Background: Cervical cancer is one of the main reasons for the death of women’s in the world. It is a major public health problem and it is the second most common cancer in women worldwide which is the leading cause of deaths of women in developing countries. Proper knowledge about the screening and concerned them about its curability if diagnosed in early stage could have a major impact.Objective: To assess the level of knowledge about the screening of cervical cancer for its early detection among women of reproductive age group.Methods: This was a Descriptive type of cross-sectional study. It was conducted from September 2024 to November 2024. A total of 100 participants participated in the study. Data were collected using self-administered structured questionnaire. The data were processed by computer and statistical analysis of data was carried out by using SPSS method.Results: Result showed that among 100 respondents’ majority 23 (23) were 3034 years old. 51 (51) respondents were married. 22 (22) participants got knowledge about screening test of cervical cancer from mass media and 14 (14) knew about different types of screening tests. 27 (27) participants of reproductive age group had the knowledge that cervical cancer is curable if detected in early stage. Conclusion: Unfortunately, the cervical cancer is the second leading cause of deaths in cancer in Bangladesh. There is a huge need to continue with the innovative steps that have been made to overcome the health care barriers crippling this population. The Journal of Ad-din Women's Medical College; Vol. 13 (2), July 2025; p 9-14

Bridging Evidence and Equity: Advancing Cervical Cancer Screening Across the Care Cascade in Botswana Using Implementation Science Frameworks

Cervical myelopathy screening using in-shoe inertial measurement unit sensors and machine learning focusing on gait disturbance.

Women 30-59 years were allocated to either HPV-based screening or cytology-based screening in this Danish health care policy trial. The optimal triage of HPV-positive women could be a combination of cytology triage with HPV genotyping or p16/Ki67 staining. We report number of screen positives, colposcopies, and cervical lesions of three different triage algorithms (p16/Ki67, HPV16/18, or HPV16/18/31/33/52) in HPV-positive women with low-grade cytological abnormalities. We included 178,317 women with a sample in 2021 of which 91,517 were screened with HPV and 86,800 with cytology. All women were followed for 18 months. Almost three times as many women screened positive with HPV-based screening compared to cytology-based screening (RR 2.99, 95% 2.93-3.05) and colposcopies derived from the screening program were also more common (RR 1.68, 95% 1.63-1.73). p16/Ki67 triage resulted in more colposcopies (RR 1.86, 95% 1.76-1.95) than HPV16/18 (RR 1.54, 95% 1.44-1.65) and HPV16/18/31/33/52 (RR 1.63, 95% 1.55-1.71). The excess in colposcopy referrals was reduced when non-screening-derived colposcopies were included (intention-to-treat). Nevertheless, more women with CIN2 or worse were detected in the HPV group than in the cytology group per screened woman; in the p16/Ki67 triage group (RR 1.65, 95% 1.54-1.77), in the HPV16/18 group (RR 1.36, 95% 1.23-1.50), and in the HPV16/18/31/33/52 group (RR 1.48, 95% 1.37-1.59). HPV-based screening, as compared with cytology screening, resulted in more screen positives, but all three triage algorithms substantially reduced the excess number of referrals to colposcopy. p16/Ki67 compared to triage with HPV16/18 may detect more cervical lesions.

