METHODS: De-identified residual specimens from women aged 16-24 years submitted for chlamydia testing were collected from three pathology laboratories in Victoria and New South Wales. Limited demographic information, and chlamydia test results were also collected. Patient identifiers were sent directly from the laboratories to the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, to obtain HPV vaccination histories. Samples underwent HPV genotyping using Seegene Anyplex II HPV 28 assay.
RESULTS: Between April and July 2018, 362 residual samples were collected, the majority (60.2%) of which were cervical swabs. Demographic data and vaccination histories were received for 357 (98.6%) women (mean age 21.8, SD 2.0). Overall, 65.6% of women were fully vaccinated, 9.8% partially, and 24.7% unvaccinated. The majority (86.0%) resided in a major city, 35.9% were classified in the upper quintile of socioeconomic advantage and chlamydia positivity was 7.8%.The prevalence of quadrivalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV6/11/16/18) was 2.8% (1.5-5.1%) overall with no differences by vaccination status (p = 0.729). The prevalence of additional nonavalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV31/33/45/52/58) was 19.3% (15.6-23.8%). One or more oncogenic HPV types were detected in 46.8% (95% CI 41.6-52.0%) of women.
CONCLUSIONS: HPV testing of residual chlamydia specimens provides a simple, feasible method for monitoring circulating genotypes. Applied on a larger scale this method can be utilised to obtain a timely assessment of nonavalent vaccine impact among young women not yet eligible for cervical screening.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).
STUDY DESIGN: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.
RESULTS: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.
METHODS: We analysed frozen samples from 105 OSCC as well as 105 oral specimens derived from healthy individuals. PCR assays targeting two regions of the virus were used. PCR amplification for the analysis of p53 codon 72 arginine/proline alleles was carried out in a separate reaction.
RESULTS: HPV DNA was detected in 51.4% OSCC samples, while 24.8% controls were found to be HPV positive. HPV was found to be significantly associated with OSCC (P
Methods: A link to the online survey was sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Asia interested in AYA cancer care. Questions covered the demographics and training of HCPs, their understanding of AYA definition, availability and access to specialised AYA services, the support and advice offered during and after treatment, and factors of treatment non-compliance.
Results: We received 268 responses from 22 Asian countries. There was a striking variation in the definition of AYA (median lower age 15 years, median higher age 29 years). The majority of the respondents (78%) did not have access to specialised cancer services and 73% were not aware of any research initiatives for AYA. Over two-thirds (69%) had the option to refer their patients for psychological and/or nutritional support and most advised their patients on a healthy lifestyle. Even so, 46% did not ask about smokeless tobacco habits and only half referred smokers to a smoking cessation service. Furthermore, 29% did not promote human papillomavirus vaccination for girls and 17% did not promote hepatitis B virus vaccination for high-risk individuals. In terms of funding, 69% reported governmental insurance coverage, although 65% reported that patients self-paid, at least partially. Almost half (47%) reported treatment non-compliance or abandonment as an issue, attributed to financial and family problems (72%), loss of follow-up (74%) and seeking of alternative treatments (77%).
Conclusions: Lack of access to and suboptimal delivery of AYA-specialised cancer care services across Asia pose major challenges and require specific interventions.
METHODS: We identified providers from 5 countries where national HPV vaccination programs were at various stages of implementation: Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain. Providers authorized to administer adolescent vaccines completed an in-depth survey, reporting perceptions of barriers and facilitators to initiating and completing HPV vaccination, and logistical challenges to HPV vaccination.
RESULTS: Among 151 providers, common barriers to HPV vaccination initiation across all countries were parents' lack of awareness (39%), concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy (33%), and cost to patients (30%). Vaccination education campaign (70%) was the most commonly cited facilitator of HPV vaccination initiation. Common barriers to series completion included no reminder system or dosing schedule (37%), loss to follow-up or forgetting appointment (29%), and cost to patients (25%). Cited facilitators to completing the vaccine series were education campaigns (45%), affordable vaccination (32%), and reminder/recall systems (22%). Among all countries, high cost of vaccination was the most common logistical challenge to offering vaccination to adolescents (33%).
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating provider insights into future HPV vaccination programs could accelerate vaccine delivery to increase HPV vaccination rates globally.