An economic evaluation of two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling
===========================================================================================================================================

* Susie Huntington
* Krishnan Puri Sudhir
* Verena Schneider
* Alex Sargent
* Katy Turner
* Emma J Crosbie
* Elisabeth J Adams

## Abstract

**Objective** To compare the cost and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.

**Design** Cost-consequence analysis using a decision tree in Excel.

**Setting** England.

**Participants** A cohort of 10,000 women age 25 to 65 eligible for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) (Box 1).

**Methods** The model was informed by the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year recall cycle with routine screening in year 1 and recall screening in years 2/3. Parameters were obtained from published studies, manufacturers, NHSCSP reports, and input from experts.

**Interventions** Three sampling strategies were: 1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, 2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine; 3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved women being mailed a sampling kit at home.

**Main outcome measures** Primary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens, and cost per complete screen. Secondary outcomes: number of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy, and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios.

**Results** In the base case, the average cost per complete screen was £56.81 for clinician-collected cervical sampling, £38.57 for FV urine self-sampling, and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA), the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal) per year.

**Conclusion** Self-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women.

**Strengths and limitations of the study**

*   This is the first study to assess the cost of screening for cervical cancer using self-collected first-void urine or vaginal swab compared to the current strategy of clinician-collected cervical sampling within the context of England’s NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).

*   The cost per screen was used to calculate the total cost of the NHSSCP in England, allowing a comparison of different uptake scenarios if self-sampling was offered to non-attenders only or to all eligible women.

*   Limited published data were available to inform the cost of self-sampling devices and HPV laboratory testing of self-collected samples.

*   One pathway for self-sampling was examined. However, there are alternative pathways which could be explored, some of which are dependent on new technologies, such as DNA methylation testing, being validated and costed.

Keywords
*   HPV infection
*   cancer screening
*   economic evaluation
*   self-sampling

## Introduction

Cervical cancer is a leading cause of mortality among women worldwide but can be prevented through screening for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) [1–3]. HPV positive samples are triaged by cytology to identify women at risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) and treat them to prevent progression to cancer. The impact of cervical screening programmes is heavily dependent on achieving high participation rates [4]. Screening uptake in England fell from 76% in 2010/11 to 72% in 2019/20 decreasing further during the COVID-19 pandemic, to 70% in 2020/21 when there were disruptions to the health service and in-person appointments were minimised [4–6].

In England and many other countries, screening requires attendance at a healthcare facility where a healthcare professional collects a cervical sample [7]. Reported reasons for non-attendance include difficulty making an appointment, embarrassment, fear, and inconvenience [8,9]. There has been a growing interest in the use of vaginal self-sampling for HR-HPV testing due to its relative convenience and acceptability among women [10–13]. Home self-sampling is successfully used in other screening programmes e.g., bowel cancer [14] and chlamydia [15] and for some other sexually transmitted infections [16]. Countries including Australia, Denmark, Malaysia, and The Netherlands, have or are moving to self-sampling as a screening option [17–19]. In 2021, NHS England launched YouScreen, a pilot study in targeted locations offering vaginal self-sampling kits to individuals overdue for screening [20].

Self-collected first-void (FV) urine is another option for HPV screening [10,21,22]. There is growing evidence that if HR-HPV assays are optimised for use on urine or self-collected vaginal samples their diagnostic performance is non-inferior to that achieved for clinician-collected cervical samples [23– 25]. Currently, within the NHSCSP, cytology is performed on HR-HPV positive samples to determine whether colposcopy is required. Cytology cannot be performed on urine or vaginal swab samples, so an HR-HPV positive result means a second, clinician-collected sample is required. Despite this additional step, which might be avoidable with new technologies [26], self-sampling is likely to be cost-saving and remove barriers to screening. It has the potential to increase uptake in those who do not currently screen, referred to as non-attenders, and improve user experience and choice [27,28].

This study aimed to compare the cost of cervical screening (including sample collection, HPV testing, cytology and colposcopy) using three sampling strategies: clinician-collected cervical sampling, FV urine self-sampling, and vaginal self-sampling. Scenarios were explored using different uptake rates and offering self-sampling to everyone or only to non-attenders. The results will inform decision-makers about the screening costs and effects of offering self-sampling as an alternative to routine screening in HPV primary cervical screening programmes.

## Methods

### Model type and structure

A decision tree model was constructed in Excel v2202 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 people invited for screening. The model’s structure was based on the HPV primary screening algorithm for cervical cancer screening used in England (See Box 1) and many other countries (Figure 1) and based on a previous model [29,30].

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/11/04/2022.11.03.22281845/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/04/2022.11.03.22281845/F1)

Figure 1. Structure of the decision tree model to simulate cervical cancer screening in England.
Footnote: Women who in Year 1/2 have an HR-HPV positive result and normal cytology but do not attend for clinician-collected sampling (A) or provide a self-collected sample (B) the following year are considered lost to follow-up. The cost of non-attendance in primary care or non-return of requested sampling kits in Years 2/3 are not considered.

Box 1: 
**Screening eligibility in England’s NHSCSP**

In England, women and people with a cervix age 25 to 64 are eligible for cervical screening every 3 years (for those age 25 to 49) or every 5 years (for those age 50 to 64). Invitations to screen as part of the NHSCSP are automatically sent to anyone registered with a general practice (GP) as female. People with a cervix who are registered as male are not automatically sent an invite (due to limitations of the IT system currently used) but should receive an invite sent by their GP practice or healthcare teams managing gender reassignment and can request screening themselves.

We refer to people in our model cohort as ‘women’ reflecting the reality of the current system and acknowledging that some people with a cervix who are not registered as a woman might be missed despite being eligible for cervical screening.

### Comparators

A cost-consequence analysis was performed to compare three sampling strategies within the context of the NHSCSP: clinician-collected cervical sampling (standard of care, SoC), FV urine self-sampling and vaginal swab self-sampling. In the base case, eligibility for screening (Box 1), and screening uptake (attendance in primary care for clinician-collected sampling or return of sample by post) was the same for all strategies. It was assumed that there was equivalent HPV test sensitivity and specificity for each sample type.

