HPV swab self‐collection and cervical cancer in women who have sex with women
Authors: Monica FG McGauran and Adam Pendlebury
Published online: 3 February 2020
A 39-year-old woman was referred for colposcopy with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 infection result on a self-collected HPV vaginal swab
Clinical record
A 39‐year‐old woman was referred for colposcopy with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 infection result on a self‐collected HPV vaginal swab. She was asymptomatic and was overdue by many years for cervical screening. Barriers to regular cervical screening were cited as having difficulty with speculum examination and having a female partner, with the subsequent perception that cervical screening was not required. She has no other significant past medical or surgical history. Biopsies obtained at colposcopy demonstrated cervical adenocarcinoma with depth of invasion of 3 mm. Positron emission tomography magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated no locoregional or distant metastatic cervical carcinoma. She underwent open radical hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for removal of stage 1b1 cervical adenocarcinoma. Histopathology demonstrated cervical adenocarcinoma with maximal diameter of 12 mm and depth of invasion of 5 mm, with no lymphovascular space invasion, as well as foci of adenocarcinoma in situ and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). There was no involvement of the parametrium, margins or lymph nodes. Her post‐operative course was complicated by wound infection that resolved with antibiotics. She had no signs or symptoms of cancer recurrence after 6 months of follow‐up.
Discussion
Most cervical cancer diagnoses are made in women who are never screened or underscreened.1 Self‐collected vaginal swabs for HPV polymerase chain reaction have been shown to increase participation in cervical cancer screening and have acceptable sensitivity and specificity for the detection of HSIL.1 Furthermore, evidence shows that the accuracy of self‐collected specimens is comparable to that of the clinician‐collected samples.2 In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) introduced HPV testing with or without reflex liquid‐based cytology. Self‐collected samples are now available as part of the NCSP for women over the age of 30 years who have never been screened or who are overdue for screening by 2 or more years.3 It is available to be collected in a practitioner‐supervised setting (ie, not at home) and is not available to women who are pregnant, symptomatic, or who have a past history of dysplasia.1
Women who have sex with women (WSW) are at risk of HPV infection and subsequent cervical dysplasia and malignancy. No large studies have been undertaken to accurately quantify the prevalence of HPV in WSW, but estimates vary between 13% and 51%.4 This is comparable with the HPV prevalence across the population. HPV can be transmitted intravaginally between female sexual partners via digital contact and fomites, such as sex toys.4,5 In addition, a proportion of WSW have had previous or have current male sexual partners.4,5 A 2001 study examined factors that affected screening practices in WSW and found that reduced uptake of cervical screening was multifactorial.5 The authors reported that 10% of women in their cohort had been told by health care practitioners that they did not need to be screened if they did not have sex with men.5 Other reasons for reduced uptake included lower perceived level of risk for HPV infection, provision of health care that was not sensitive or inclusive to non‐heterosexual women, and reduced provision of opportunistic health care due to the reduced need for contraception.6 While this article discusses cervical screening in WSW, health care professionals must also address the need for routine cervical screening in transsexual men and non‐binary people, who are also at risk of HPV infection.
Studies have demonstrated that HPV16 is associated with a higher risk of developing HSIL and cervical cancer than other HPV types, with HPV16 being detected in about 52.3% of cervical cancers.6 HPV18 also carries an increased risk relative to other oncogenic HPV types, although less than HPV16. The NCSP recommends that women who are HPV16/18‐positive be referred directly to colposcopy.6 Based on the new NCSP guidelines, which allow for self‐collected HPV specimens, our patient was directed to colposcopy examination, with the subsequent diagnosis of stage 1b1 cervical adenocarcinoma.
This case reminds us that underscreened and never screened women are at high risk for cervical cancer. Where the process of speculum examination and practitioner collection is a barrier to accessing cervical screening, self‐collect HPV testing presents an alternative, in women who meet the criteria, which will identify those who are at high risk for dysplasia and cancer. All women should access cervical screening as per the NCSP guidelines. Furthermore, it is important to address the knowledge about the risk of HPV infection in WSW among health care practitioners and patients.
Lessons from practice
- Women who have sex with women, transsexual men and non‐binary people with a cervix are at similar risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and subsequent cervical dysplasia and malignancy as heterosexual women. They should undergo cervical screening as per the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) guidelines.
