Australia's cervical screening program transitioned from cytology to HPV-testing with genotyping for HPV16/18 in Dec'2017. We investigated whether program data could be used to monitor HPV vaccination program impact (commenced in 2007) on HPV16/18 prevalence and compared estimates with pre-vaccination benchmark prevalence. Pre-vaccination samples (2005-2008) (n = 1933; WHINURS), from 25 to 64-year-old women had been previously analysed with Linear Array (LA). Post-vaccination samples (2013-2014) (n = 2989; Compass pilot), from 25 to 64-year-old women, were analysed by cobas 4800 (cobas), and by LA for historical comparability. Age standardised pre-vaccination HPV16/18 prevalence was 4.85% (95%CI:3.81-5.89) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 1.67% (95%CI:1.21-2.13%) by LA, 1.49% (95%CI:1.05-1.93%) by cobas, and 1.63% (95%CI:1.17-2.08%) for cobas and LA testing of non-16/18 cobas positives (cobas/LA). Age-standardised pre-vaccination oncogenic HPV prevalence was 15.70% (95%CI:13.79-17.60%) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 9.06% (95%CI:8.02-10.09%) by LA, 8.47% (95%CI:7.47-9.47%) by cobas and cobas/LA. Standardised rate ratios between post-vs. pre-vaccination rates were significantly different for HPV16/18, non-16/18 HPV and oncogenic HPV: 0.34 (95%CI:0.23-0.50), 0.68 (95%CI:0.55-0.84) and 0.58 (95%CI:0.48-0.69), respectively. Additional strategies (LA for all cobas positives; combined cobas and LA results on all samples) had similar results. If a single method is applied consistently, it will provide important data on relative changes in HPV prevalence following vaccination.
This study demonstrates that the clinical sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the novel cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test on the cobas 6800 system for high-risk HPV types fulfills the criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. The criteria were formulated by an international consortium, using the cobas 4800 HPV test as a validated reference assay. The cobas HPV test detected over 98% of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) lesions in women age 30 years or older, with a specificity of 98.9% compared with the reference cobas 4800 test. Both the intra- and interlaboratory agreement for the cobas HPV test were 98%. The clinical performance of the cobas HPV test is comparable to those of longitudinally validated HPV assays and fulfills the criteria for its use in primary cervical screening.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted mitigation strategies to reduce disruptions to cancer services. We reviewed their implementation across health system functions and their impact on cancer diagnosis and care during the pandemic. A systematic search was performed using terms related to cancer and COVID-19. Included studies reported on individuals with cancer or cancer care services, focusing on strategies/programs aimed to reduce delays and disruptions. Extracted data were grouped into four functions (governance, financing, service delivery, and resource generation) and sub-functions of the health system performance assessment framework. We included 30 studies from 16 countries involving 192,233 patients with cancer. Multiple mitigation approaches were implemented, predominantly affecting sub-functions of service delivery to control COVID-19 infection via the suspension of non-urgent cancer care, modified treatment guidelines, and increased telemedicine use in routine cancer care delivery. Resource generation was mainly ensured through adequate workforce supply. However, less emphasis on monitoring or assessing the effectiveness and financing of these strategies was observed. Seventeen studies suggested improved service uptake after mitigation implementation, yet the resulting impact on cancer diagnosis and care has not been established. This review emphasizes the importance of developing effective mitigation strategies across all health system (sub)functions to minimize cancer care service disruptions during crises. Deficiencies were observed in health service delivery (to ensure equity), governance (to monitor and evaluate the implementation of mitigation strategies), and financing. In the wake of future emergencies, implementation research studies that include pre-prepared protocols will be essential to assess mitigation impact across cancer care services.