The self-sampling strategies were chosen because they are acceptable to patients and are already used for home testing in other disease areas. The Colli-Pee® device (Novosanis NV, Wijnegem, Belgium) [31] collects a standardised volume of FV urine without the need for the person to interrupt the flow of urine. The use of a standard urine pot was not assessed since testing of mid/random flow urine for HPV is not as accurate as FV urine [32].

### Time horizon

The model considered a three-year time horizon. This period includes the minimum time before recall to routine screening and includes the complete cycle of events for HR-HPV positive women with normal cytology in years 1 and 2 (Figure 1). No long-term outcomes or costs associated with cancer diagnosis or treatment were considered.

### Current cervical screening pathway

At present, within the NHSCSP (Figure 1), people eligible for screening are invited by letter to attend an appointment at their GP during which a cervical sample is taken by a clinician. The sample is sent to one of eight laboratories where it is tested for HR-HPV. HR-HPV negative women are discharged to routine recall. HR-HPV positive samples are tested for abnormal cell changes using liquid-based cytology. Women with normal cytology are recalled for a repeat screen the following year, those with abnormal cytology are referred for colposcopy. Women recalled in year 2 follow the same pattern as year 1. Anyone HR-HPV positive in year 3 is referred for colposcopy [33]. The model included the cost of sample collection, HPV testing, cytology and colposcopy (where needed) for routine screening in year 1 and recall screening in years 2 and 3.

### Self-screening strategies

An opt-in rather than an opt-out strategy was assessed; individuals being invited to screen via letter with acceptance on an app or website (e.g., the NHS England app). Those who accept, receive a self-sampling kit in the mail containing the Colli-Pee® device [31] (Strategy 2) or the FLOQSwab® (COPAN Diagnostics Inc, Brescia, Italy) [34] (Strategy 3) plus instructions and a return Freepost envelope. Using the standard postal service, the sample is sent to a laboratory for HR-HPV testing. As in SoC, HR-HPV negative women are discharged to routine recall. Anyone HR-HPV positive is invited for cervical sampling so that cytology can be performed. This second sample is not tested for HPV. As in SoC, HR-HPV positive individuals with normal cytology are recalled for follow-up or referred for colposcopy (if in year 2). Recall testing in year 2/3 is via self-sampling followed by clinician-collected cervical sampling if HR-HPV positive.

### Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were the overall screening costs, the number of complete screens, and the average cost per complete screen (calculated as the total cost divided by the number of complete screens). A complete screen refers to either an HPV negative result or an HPV positive result with cytology and colposcopy or recall in years 2/3 where required.

The secondary outcomes assessed were the number of women screened, the number lost to follow-up (LTFU) and the cost per colposcopy (calculated as the total cost divided by the number of colposcopies). Each outcome was calculated for the complete 3-year screening cycle.

In scenario analyses, the total cost using each of the sampling strategies was calculated using the number of women invited to routine screening in the NHSCSP in 2020/21.

### Population

The same hypothetical cohort of 10,000 individuals was used for each sampling strategy. Data on HPV positivity, cytology, and colposcopy were taken from the NHSCSP [35] and a pilot study of 403,883 women screened in England [36,37]. Age-specific data from the study were adapted to reflect the national age distribution of people screened in the NHSCSP (Supplementary Tables 8-10). Since there are limited data to inform HPV positivity estimates in people who do not regularly screen, it was assumed that non-attenders had the same prevalence of HPV and abnormal cytology as attenders.

### Cost

Costs included: screening invite letter (including postage), sample collection in primary care, self-sample collection kit including instructions and return envelope, postage of self-collection kits and return of samples, laboratory HPV testing, cytology, and colposcopy (Table 1 and Supplementary Tables 1-5). Unit costs (presented in GBP £), were informed using published studies, NHS tariffs, Royal Mail postal charges, quotes from manufacturers, or estimated where necessary.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/04/2022.11.03.22281845/T1)

Table 1. Base case model input parameters and the high and low values used in the one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA).

Where required, costs were inflated to 2020/2021 prices using the NHS cost inflation index (NHSCII) [38]. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to costs incurred in years 2/3 (Figure 1). The cost of HPV testing for vaginal swabs or urine samples was adapted from the cost of testing cervical samples used in a published economic evaluation [29] to account for changes in the staff time and consumables required (Supplementary Table 6). These calculations were informed by published HPV assay protocols and with input from a Lead Scientist at one of the laboratories providing HPV testing for the NHSCSP.

For the self-sampling strategies, the model included the cost of self-sampling kits requested and sent but not used in year 1 but did not include the cost of unused kits in years 2/3. For SoC, the cost of non-attendance at booked appointments in primary care (for any year) was not included. The cost of an app or website used to select self-sampling was not included in the model. Nor was the cost of a reminder letter for non-responders, costs related to training or changes to laboratory equipment or costs for the administration or coordination of the NHSCSP.

### Probability inputs

Data from an English pilot study were used to inform HPV positivity in years 1-3 [36], age-weighted to represent the national age distribution of individuals screening within the NHSCSP in 2020-2021 [6] (Supplementary Tables 8-10). The same probabilities for HPV positivity were used for each sampling strategy since there is growing evidence that assays optimised for use on FV urine or vaginal swabs are non-inferior to existing assays used on clinician-collected cervical samples [22– 25,50–52] and therefore, it was assumed that HPV assays for each sample type had equivalent performance.

The probability of loss to follow-up at colposcopy and at HPV recall were informed by NHSCSP data over the period 2017 to 2020 [6]. The chance of attending for clinician-collected sampling following a positive HPV result was the same for both self-sampling strategies and informed by published studies [4,49].

Screening uptake was based on NHSCSP 2017-2020 data (Supplementary Table 7) and the same for each sampling strategy. The probability of booking an appointment (Strategy 1) or requesting a self-sampling kit (Strategy 2 and 3) was back-calculated to account for a 12% non-attendance or non-return of samples [47].

### Deterministic sensitivity analysis

A one-way DSA was performed to assess the impact of varying each parameter on the cost per complete screen. High and low values for costs and probabilities were informed by published studies or varied by +/-10% or +/-20% the baseline value. Due to uncertainty around the cost of cytology, +100% the baseline value was used for the high value.

### Scenario analysis

In scenario analyses, the total cost of the NHSCSP was calculated for each sampling strategy using a population of 4,039,982 representing the number of people invited to routine screening in 2020/21 [6]. Costs were also calculated for scenarios where the choice of self-sampling was offered to everyone or only to non-attenders and where the uptake was held constant or increased, combined with different levels of conversion to self-sampling, informed by studies predominantly focused on self-sampling offered to non-attenders (Supplementary Table 13).

Additional scenarios were used to assess the impact of lower HPV positivity i.e., in an HPV vaccinated cohort and higher HPV positivity as might be anticipated in some non-attender groups.

### Patient and public involvement

‘Non-invasive cervical screening’ was identified as an important unmet research need according to patients and clinicians in a recent James Lind Alliance Detecting Cancer Early Priority Setting Partnership [53]. A survey of more than 2,000 women found that 80% prefer non-invasive screening, rising to 88% amongst current non-attenders [54]. Whilst urine self-sampling may offer a ‘major breakthrough’ to ‘end smear fear’ [55], a formal cost evaluation is required to inform its implementation. Results from this study will be disseminated via social media and Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust website [56].

## Results

### Base case results

The primary and secondary outcomes of the three sampling strategies are presented in Table 2. For the cohort of 10,000 women offered screening, the cost per complete screen was £56.81 for SoC, compared to £38.57 for FV urine sampling and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. Compared to SoC, this results in a cost-saving of £18.24 (32%) per completed screen for FV urine and £16.44 (28%) for vaginal self-sampling.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/04/2022.11.03.22281845/T2)

Table 2. Baseline results for comparison of three sampling strategies for cervical cancer screening.

Since there are more steps in the self-sampling strategies (because HR-HPV positive women must return to provide a sample for cytology), more people were LTFU than in SoC (n=462 vs. n=418 respectively) and fewer women had a colposcopy. Using the base case values for attendance and LTFU, screening uptake would need to be 81% in the self-sampling strategies for the same number of women to have colposcopy in each strategy. At this uptake, the total screening costs for the cohort were £291,807 for FV urine sampling and £305,451 for vaginal sampling and the cost per complete screen was £38.50 for FV urine sampling and £40.30 for vaginal sampling.

### Sensitivity analysis

DSA was performed for each sampling strategy. Parameters with the most effect on the cost per complete screen are presented in Figure 2. For all three sampling strategies, the cost of HPV testing, the cost of colposcopy and the probability of HPV positivity had a large effect on the cost per complete screen. In SoC, the cost of sample collection had the greatest effect when altered and for the self-sampling strategies, the probability of not returning a sample was important.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/11/04/2022.11.03.22281845/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/04/2022.11.03.22281845/F2)

Figure 2. Tornado plots of univariate sensitivity analysis presenting the five parameters that led to the greatest change in the cost per complete screen (£) for each sampling strategy

### Scenario analysis

Several scenarios were assessed (Table 3 and Supplementary Tables 13-14). Using the number of people invited to routine screening in 2020/21, [6] the total cost for each sampling strategy (assuming the same uptake, Scenario 1) for 4,039,982 people offered screening would be £155,658,155 for SoC, £104,990,567 for FV urine sampling, and £109,890,829 for vaginal self-sampling.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/04/2022.11.03.22281845/T3)

Table 3. Overall screening costs for England under different screening scenarios for 4,039,982 people offered screening

Offering self-sampling to non-attenders (Scenario 3) would result in a cost of £56.26 per complete screen for FV urine and £56.32 for vaginal self-sampling (with 8% uptake), less than in SoC (£56.81). Although the cost per test was less for self-sampling than for SoC, the overall cost of the NHSCSP would increase if offering self-sampling meant that the overall uptake increased, and the amount of clinician-collected sampling was unchanged (Scenario 3). If there was no change in uptake but some people opted for self-sampling instead of clinician-collected sampling, then the overall cost would fall but, due to the additional steps in the self-sampling pathway (in our current model), the total number with a complete screen would also fall (Scenario 2). Scenario 4 had a more favourable outcome where the offer of self-sampling resulting in 15% uptake in non-attenders plus some conversion to self-sampling in attenders. With 50% conversion (Scenario 4a, informed by a recent preference study in England [57]), the overall number receiving a complete screen would be higher than in SoC and save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal self-sampling) over the 3-year screening cycle for this cohort of 4-million women.

In England, HPV vaccination has been offered to girls of age 12 to 13 since September 2008. As such, the first cohort of vaccinated girls is now eligible for the NHSCSP [58]. A recent study found a 23% decrease in HPV positivity in 2018 in a cohort in which 55% had received three doses of the bivalent HPV vaccine, compared to a same-aged cohort in 2013 with 0% vaccinated [58]. If HPV positivity was 23.1% lower at baseline and the year 2 and year 3 recall (Supplementary Table 15) the cost per complete screen would be £52.72 for SoC, £34.43 for FV urine sampling, and £36.17 for vaginal self-sampling (Supplementary Table 16).

A higher HPV prevalence might be expected in some non-attenders. The cost per complete screen for the FV urine self-sampling (£42.74) and vaginal self-sampling (£44.59) was less than the cost for SoC (£60.99) even when the high HPV positivity values (used in the DSA) were used in years 1, 2 and 3.

## Discussion

### Main findings

The results of the base case model indicate that self-sampling for cervical cancer screening costs less than clinician-collected sampling assuming equivalent performance of HPV testing on self-collected and clinician-collected samples. The magnitude of savings to a screening programme is dependent on whether self-sampling is offered to non-attenders or to everyone eligible for screening, and the impact on uptake. The self-sampling pathway currently requires an additional step for clinician-collected sampling following a positive HPV result which might be avoidable with newer technologies such as DNA methylation. This additional step means that overall uptake must be higher to result in the same number of complete screens as SoC due to LTFU.