- Self‐collected vaginal swabs for HPV polymerase chain reaction are as sensitive as practitioner‐collected samples and present an excellent option for never‐screened and underscreened women, transsexual men and non‐binary people with a cervix who are aged 30 years and older and who decline practitioner collection.
- Infection with oncogenic HPV16 is associated with the highest risk for cervical dysplasia and cancer. This is recognised in the new NCSP and immediate referral to colposcopy is recommended.
Competing interests
No relevant disclosures.
References
- Cancer Council Australia. Self‐collected vaginal samples. Cancer Council Australia Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Party. Self‐collected vaginal samples. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia, 2018. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=190203 (viewed Apr 2019).
- Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJ, et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self‐collected versus clinician‐collected samples: a meta‐analysis. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 172–183.
- National Cervical Screening Program. Self‐collection policy. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health, 2018. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/self-collection-policy (viewed Apr 2019).
- Reiter PL, McRee AL. HPV infection among a population‐based sample of sexual minority women from USA. Sex Transm Infect 2017; 93: 25–31.
- Marrazzo JM, Koutsky LA, Kiviat NB, et al. Papanicolaou test screening and prevalence of genital papillomavirus among with who have sex with women. Am J Public Health Res 2001; 91: 946–952.
- Armstrong B, Brand A, Canfell K, et al; Cancer Council Australia Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Party. Oncogenic HPV types 16 and/or 18. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia, 2018. https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=190201 (viewed May 2019).
Linked content
-
MJA Letter: HPV swab self‐collection and cervical cancer in women who have sex with women
-
InSight+: HPV swab self-collection: relax the restrictions
Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Australian Pathways for Specialist Pain Management and Early Palliative Care for People With Pancreatic Cancer: Developed Using a Community Consensus Approach
Jennifer Philip, Melanie R. Lovell, Kylee Bellingham, Gail Garvey, Gregory B. Crawford, Nicole M. Rankin, Kara Burns, Isabel Young, Vivienne Milch, Dorothy Keefe, Katrina Anderson, James Lawson, Meinir Krishnasamy
Program Guidelines for the National Lung Cancer Screening Program: Targeted Lung Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals in Australia
Nicole M. Rankin, Rebecca Zosel, Lisa J. Whop, Raglan Maddox, Annette McWilliams, Miranda Siemienowicz, Jon Emery, Maria A. R. Lantin, Georgia Bartlett, Mikayla Wolfe, Abbey Diaz, Katrina Anderson, Lillian Liu, Cindy Toms, Sarah McDermott, Peter Bligh, Jeremy Chalke, Stephen Melsom, Claire E. Nightingale, Alison Brown, Sam Pope, Julia Brotherton, Anne Fidler, Michel Itel, Mark Brooke, Diane M. Pascoe, Fraser Brims, Tracy L. Leong, Emily Stone, Dorothy Keefe, Vivienne Milch
Beyond Mammography: Sovereignty and Relational Breast Care With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women
Devaleena Das, Jessica Gildersleeve, Amy Thomson, Aunty Gracelyn Smallwood, Lorelle Holland
Striving for Racial Equity in Oral Cancer Research: A Case Study
Sneha Sethi, Simon Naylor, Catherine Leane (Dharug/Gabrigal), Gail Garvey (Kamilaroi), Joanne Hedges (Yamatji), Lisa M. Jamieson, Nicolas Reid (Dharug/Gabrigal)
Treatment and Survival Outcomes for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians Within the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Cohort Study
Melanie Wong, Mike Lloyd, Jessie Zeng, Sanuki Tissera, Kalinda E. Griffiths, Justine Clark, Jonathan Gillies, Lisa Briggs, Jacqueline Lesage, Tom Wood, Craig Underhill, Sagun Parakh, Louis B. Irving, Wasek Faisal, Rob Blum, Gary E. Richardson, Phillip Parente, Michelle Caldecott, Inger Olesen, Javier Torres, Evangeline Samuel, Christopher Lyne, Katharine See, David Langton, Thomas John, Gavin Wright, Matthew Conron, James Bartlett, Golsa Adabi, Maggie Moore, Susan Harden, Zoe K. McQuilten, John R. Zalcberg, Rob Stirling
Embedding Rehabilitation as Core Cancer Care in Australia and New Zealand: A Health System Imperative
Krystal Song, Steven G. Faux, Fary Khan