Pooled Analysis of a Self-Sampling HPV DNA Test as a Cervical Cancer Primary Screening Method

BackgroundWorldwide, one-seventh of cervical cancers occur in China, which lacks a national screening program. By evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected cervicovaginal specimens tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA (Self-HPV testing) in China, we sought to determine whether Self-HPV testing may serve as a primary cervical cancer screening method in low-resource settings.MethodsWe compiled individual patient data from five population-based cervical cancer–screening studies in China. Participants (n = 13 140) received Self-HPV testing, physician-collected cervical specimens for HPV testing (Physician-HPV testing), liquid-based cytology (LBC), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Screen-positive women underwent colposcopy and confirmatory biopsy. We analyzed the accuracies of pooled Self-HPV testing, Physician-HPV testing, VIA, and LBC to detect biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) and CIN3+. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsOf 13 004 women included in the analysis, 507 (3.9%) were diagnosed as CIN2+, 273 (2.1%) as CIN3+, and 37 (0.3%) with cervical cancer. Self-HPV testing had 86.2% sensitivity and 80.7% specificity for detecting CIN2+ and 86.1% sensitivity and 79.5% specificity for detecting CIN3+. VIA had statistically significantly lower sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ (50.3%) and CIN3+ (55.7%) and higher specificity for detecting CIN2+ (87.4%) and CIN3+ (86.9%) (all P values < .001) than Self-HPV testing, LBC had lower sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ (80.7%, P = .015), similar sensitivity for detecting CIN3+ (89.0%, P = .341), and higher specificity for detecting CIN2+ (94.0%, P < .001) and CIN3+ (92.8%, P < .001) than Self-HPV testing. Physician-HPV testing was more sensitive for detecting CIN2+ (97.0%) and CIN3+ (97.8%) but similarly specific for detecting CIN2+ (82.7%) and CIN3+ (81.3%) (all P values <.001) than Self-HPV testing.ConclusionsThe sensitivity of Self-HPV testing compared favorably with that of LBC and was superior to the sensitivity of VIA. Self-HPV testing may complement current screening programs by increasing population coverage in settings that do not have easy access to comprehensive cytology-based screening

Sociodemographic and attitudinal predictors of simultaneous and redundant multiple marker and cell-free DNA screening among women aged ⩾35 years

ObjectiveTo identify characteristics associated with undergoing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and multiple marker screening (MMS) simultaneously or redundantly (after receiving negative results from the first screening test) among women aged ⩾35 years.Study designParticipants presenting for prenatal testing completed a questionnaire that included measures of pregnancy worry and attitudes toward potential testing outcomes; data on prenatal test use was obtained via medical record review. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with redundant or simultaneous screening.ResultsAmong 164 participants, 69 (42.1%) had cfDNA redundantly (n=51) to, or simultaneously (n=18) with, MMS. Compared with the 46 MMS-negative women who did not undergo further testing, those who underwent redundant or simultaneous cfDNA/MMS screening were more likely to have annual family incomes &gt;$150 000, to feel having a miscarriage would be worse than having an intellectually disabled child, to desire comprehensive testing for intellectual disability and to have more pregnancy worry.ConclusionProviders who counsel patients on prenatal aneuploidy screening tests should explain the appropriate utilization of these screening tests to avoid unnecessary or minimally informative use of multiple tests

Demographic and Support Interest Differences Among Nonbirthing Parents Using a Digital Health Platform With Parenthood-Related Anxiety: Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract BackgroundThe transition to parenthood is a period of major stressors and increased risk of anxiety for all parents. Though rates of perinatal anxiety are similar among women (4%-25%) and men (3%-25%), perinatal anxiety research on nonbirthing partners remains limited. ObjectiveWe aimed to examine whether demographic characteristics or digital perinatal support preferences differed among nonbirthing partners with compared to without self-reported high parenthood-related anxiety. MethodsIn this large cross-sectional study of nonbirthing partners using a digital perinatal health platform during their partner’s pregnancy, users reported their parenthood-related anxiety through a 5-item Likert scale in response to the prompt “On a scale of 1=None to 5=Extremely, how anxious are you feeling about parenthood?” High parenthood-related anxiety was defined as reporting being very or extremely anxious about parenthood. During the onboarding survey, in response to the question “Which areas are you most interested in receiving support in?” users selected as many support interests as they desired from a list of options. Chi-square ResultsAmong 2756 nonbirthing partners enrolled in the digital platform during their partner’s pregnancy, 2483 (90.1%) were men, 1668 (71.9%) were first-time parents, 1159 (42.1%) were non-Hispanic White, and 1652 (50.9%) endorsed an annual household income of >US $100,000. Overall, 2505 (91.9$100,000 (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.32-3.34). In general, nonbirthing partners were interested in receiving digital support during their partner’s pregnancy, but those with high parenthood-related anxiety were more likely to desire digital support for all support interests compared to those without high parenthood anxiety. Those with high parenthood-related anxiety had more than 2 times higher odds of requesting digital education about their emotional health compared to those without high parenthood-related anxiety (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.67-2.55). ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the need for perinatal anxiety-related support for all nonbirthing partners and identify nonbirthing partners’ demographic characteristics that increase the odds of endorsing high parenthood-related anxiety. Additionally, these findings suggest that most nonbirthing partners using a digital health platform with high parenthood-related anxiety desire to receive perinatal mental health support

Effect of a novel smartphone application on breastfeeding rates among low-income, first-time mothers intending to exclusively breastfeed: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To examine the effect of a novel smartphone application (app)—BreastFeeding Friend (BFF)—on breastfeeding rates among low-income first-time mothers planning exclusive breastfeeding. Methods: A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) randomized low-income first-time mothers to BFF or control app. BFF contained breastfeeding education and videos. The control app contained digital breastfeeding handouts. Outcomes included breastfeeding rates until 6 months postpartum and patient-reported best breastfeeding resource. After enrollment, nearly half the participants reported planning formula feeding after breastfeeding initiation, potentially confounding the RCT results. In this secondary analysis, women planning formula feeding were excluded. Outcomes between study groups were compared by intent-to-treat. Results: Of the original 170 participants, 41 in BFF and 46 in control group planned exclusively breastfeeding and were included. Exclusive breastfeeding rates were similar from 2 days postpartum (BFF: n = 19 [48.7%] versus control app: n = 21 [46.7%]; relative risk [RR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval, CI = 0.67–1.63]) until 6 months postpartum. At 6 weeks postpartum, the majority of BFF users (n = 23 [62.2%]) believed an app provided the best breastfeeding support compared with 39% of control app users (n = 16; RR = 1.59 [95% CI = 1.01–2.52]). BFF users were 2.5 times more likely to deny having breastfeeding challenges compared with control app users (n = 12 [42.9%] versus n = 6 [16.7%]; RR = 2.57 [95% CI = 1.10–6.00]). Conclusion: BFF reduced self-reported breastfeeding challenges and was perceived as the best breastfeeding resource at home but did not increase breastfeeding rates among low-income first-time mothers desiring to exclusively breastfeed. BFF shows promise but must be further optimized to ultimately impact breastfeeding rates. Trial Identification Number: NCT03167073