In some of the scenarios assessed, the NHSCSP would make considerable savings whilst increasing the number of complete screens. With the HPV vaccinated cohort entering the NHSCSP, the HPV positivity is anticipated to fall and would further reduce the costs, particularly in self-sampling pathways where a negative HR-HPV result does not require an appointment.

### Strengths and limitations

This is the first study to model the costs of vaginal swab and FV urine self-sampling within the NHSCSP. As such it provides valuable data to inform decision making about the future use of self-sampling in England, elsewhere in the UK, and other countries with similar screening programmes.

As with all models, several assumptions were made for simplicity or due to the sparsity of data available to inform the parameters. One crucial assumption is that HPV testing of self-collected samples has (or will have) equivalent performance to clinician-collected samples. This assumption was made based on previous evaluations indicating non-inferiority of sensitivity for CIN2+ on self-collected samples when using PCR-based assays [22,24,50–52]. Further optimisation of HPV assays for self-collected samples is anticipated if self-sampling were incorporated into screening programmes. There are a number of ongoing trials that will provide real-world data supporting this assumption [63–66]. If the sensitivity for CIN2+ detection is inferior for self-collected samples, more cases would be missed than in SoC and therefore it would be most appropriate to offer self-sampling to non-attenders who would otherwise not screen.

In a high uptake setting such as England, there is a risk in changing well-established screening programmes since shifting to self-sampling could result in a temporary or long-term drop in uptake. It is not sufficient for HPV tests to demonstrate high performance it is crucial that people offered screening are informed about and have confidence that testing is highly accurate to encourage uptake and confidence in the screening programme. It will be important to collect real-world evidence, provide education/awareness programmes for women and clinicians and evaluate changes carefully to ensure that overall uptake is maintained or improved to further improve the detection and treatment of cervical cancer and CIN. In the context of increasingly vaccinated cohorts entering the NHSCSP with lower HPV prevalence, the cost and cost-effectiveness of the programme will decrease and therefore solutions such as self-sampling (and potentially DNA methylation triage on the same sample in place of cytology) will be of great interest to programme managers and decision-makers as they can reduce the costs of the programme and the burden on healthcare services.

Where costs for England were calculated (in scenario analyses) it was assumed that HPV positivity was the same in attenders and non-attenders. This is unlikely to be the case; studies indicate a higher prevalence of CIN2+ and cervical cancer in long-term non-screening groups compared to populations who regularly screen [67–69]. However, the results of the DSA (Figure 2) and scenario analysis indicate that self-sampling would cost less than clinician-collected sampling even in a population with higher HPV positivity.

In our base case model, fewer people received colposcopy in the self-sampling strategies due to the additional LTFU at the point where HPV positive people must attend to provide a sample for cytology. There were limited data on the probability of returning self-samples and attendance for cervical sampling following an HPV positive result [68], both of which will be informed by future population-based evaluations and may change over time if self-sampling were widely promoted and became ‘the norm’. Variations in these probabilities impact the cost per screen but self-sampling remains the cheaper option even when these probabilities were low (Figure 2). Future developments enabling molecular triage of self-collected samples for colposcopy referral would simplify the pathway and eliminate this risk of LTFU [63,70]. Its impact on cost per screen is unclear as it would largely depend on the cost of molecular triage, which is not currently approved for use within the NHSCSP.

### Interpretation

Previous cost evaluations of self-sampling for HPV testing support our finding that self-sampling costs less than routine cervical screening [27]. As a strategy to offer to non-attenders who decline routine screening, self-sampling may increase national screening coverage closer to the target of 80% [71] reversing the downward trend in screening uptake seen over the past decade and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Introduced as a choice for all, self-sampling has the potential to save money and increase coverage.

If self-collected samples require even a few more minutes of laboratory staff time per sample, this may be impractical when scaled up to 2500 samples a day, the current throughput at one of the NHSCSP laboratories [personal communication]. Therefore, full rollout to everyone eligible for screening is dependent on the extent to which laboratory procedures can be automated for testing self-collected samples [72].

There may be hesitancy in introducing a change to screening for the whole eligible screening population. A 2017 Dutch study assessing the switch from cytology to primary HR-HPV screening with the simultaneous introduction of vaginal self-sampling as an option offered to all observed a decrease in participation (from 64% to 61%) [73]. Other recent changes to the delivery of healthcare and the widespread use of self-testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic may play a role in increasing the acceptability of self-sampling. Furthermore, there is evidence that urine self-sampling is more acceptable than vaginal self-sampling due to it being less invasive and easier to collect [74] and women feeling more confident providing a urine sample compared to a vaginal sample [75]. As such, self-sampling using urine may align with patient preferences, address screening inequalities and remove some barriers to clinician-collected cervical and/or vaginal self-sampling [11,22,28,59– 62].

### Future research

Our model represents one pathway for self-screening. There are alternative pathways, self-sampling devices, and ways to distribute self-sampling kits, some of which have been assessed in trials. For example, self-sampling could be offered to non-attenders after an initial offer of routine screening is ignored [76] either by sending another invite or the self-collection kit [77]. Our model used an opt-in strategy for the initial screen and an opt-out approach for the 12-month recall. One alternative is an opt-out strategy for the initial invite (i.e., sending the self-sample kit with the invite), a strategy successfully used in the UK for bowel cancer screening [14]. Opt-out strategies have the advantage of increasing uptake but increase the initial costs due to the wastage of unused kits [51]. Alternatives to a letter invitation may also be modelled, for example, offering self-sampling within primary care or community settings. An Australian study found high uptake (86%) in women who were offered vaginal self-sampling for HPV screening while attending a GP appointment [78]. Uptake was 68% (of which 66% returned the sample) in a study conducted in England where women could either collect the self-sample while at the clinic or after returning home [79]. Real-world evaluations to assess the best way to offer screening would provide invaluable insight, particularly if mixed methods were used to understand the reasons for any change in uptake. An evaluation of whether an HPV test on the second sample taken for cytology is of benefit would also inform this part of the screening pathway if self-sampling were adopted.