While home-based self-sampling for cervical cancer screening is an evidence-based strategy proven to increase screening access and uptake, it is not currently recommended in the US despite recent Food and Drug Administration approval of the first at-home self-sampling device. Little nationally representative research has examined preference for and drivers of home-based self-sampling over clinic-based testing (the standard of care). To assess women's perspectives about, reasons for considering, and factors associated with preferring at-home self-sampling for cervical cancer screening. This population-based cross-sectional study used data from the 2024 Health Interview National Trends Survey (HINTS 7), a nationally representative survey of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US adult population offered between March and September 2024. Respondents included in this study were individuals aged between 21 and 65 years who were eligible for cervical cancer screening per the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and who self-reported their gender identity. Respondents who indicated not needing cervical cancer screening or who did not report their preference for any screening modality (home-based self-sampling or clinician-collected sampling) were excluded. Data were analyzed from May 12 to 25, 2025. Age, race and ethnicity, income, educational level, sexual orientation, marital status, health insurance, urbanicity of residence, trust in the health care system, past-year number of visits to a health care practitioner, and prior experience of discrimination or prejudice when getting medical care. The main outcome was preference for at-home vaginal self-sampling over clinic-based testing, measured using the HINTS 7 question, "If you had choice, how would you prefer to do the cervical cancer screening test?" Responses were: preference to have a health care practitioner do the test in his or her office, preference to self-collect specimen for the test at home, not knowing which option to choose, and not applicable. Weights were assigned to improve representativeness of the general US adult population. The proportion of individuals who reported preferring either screening modality was estimated using weighted percentages. Survey-weighted odds ratios (ORs), adjusted for covariates, were calculated to identify factors associated with preference for at-home self-sampling. Among the 2300 women included (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [29.2] years), most were married or living as married (weighted percentage, 58.2% [95% CI, 56.5%-60.0%]), health insured (91.9%; 95% CI, 90.7%-93.1%), and educated up to some college (61.6%; 95% CI, 60.1%-63.0%). Overall, 462 (20.4%; 95% CI, 17.4%-23.4%) preferred at-home self-sampling, 1402 (60.8%; 95% CI, 57.2%-64.4%) preferred clinic-based testing, and 436 (18.8%; 95% CI, 15.5%-22.1%) were uncertain about their choice. Non-Hispanic Black respondents (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.96) had lower odds of preferring at-home self-sampling compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Women who had experienced prejudice or discrimination when getting medical care had higher odds (AOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.22) of preferring at-home self-sampling. The most commonly self-reported reasons for preferring at-home self-sampling were privacy (54.9%; 95% CI, 49.8%-60.0%), time constraints (35.1%; 95% CI, 29.0%-41.2%), and fear of embarrassment (33.4%; 95% CI, 28.0%-38.8%). In this cross-sectional study, marginalized populations, individuals with low income, and individuals who do not trust the health care system were more likely to prefer at-home self-sampling for cervical cancer screening or not know which option to choose. To address cervical cancer inequities and increase screening uptake, the findings suggest US guidelines should incorporate home-based self-sampling as an alternative to clinic-based testing, women's education and empowerment should be enhanced, and tailored interventions focusing on high-risk groups are needed to increase awareness and self-confidence in performing home-based self-sampling.

HPV DNA–positive women with ASC-US/LSIL cytology represent a heterogeneous risk group in cervical screening and require efficient triage. We evaluated a genotype-specific 7-type HPV E6/E7 mRNA assay (PreTect HPV-Proofer 7; types 16/18/31/33/45/52/58) in a real-world quality-assurance cohort at Nordland Hospital (Bodø, Norway). Among HPV-positive women with ASC-US/LSIL reflex cytology, 225 had sufficient residual liquid-based cytology material and a valid mRNA result; 175 had complete follow-up (2022–2025) and were included. Overall, 44.6% (78/175) were mRNA-positive (ASC-US 45.2%; LSIL 43.3%). For CIN2+, sensitivity was 63.4%, specificity 61.2%, PPV 33.3%, and NPV 84.5%; CIN2+ risk was 33.3% in mRNA-positive versus 15.5% in mRNA-negative women (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.23–3.78). For CIN3+, risk was 14.1% versus 6.2%. Genotype-specific PPVs were highest for HPV33, HPV18, HPV16, and HPV31. In a referral simulation, mRNA-guided triage reduced baseline colposcopy referrals by 55% and decreased colposcopies per detected CIN2+ by ~30%, while 15 CIN2+ and 6 CIN3+ occurred in the mRNA-negative group and would be expected to be detected at 12-month follow-up among women with persistent HPV positivity. Genotype-aware HPV E6/E7 mRNA triage improves risk stratification and may increase screening efficiency.

A high coverage rate of cervical cancer screening is necessary to prevent cervical cancer. Women who have not been tested in the last 10 years are considered as long-term non-attenders from the screening program. A recent report from the Regional Cancer Centers in Sweden addressed geographic disparities in the 10-year coverage rate among 33-62-year-old women residing in Sweden in 2023, and compared the results with those in a previous report from 2020. The analytic method employed is referred to as geomapping, based on geo-coded data to 5984 neighborhoods (Statistics Sweden's Demographic Statistics Areas [DeSO]). Individual data on HPV/Pap testing in the previous 10-year period, age, and residential address (used for the geo-coding) were retrieved from the National Cervical Screening Registry. Neighborhood-level data on economic standard, proportion of non-Western immigrants, and geographic location (urban/semi-urban/rural) were assessed, based on data from Statistics Sweden, for estimation of neighborhood-level associations. The overall 10-year coverage rate decreased from 91.9% in 2020 to 91.1% in 2023. We identified 147 out of the 5984 neighborhoods as showing statistical evidence for a pronouncedly lower 10-year coverage rate than the overall average of 91.1 %. Furthermore, we found a decreasing 10-year coverage rate with lower economic standard, as well as with increasing proportion of non-Western immigrants. After adjustments for these two neighborhood-level covariates, we found that rural geographical location was associated with lower 10-year coverage rate. The results demonstrate that geomapping can provide a rational basis for targeting population-level interventions to improve screening. Specifically, it is rational to allocate extra resources, if available, towards the 147 identified neighborhoods with a pronouncedly lower 10-year coverage rate.

