-relevant intervention to promote cervical screening uptake in women aged 50-64 years | An age-targeted intervention could be an effective way to motivate older women to attend cervical screening. The primary objective was to test the impact of different candidate messages on cervical screening intention strength. | Laura A V Marlow, Martin Nemec, Ivo Vlaev, Jo Waller |
| 3. Patterns of anxiety and distress over 12 months following participation in HPV primary screening | Many countries are now using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening. An HPV-positive result can have an adverse psychological impact, at least in the short term. In this paper, we explore the psychological impact of primary HPV screening over 12 months. | Laura A V Marlow, Emily McBride, Deborah Ridout, Alice S Forster, Henry Kitchener, Jo Waller |
| 4. Development and psychometric testing of the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening (SRQ-LCS) | Research implicates psychological factors in low uptake of lung cancer screening. The authors developed and psychometrically tested a standardised measure of these psychological determinants in preparation for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of screening uptake. | Samantha L Quaife, Kate E Brain, Claire Stevens, Clara Kurtidu, Samuel M Janes, Jo Waller |
| 5. Adherence to follow-up after the exit cervical cancer screening test at age 60-64: A nationwide register-based study | In Denmark, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has replaced cytology in primary cervical cancer screening for women aged 60-64; at this age, women are invited for the last (exit) screening test within the national organized program. The authors investigated the adherence of these women to the recommended follow-up after a non-negative (positive or inadequate) HPV test and the overall resource use during that follow-up. | Susanne F Jørgensen, Berit Andersen, Lone Kjeld Petersen, Matejka Rebolj, Sisse H Njor |
| 6. Impact of disruptions and recovery for established cervical screening programs across a range of high-income country program designs, using COVID-19 as an example: A modelled analysis | The authors used three well-established models of cervical cancer natural history adapted to simulate screening across four countries, to compare the impact of a range of standardised screening disruption scenarios in four countries that vary in their cervical cancer prevention programs. | Megan A Smith, Emily A Burger, Alejandra Castanon, Inge M C M de Kok, Sharon J B Hanley, Matejka Rebolj, Michaela T Hall, Erik E L Jansen, James Killen, Xavier O’Farrell, Jane J Kim, Karen Canfell |
| 7. Cervical screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: optimising recovery strategies | Disruptions to cancer screening services have been experienced in most settings as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally, programmes would resolve backlogs by temporarily expanding capacity; however, in practice, this is often not possible. The authors aim to inform the deliberations of decision makers in high-income settings regarding their cervical cancer screening policy response. | Alejandra Castanon, Matejka Rebolj, Emily Annika Burger, Inge M C M de Kok, Megan A Smith, Sharon J B Hanley, Francesca Maria Carozzi, Stuart Peacock, James F O’Mahony |
| 8. Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial | The authors aimed to assess whether offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increased uptake among lapsed attenders aged 50-64. | Rebecca Landy, Tony Hollingworth, Jo Waller, Laura A.V. Marlow, Jane Rigney, Thomas Round, Peter Sasieni and Anita Wey Wey Lim |
| 9. Will COVID-19 Be the Tipping Point for Primary HPV Self-sampling? | Self-sampling is poised to be a disruptor for cervical screening. So far, cancer screening has been a causality of COVID-19; however, the opposite may transpire for self-sampling. Self-sampling enables socially distanced cervical screening with an outreach that extends to underserved populations. As evidence mounts that self-sampling is noninferior to clinician-taken samples, the focus for self-sampling is now as a primary screening option for all women. | Anita Wey Wey Lim |
| 10. The effects of the national HPV vaccination programme in England, UK, on cervical cancer and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence: a register-based observational study | Human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation with a bivalent vaccine (Cervarix) was introduced in England, UK, in Sept 1, 2008: routine vaccination was offered to girls aged 12–13 years with a catch-up programme for females aged 14–18 years in 2008–10. The authors quantified the early effect of this immunisation programme on cervical cancer and cervical carcinoma in situ, namely grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3), registrations. | Milena Falcaro, PhD
Alejandra Castañon, PhD Busani Ndlela, PhD Marta Checchi, MSc Kate Soldan, PhD Jamie Lopez-Bernal, PhD Lucy Elliss-Brookes, BSc Prof Peter Sasieni |
| 11. Economic evaluation of Cytosponge®-trefoil factor 3 for Barrett esophagus: A cost-utility analysis of randomised controlled trial data | The Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) is a non-endoscopic test for Barrett esophagus, a precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. This is an economic evaluation of Cytosponge-TFF3 screening versus usual care using data from the BEST3 trial which took place between 20th March 2017 and 21st March 2019. | Nicholas Swart
Roberta Maroni Beth Muldrew Peter Sasieni Rebecca C. Fitzgerald Stephen Morris BEST3 Consortium |
| 12. Impact of screening between the ages of 60 and 64 on cumulative rates of cervical cancer to age 84y by screening history at ages 50 to 59: A population-based case-control study | The authors estimate the incidence of cervical cancer up to age 84y in women with and without a cervical cytology test at age 60-64y, by screening histories aged 50-59y. | Alejandra Castanon, Leonardo Green, Peter Sasieni |
| 13. Recovery strategies following COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening and their impact on excess diagnoses | The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, the authors propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened. | Alejandra Castanon, Matejka Rebolj, Francesca Pesola, Peter Sasieni |
| 14. Impact of changes to cervical screening guidelines on age and interval at which women are tested: Population-based study | English cervical screening programme guidelines changed between 2009 and 2012. The authors explore the impact on the age and intervals at which women receive a cytology test. | Alejandra Castanon, Shama Sheikh, Philippa Pearmain, Peter Sasieni |
| 15. Management strategies for the colonoscopic surveillance of people with Lynch syndrome during the COVID-19 pandemic | The recent publication of UK guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer immediately preceded the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors propose the use of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as a method of risk stratification of individuals with Lynch syndrome who are due surveillance colonoscopy which may not be possible due to COVID-19. | Kevin J Monahan, Anne Lincoln, James E East, Sally Benton, John Burn, Bianca DeSouza, Helen Hanson, Fiona Lalloo, Terri McVeigh, Matthew D Rutter, Katie Snape, Huw J W Thomas, Peter Sasieni |
Share this Page
The views expressed are those of the author. Posting of the blog does not signify that the Cancer Prevention Group endorse those views or opinions.