In our model, for each sampling strategy, the same type of sampling was used for routine and recall screening. Alternatively, clinician-collected sampling could be used (for all strategies) in years 2 and 3, since HPV prevalence is considerably higher in the recall group.

The increase in recent and ongoing research activities around urine self-sampling for HPV testing [64,65,80–83] indicates that there is a lot of interest in its potential as an alternative method of cervical screening. To further inform screening programmes, further research is needed to optimise urine collection, the volume of urine collected, transport media, and compatibility of new or existing HPV assays. The screening programme will need to evolve as the cohort changes with increasing numbers vaccinated against HPV and a reduction of HPV infection, pre-cancerous lesions, and cervical cancer.

## Conclusion

Cost is not a barrier to the use of self-sampling within the NHSCSP. Self-sampling for primary HPV testing should be considered as it provides a less costly alternative to routine clinician-collected cervical screening with the additional benefit of improving user experience and choice.

Many countries are considering how best to implement self-sampling options for HPV primary testing. This study provides evidence on the scale of cost savings which could be realised and directly compares two self-sampling methods.

## Supporting information

Supplementary material [[supplements/281845_file04.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary material. The model is not publicly available.

## Author statement

## Disclosure of interest

SH, KPS, VS, KT & EA are employed by Aquarius Population Health which received funding for this study. Aquarius Population Health works on projects related to diagnostics for different commercial and academic clients and as part of grant-funded projects. EJC is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Advanced Fellow (NIHR300650), and her work is funded by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20007). AS is a Clinical Scientist employed by the NHS working within the NHSCSP in the capacity of HPV Lead Scientist and Pathway Manager.

## Contribution to authorship

SH, KPS, and VS designed the study and model structure with support and input from KT and EJC. KPS built the main model and ran the analyses. VS developed the scenarios analysed with input from SH. KPS, VS, and SH identified data to inform the model parameters and transformed these where necessary. AS helped inform model parameters. EJC led on patient and public engagement. SH, KPS, VS, KT and EJC contributed to data interpretation. The paper was drafted by SH, KPS, VS, and EJC with input from AS, KT and EA. The project was overseen by SH, with input from KT and EA.

## Data statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary material. The model is not publicly available.

## Details of ethics approval

No ethical approval was required or sought as only secondary data sources were used, there was no randomisation or change to patient care, and no patient identifying information was obtained or used.

## Funding

This study was funded by Novosanis, a subsidiary of OraSure Technologies Incorporated. The design, results, and interpretation of the study were generated independently by the authors. Novosanis was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank and acknowledge the contribution of Suzanne Carter at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. Additionally, we would like to thank Dr Mathilde Vankelegom and Anne Meiwald for reviewing the model structure and input data used in the analysis.

*   Received November 3, 2022.
*   Revision received November 3, 2022.
*   Accepted November 4, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention. [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030824](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030824)
    
    

2.  Crosbie EJ, Einstein MH, Franceschi S, et al. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. The Lancet 2013;382:889–99. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60022-7
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60022-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23618600&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

3.  Davies-Oliveira JC, Smith MA, Grover S, et al. Eliminating Cervical Cancer: Progress and Challenges for High-income Countries. Clinical Oncology 2021;33:550–9. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2021.06.013
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clon.2021.06.013&link_type=DOI) 

4.  Kitchener HC, Gittins M, Rivero-Arias O, et al. A cluster randomised trial of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC). Health Technol Assess 2016;20:1–138. doi:10.3310/hta20680
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3310/hta20220&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27029490&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

5.  Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust. The growing issue of access to cervical screening across the UK: The problems and how they can be overcome. [https://www.jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/final\_accessibility\_policy\_jun2018.pdf](https://www.jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/final_accessibility_policy_jun2018.pdf) (accessed 30 Jan 2022).
    
    

6.  NHS England. Cervical Screening Programme England - 2020-21 - Data Tables. NHS Digital. [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/cervical-screening-annual/england](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/cervical-screening-annual/england) 2020-21 (accessed 19 Jan 2022).
    
    

7.  What is cervical screening? nhs.uk. 2017.[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-screening/) (accessed 24 Mar 2022).
    
    

8.  Waller J, Bartoszek M, Marlow L, et al. Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey. Journal of Medical Screening 2009;16:199–204. doi:10.1258/jms.2009.009073
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1258/jms.2009.009073&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20054095&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000274666000008&link_type=ISI) 

9.  Marlow LAV, Waller J, Wardle J. Barriers to cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women: a qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2015;41:248–54. doi:10.1136/jfprhc-2014-101082
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImZhbWlseXBsYW5uaW5nIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjQxLzQvMjQ4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTEvMDQvMjAyMi4xMS4wMy4yMjI4MTg0NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

10. Leeman A., del Pino M., Molijn A., et al. HPV testing in first-void urine provides sensitivity for CIN2+ detection comparable with a smear taken by a clinician or a brush-based self-sample: cross-sectional data from a triage population. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2017;124:1356–63. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14682
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1471-0528.14682&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28391609&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

11. Williams D, Davies M, Fiander A, et al. Women’s perspectives on human papillomavirus self-sampling in the context of the UK cervical screening programme. Health Expect 2017;20:1031–40. doi:10.1111/hex.12544
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/hex.12544&link_type=DOI) 

12. Szarewski A. Ushering in a new era: human papillomavirus (HPV) testing comes to the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2011;37:64–7. doi:10.1136/jfprhc.2011.0100
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImZhbWlseXBsYW5uaW5nIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjM3LzIvNjQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMS8wNC8yMDIyLjExLjAzLjIyMjgxODQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

13. Van Keer S, Tjalma WAA, Pattyn J, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype and viral load agreement between paired first-void urine and clinician-collected cervical samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2018;37:859–69. doi:10.1007/s10096-017-3179-1
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10096-017-3179-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29417310&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

14. Public Health England. Bowel cancer screening: programme overview. [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme-overview](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme-overview) (accessed 24 Mar 2021).
    
