Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study reveals urine self-sampling acceptable in cervical screening, indicating potential to improve uptake.
Cervical screening uptake is decreasing in the UK. Barriers include restricted access to screening appointments and poor acceptability of the speculum examination. Urine self-sampling is an alternative cervical screening method that has the potential to improve uptake. To determine the clinical performance and acceptability of HPV-tested urine for cervical screening in a UK general screening population. Prospective, cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in North-West England. Urine was self-collected using a first void urine collection device (Novosanis Colli-peeTM 10ml with urine conservation medium) prior to obtaining matched routine cervical screening samples. HPV testing used Roche Cobas® 8800 at cervical sample thresholds. A questionnaire evaluated urine self-sampling acceptability. HPV-positive cervical samples underwent reflex cytology, were managed under standard NHS protocols and clinical outcomes were collected. 1517 participants provided matched urine and cervical samples. 207/1517 (13.6%) cervical and 245/1517 (16.2%) urine samples were HPV positive with a 1.6% incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-(CIN)2+ following colposcopic assessment (n=80). The specificity of urine was non-inferior (p<0.0001) to the specificity of cervical samples at 85.2% (95%CI=83.3-87.0) versus 87.8% (95%CI=86.0-89.4), giving a relative specificity of 0.97 (95%CI=0.95-0.99). Urine detected 24/25 (96%) participants with CIN2+. In the future, 41.6% of participants would prefer routine cervical screening, compared to 30.0% with no preference and 28.4% preferring self-sampling. HPV-tested urine showed non-inferior specificity to cervical samples in a general screening population. Urine self-sampling was acceptable to current attenders but some prefer traditional screening, making choice an important consideration for policy makers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davies et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: