is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC
This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
People who don’t attend screening programs at a regular basis are at the highest risk of developing cervical cancer. Several barriers to attend Cervical Cancer Screening have been identified, like social cultural and social economical barriers, lack of understanding (the importance of CCS), embarrassment and shame, discomfort and pain. By stratifying the unreached population in sub-populations relating to these barriers, it might be possible by means of more personalized communication strategies or sampling methods to increase accessibility to (and the participation rate of) cervical cancer screening programs.
Giorgi Rossi P. (Italy)
Personalized communication strategies
Differentiation in (core) message, differentiation in channels (paper, digital, app), differentiation in alerting (advance notices (f.i. at30-year), repeat reminders)
Bardou M. (France)
Personalized sampling methods
Which sampling method (smear or self-sampling (swab or urine)) suits which target group best?
Vorsters A. (Belgium)
Cervical screening among extraordinary groups, like transgender men
How to reach Transgender men, non-binary people and other ‘extraordinary’ groups, outside the screening list based on identity numbers?
Weyers S. (Belgium)
Risk-based screening should allow better precancer detection in high-risk women, and fewer procedures in low-risk women. Currently we have adopted protocols based upon trails conducted on woman at their first HPV-test in, most cases, an unvaccinated population. The influx of HPV-vaccinated women in screening programs and the effect of the HPV screening results from successive rounds may have an impact on the incidence of disease in the screen population. From a screening efficacy perspective, this may lead to increasing personalized invitation strategies and personalized management of HPV-positive women.
Personalized invitation strategies
Can we reduce screen intervals for woman at lower risk, based on vaccination status or earlier screening outcome?
Berkhof J. H. (Netherlands)
Personalized management: HPV+/triage+
Can we use genotyping for better triage?
Elfström M. (Sweden)
Personalized management: HPV+/triage-
How to best manage HPV+/cyt- women exiting the screening program as we switch to HPV-based screening?
Wentzensen N. (USA)
Personalized screening in an organized program: the Dutch experience
We could use The Dutch screening program as an (practical) example of personalized screening in an organized program (but we can also choose another country or make a combination). With the introduction of primary HPV-screening in 2017 the Dutch program also introduced a self-sampling device and a 10-year interval for HPV negative women at the age of 40 and 50. Further risk-based optimizations will be implemented in the short term (2022-2023), covering the topics mentioned above.
Van Dijk S. (Netherlands)