    

15. National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP). GOV.UK. [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-chlamydia-screening-programme-ncsp](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-chlamydia-screening-programme-ncsp) (accessed 24 Mar 2022).
    
    

16. SH:24 Free Home STI STD Test | Sexual & Reproductive Health. [https://sh24.org.uk/](https://sh24.org.uk/) (accessed 24 Mar 2022).
    
    

17. Australian Government Department of Health. Self collection to increase choice within the National Cervical Screening Program. Australian Government Department of Health. 2021.[https://www.health.gov.au/news/self-collection-to-increase-choice-within-the-national-cervical-screening-program](https://www.health.gov.au/news/self-collection-to-increase-choice-within-the-national-cervical-screening-program) (accessed 10 Mar 2022).
    
    

18. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid. Options for improving population screening for cervical cancer - Advisory report - The Health Council of the Netherlands. 2021. doi:10/19/options-for-improving-population-screening-for-cervical-cancer
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10/19/options-for-improving-population-screening-for-cervical-cancer&link_type=DOI) 

19. Polman NJ, Snijders PJF, Kenter GG, et al. HPV-based cervical screening: Rationale, expectations and future perspectives of the new Dutch screening programme. Preventive Medicine 2019;119:108–17. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.021
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.021&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

20. NHS England. NHS gives women Human Papillomavirus Virus (HPV) home testing kits to cut cancer deaths. 2021.[https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/02/nhs-gives-women-hpv-home-testing-kits-to-cut-cancer-deaths/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/02/nhs-gives-women-hpv-home-testing-kits-to-cut-cancer-deaths/) (accessed 1 Feb 2022).
    
    

21. Pathak N, Dodds J, Zamora J. Could Urine Testing Be the Future of Cervical Cancer Screening? Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2015;11:265–7. doi:10.2217/WHE.15.21
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2217/WHE.15.21&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26102464&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

22. Sargent A., Fletcher S., Bray K., et al. Cross-sectional study of HPV testing in self-sampled urine and comparison with matched vaginal and cervical samples in women attending colposcopy for the management of abnormal cervical screening. BMJ Open 2019;9:e025388. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025388
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS80L2UwMjUzODgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMS8wNC8yMDIyLjExLjAzLjIyMjgxODQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

23. Bober P, Firment P, Sabo J. Diagnostic Test Accuracy of First-Void Urine Human Papillomaviruses for Presence Cervical HPV in Women: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. IJERPH 2021;18:13314. doi:10.3390/ijerph182413314
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph182413314&link_type=DOI) 

24. Van Keer S, Peeters E, Vanden Broeck D, et al. Clinical and analytical evaluation of the RealTime High Risk HPV assay in Colli-Pee collected first-void urine using the VALHUDES protocol. Gynecol Oncol Published Online First: 22 June 2021. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.06.010
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.06.010&link_type=DOI) 

25. Senkomago V, Des Marais AC, Rahangdale L, et al. Comparison of urine specimen collection times and testing fractions for the detection of high-risk human papillomavirus and high-grade cervical precancer. J Clin Virol 2016;74:26–31. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2015.11.005
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2015.11.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

26. Van Keer S, van Splunter AP, Pattyn J, et al. Triage of human papillomavirus infected women by methylation analysis in first-void urine. Sci Rep 2021;11:7862. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-87329-1
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-021-87329-1&link_type=DOI) 

27. Malone C, Barnabas RV, Buist DSM, et al. Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review. Prev Med 2020;132:105953. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105953
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105953&link_type=DOI) 

28. Lozar T, Nagvekar R, Rohrer C, et al. Cervical Cancer Screening Postpandemic: Self-Sampling Opportunities to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer. IJWH 2021;13:841–59. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S288376
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/IJWH.S288376&link_type=DOI) 

29. Weston G, Dombrowski C, Harvey MJ, et al. Use of the Aptima mRNA high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) assay compared to a DNA HR-HPV assay in the English cervical screening programme: a decision tree model based economic evaluation. BMJ Open 2020;10:e031303. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031303
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTAvMy9lMDMxMzAzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTEvMDQvMjAyMi4xMS4wMy4yMjI4MTg0NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

30. Weston G, Dombrowski C, Steben M, et al. A health economic model to estimate the costs and benefits of an mRNA vs DNA high-risk HPV assay in a hypothetical HPV primary screening algorithm in Ontario, Canada. Preventive Medicine Reports 2021;23:101448. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101448
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101448&link_type=DOI) 

31. Novosanis. Our Products: Colli-Pee: An innovative solution for non-invasive urine collection and stabilization. Novosanis. 2022.[https://novosanis.com/our-products](https://novosanis.com/our-products) (accessed 23 Mar 2022).
    
    

32. Pathak N, Dodds J, Zamora J, et al. Accuracy of urinary human papillomavirus testing for presence of cervical HPV: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;349:g5264. doi:10.1136/bmj.g5264
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNDkvc2VwMTZfMTIvZzUyNjQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMS8wNC8yMDIyLjExLjAzLjIyMjgxODQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

33. Cervical screening care pathway. GOV.UK. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cervical-screening-care-pathway/cervical-screening-care-pathway](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cervical-screening-care-pathway/cervical-screening-care-pathway) (accessed 24 Mar 2022).
    
    

34. Self Vaginal FLOQSwabs®. Copan. [https://www.copangroup.com/product-ranges/self-floqswabs/](https://www.copangroup.com/product-ranges/self-floqswabs/) (accessed 24 Mar 2022).
    
    

35. Cervical Screening (Annual). NHS Digital. [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/cervical-screening-annual](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/cervical-screening-annual) (accessed 30 Mar 2022).
    
    

36. Rebolj M, Mathews CS, Pesola F, et al. Age-specific outcomes from the first round of HPV screening in unvaccinated women: Observational study from the English cervical screening pilot. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology;n/a. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17058
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1471-0528.17058&link_type=DOI) 

37. Rebolj M, Rimmer J, Denton K, et al. Primary cervical screening with high risk human papillomavirus testing: observational study. BMJ 2019;364:l240. doi:10.1136/bmj.l240
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNjQvZmViMDZfOS9sMjQwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTEvMDQvMjAyMi4xMS4wMy4yMjI4MTg0NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

38. PSSRU. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021 | PSSRU. 2021. [https://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-of-health-and-social-care-2021/](https://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-of-health-and-social-care-2021/) (accessed 20 Mar 2022).
    
    

39. Whyte S, Chilcott J, Essat M, et al. Reappraisal of the options for colorectal cancer screening. 2011.[http://www.screening.nhs.uk/policydb\_download.php?doc=130](http://www.screening.nhs.uk/policydb_download.php?doc=130) (accessed 8 Oct 2020).
    
    

40. NHS England. 2021/22 Annex A: The national tariff workbook. 2021.[https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/national-tariff-payment-system-documents-annexes-and-supporting-documents/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/national-tariff-payment-system-documents-annexes-and-supporting-documents/) (accessed 20 Mar 2022).
    
    

41. NICE The guidelines manual | Guidance [Internet]. Assessing Cost Effectiveness. 2021. [https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/assessing-cost-effectiveness](https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/assessing-cost-effectiveness)
    
    

42. Moss S, Gray A, Marteau T, et al. Evaluation of HPV/LBC Cervical Screening Pilot Studies Report to the Department of Health. 2004. [http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/evaluation-hpv-2006feb.pdf](http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/evaluation-hpv-2006feb.pdf)
    
    

43. C Kitchener H, Canfell K, Gilham C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technology Assessment 2014;18. doi:10.3310/hta18230
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3310/hta18230&link_type=DOI) 

44. Legood R, Sadique Z, Patnick J, et al. Cost and logistics of alternative roll-out options for implementing human papillomavirus testing as a triage in cervical screening: results of the sentinel sites study. Br J Cancer 2012;107:1574–9. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.435
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/bjc.2012.435&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23037717&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

45. Royal Mail. Royal Mail Response Services Rate Card January 2022. 2022.[https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-01/response-services-rate-card-january-2022.pdf](https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-01/response-services-rate-card-january-2022.pdf) (accessed 23 Feb 2022).
    
    

46. Royal Mail. Royal Mail Business Price Guide January 2022. 2022.[https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2021-12/royal-mail-business-price-guide-january-2022-v1.pdf](https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2021-12/royal-mail-business-price-guide-january-2022-v1.pdf) (accessed 23 Feb 2022).
    
    

47. Ellis DA, McQueenie R, McConnachie A, et al. Demographic and practice factors predicting repeated non-attendance in primary care: a national retrospective cohort analysis. The Lancet Public Health 2017;2:e551–9. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30217-7
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30217-7&link_type=DOI) 

48. Lam JUH, Rebolj M, Møller Ejegod D, et al. Human papillomavirus self-sampling for screening nonattenders: Opt-in pilot implementation with electronic communication platforms. Int J Cancer 2017;140:2212–9. doi:10.1002/ijc.30647
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ijc.30647&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28195317&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

49. Hellsten C, Ernstson A, Bodelsson G, et al. Equal prevalence of severe cervical dysplasia by HPV self-sampling and by midwife-collected samples for primary HPV screening: a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2021;30:334–40. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000693
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000693&link_type=DOI) 

50. Cho H-W, Shim SR, Lee JK, et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus tests on self-collected urine versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical precancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol 2021;33:e4. doi:10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e4
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e4&link_type=DOI) 

51. Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, et al. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ 2018;363:k4823. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4823
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjMvZGVjMDRfNy9rNDgyMyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzExLzA0LzIwMjIuMTEuMDMuMjIyODE4NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

52. Pattyn J, Van Keer S, Biesmans S, et al. Human papillomavirus detection in urine: Effect of a first-void urine collection device and timing of collection. J Virol Methods 2019;264:23–30. doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.11.008
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.11.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

53. Badrick E, Cresswell K, Ellis P, et al. Top ten research priorities for detecting cancer early. Lancet Public Health 2019;4:e551. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30185-9
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30185-9&link_type=DOI) 

54. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust. Computer says no. The growing issue of access to cervical screening across the UK: The problems and how they can be overcome. 2018. [https://www.jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/final\_accessibility\_policy\_jun2018.pdf](https://www.jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/final_accessibility_policy_jun2018.pdf) (accessed 4 Apr 2022).
    
    

55. “I feared pain of smear but it’s nothing compared to cancer ops.” The Sun. 2019.[https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/8186824/smear-test-fear-cervical-cancer/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/8186824/smear-test-fear-cervical-cancer/) (accessed 4 Apr 2022).
    
    

56. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust. [https://www.jostrust.org.uk](https://www.jostrust.org.uk)
    
    

57. Drysdale H, Marlow LA, Lim A, et al. Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England. J Med Screen 2022;:9691413221092246. doi:10.1177/09691413221092246
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/09691413221092246&link_type=DOI) 

58. Rebolj M, Pesola F, Mathews C, et al. The impact of catch-up bivalent human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical screening outcomes: an observational study from the English HPV primary screening pilot. Br J Cancer Published Online First: 26 March 2022. doi:10.1038/s41416-022-01791-w
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41416-022-01791-w&link_type=DOI) 

59. Tranberg M, Jensen JS, Bech BH, et al. Urine collection in cervical cancer screening - analytical comparison of two HPV DNA assays. BMC Infect Dis 2020;20:926. doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05663-7
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12879-020-05663-7&link_type=DOI) 

60. De Pauw H, Donders G, Weyers S, et al. Cervical cancer screening using HPV tests on self-samples: attitudes and preferences of women participating in the VALHUDES study. Archives of Public Health 2021;79:155. doi:10.1186/s13690-021-00667-4
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13690-021-00667-4&link_type=DOI) 

61. Schaafsma M, van den Helder R, Bleeker MCG, et al. Experiences and preferences towards collecting a urine and cervicovaginal self-sample among women attending a colposcopy clinic. Preventive Medicine Reports 2022;26:101749. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101749
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101749&link_type=DOI) 

62. Ørnskov D, Jochumsen K, Steiner PH, et al. Clinical performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared with clinician-taken cervical samples for HPV testing among women referred for colposcopy. A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e041512. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041512
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvMy9lMDQxNTEyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTEvMDQvMjAyMi4xMS4wMy4yMjI4MTg0NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

63. ClinicalTrials.gov. CASUS: Validation for Detection of Precursor Lesions (CASUS-WP4). 2021. [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04530201](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04530201)
    
    

64. Cocuzza C. Extended VALidation of HUman Papillomavirus Assays and Collection DEvices for HPV Testing on Self-samples and First-void Urine Samples. clinicaltrials.gov 2021. [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04788849](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04788849) (accessed 7 Mar 2022).
    
    

65. ISRCTN - ISRCTN13132810: Urine human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical pre-cancer screening. doi:10.1186/ISRCTN13132810
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/ISRCTN13132810&link_type=DOI) 

66. ISRCTN - ISRCTN58683340: ACES primary care: Alternative cervical screening in primary care. doi:10.1186/ISRCTN58683340
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/ISRCTN58683340&link_type=DOI) 

67. Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2013;2:35. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-35
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/2046-4053-2-35&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23706117&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

68. Ernstson A, Urdell A, Forslund O, et al. Cervical cancer prevention among long-term screening non-attendees by vaginal self-collected samples for hr-HPV mRNA detection. Infect Agent Cancer 2020;15:10. doi:10.1186/s13027-020-00280-0
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13027-020-00280-0&link_type=DOI) 

69. Gök M, Heideman DAM, van Kemenade FJ, et al. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:c1040. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1040
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDAvbWFyMTFfMS9jMTA0MCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzExLzA0LzIwMjIuMTEuMDMuMjIyODE4NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

70. Kelly H, Benavente Y, Pavon MA, et al. Performance of DNA methylation assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2019;121:954–65. doi:10.1038/s41416-019-0593-4
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41416-019-0593-4&link_type=DOI) 

71. Public Health England. Cervical screening standards valid for data collected from 1 April 2020. GOV.UK. 2021.[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cervical-screening-programme-standards/cervical-screening-programme-standards-valid-for-data-collected-from-1-april-2018](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cervical-screening-programme-standards/cervical-screening-programme-standards-valid-for-data-collected-from-1-april-2018) (accessed 23 Mar 2022).
    
    

72. Hawkes D, Keung MHT, Huang Y, et al. Self-Collection for Cervical Screening Programs: From Research to Reality. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12. doi:10.3390/cancers12041053
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/cancers12041053&link_type=DOI) 

73. Aitken C.A., Van Agt H.M.E., Siebers A.G., et al. Introduction of primary screening using high-risk HPV DNA detection in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: A population-based cohort study. BMC Med 2019;17:228. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1460-0
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12916-019-1460-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31829241&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

74. Lefeuvre C, Pivert A, Guillou-Guillemette HL, et al. Urinary HPV DNA testing as a tool for cervical cancer screening in women who are reluctant to have a Pap smear in France. J Infect 2020;81:248–54. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.006
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.006&link_type=DOI) 

75. Cadman L, Reuter C, Jitlal M, et al. A Randomized Comparison of Different Vaginal Self-sampling Devices and Urine for Human Papillomavirus Testing-Predictors 5.1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021;30:661–8. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1226
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2VicCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIzMC80LzY2MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzExLzA0LzIwMjIuMTEuMDMuMjIyODE4NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

76. Inturrisi F, Aitken CA, Melchers WJG, et al. Clinical performance of high-risk HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician samples in routine primary HPV screening in the Netherlands: An observational study. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe 2021;11:100235. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100235
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100235&link_type=DOI) 

77. Arbyn M, Latsuzbaia A, Castle PE, et al. HPV testing of self-samples: Influence of collection and sample handling procedures on clinical accuracy to detect cervical precancer. The Lancet Regional Health–Europe 2022;14.
    
    

78. Saville M, Hawkes D, Mclachlan E, et al. Self-collection for under-screened women in a National Cervical Screening Program: pilot study. Curr Oncol 2018;25:e27–32. doi:10.3747/co.25.3915
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3747/co.25.3915&link_type=DOI) 

79. Lim AW, Hollingworth A, Kalwij S, et al. Offering self-sampling to cervical screening non-attenders in primary care. J Med Screen Published Online First: 28 May 2016. doi:10.1177/0969141316639346
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0969141316639346&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27235844&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

80. Arbyn M, Peeters E, Benoy I, et al. VALHUDES: A protocol for validation of human papillomavirus assays and collection devices for HPV testing on self-samples and urine samples. J Clin Virol 2018;107:52–6. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2018.08.006
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2018.08.006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30195193&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F11%2F04%2F2022.11.03.22281845.atom) 

81. Lefeuvre C, De Pauw H, Le Duc Banaszuk A-S, et al. Study Protocol: Randomised Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy of Strategies Involving Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening. Int J Public Health 2022;. doi:10.3389/ijph.2022.1604284
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/ijph.2022.1604284&link_type=DOI) 

82. Damme PV. Developing a Complete Cervical Cancer Screening Solution Based on First-void Urine Self-sampling: Improved and Quality Assured Collection of First-void Urine. clinicaltrials.gov 2020. [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04480866](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04480866) (accessed 3 Mar 2022).
    
    

83. Chinula L, McGue S, Smith JS, et al. A novel cervical cancer screen-triage-treat demonstration project with HPV self-testing and thermal ablation for women in Malawi: Protocol for a single-arm prospective trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 2022;26:100903. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100903
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100903&link_type=DOI)