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of minipad collected menstrual blood versus clinician collected cervical samples to test for human papillomavirus (HPV) in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+). Cross sectional population based study. Four urban and three rural communities in Hubei Province, China. 3068 women aged 20-54 years with regular menstrual cycles, enrolled between September 2021 and January 2025. HPV testing using minipad collected menstrual blood, clinician collected cervical samples, and ThinPrep cytology. Women who tested HPV positive by either collection method or by cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse) were referred for colposcopy directed biopsy sampling. Diagnostic accuracy for detecting CIN2+ and CIN3+. Among 3068 participants, minipad based HPV testing showed a sensitivity of 94.7% (95% confidence interval 80.9% to 99.1%) for CIN2+ detection, comparable to clinician based HPV testing (92.1%, 77.5% to 97.9%; P=1.00). Although minipad HPV testing showed a lower specificity than clinician HPV testing (89.1%, 88.0% to 90.2% v 90.0%, 88.9% to 91.1%; P=0.001), the negative predictive value matched that of clinician HPV testing (99.9%, 99.7% to 100.0% v 99.9%, 99.7% to 100.0%; P=1.00). Both collection methods had a similar positive predictive value (9.9%, 7.1% to 13.5% v 10.4%, 7.4% to 14.3%; P=0.82) and screening efficiency (10.1 v 9.6 referrals per CIN2+ detected; P=0.82). Minipad collected menstrual blood showed comparable diagnostic accuracy to clinician collected cervical samples for HPV testing for detecting CIN2+ and CIN3+. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06082765.

Cervical cancer is still a health worry around the world, especially in poorer countries. Traditional methods for detecting this disease are no longer as effective as they need to be. Many people cannot get to them; they are too expensive. Participation in cervical cancer screening remains low in many populations. Recent advances offer promising strategies to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of screening programs. Emerging technologies may enhance early detection and increase patient engagement, ultimately reducing cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Please, take a look at what is happening in a few key areas: studying the tiny components that make up our bodies, diagnosing problems at a molecular level using light to detect diseases, teaching computers to assist doctors, and analyzing the free-floating DNA in our blood. This report looks at all these emerging tools and technologies. Researchers use metabolomics to study physiological processes by identifying small-molecule biomarkers, such as TMAO, which is a potential indicator of disease. Advances in spectroscopy, combined with machine learning, now enable non-invasive diagnostics. Recent innovations include rapid HPV tests and self-sampling kits. Doctors can analyze DNA fragments in blood as a non-surgical alternative to biopsies. With AI computers can interpret medical images to aid diagnosis and predict outcomes. New technology has the potential to improve cervical cancer screening worldwide significantly. The ultimate goal is to catch early disease, reduce mortality, and work toward the elimination of cervical cancer. This marks a significant advance, and with effective strategies, the global health community can make substantial progress.

Partial human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping is increasingly used to triage high-risk (HR)-HPV-positive women in national cervical cancer screening. This study evaluated whether separate triage for HPV genotypes 16 and 18 could enhance the effectiveness of Finland's program. Data from 76,482 women participating in primary HPV screening in Tampere and surrounding municipalities (2012-2023) were analyzed. Partial genotyping identified HPV16, HPV18, and 12 other HR-HPV-types, and the association between genotype and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL +) detection was assessed. Among 6031 HR-HPV-positive women, HSIL + prevalence was highest in HPV16-positive women (37.3%) followed by HPV18 (26.0%) and other HR-HPV types (20.3%). HSIL + detection declined with age: 26.2%(age < 45), 15.9%(age 45-50), and 11%(age > 50)(p < 0.001). HPV16 showed the highest persistence upon re-testing (69.6% single; 84.6% co-infections), compared to 53.8% for other HR-HPV types. Among women with NILM cytology, HPV16 infections conferred a significantly higher risk of HSIL + compared to infections with other HR-HPV types. This risk was evident for both single HPV16 infection (OR 2.41;95%CI:1.55-3.75) and HPV16 coinfections (OR 3.86;95%CI:2.14-6.96). These findings support the integration of age-specific strategies and partial HPV16/18 genotyping into Finland's screening program. A refined triage model, including immediate colposcopy referral for HPV16/18-positive women, could improve patient management and screening efficiency.

Introduction: To increase early diagnosis and screening reliability, Liquid-Based Cytology (LBC) and Conventional Pap Smear (CPS) are essential for the detection of cervical cancer. The research's conclusions can help medical practitioners choose the most effective course of action in various circumstances, inform economic screening methods, and address global inequalities in cervical cancer outcomes. Furthermore, even when the advantages of either approach are well understood, a doctor's choice of the best technique—whether LBC or CPS—at the correct time may be influenced by various factors and clinical settings. Purpose of the study. The investigations aim to assess the efficacy of LBC and CPS across numerous cytological parameters by evaluating the results against conventional criteria of specificity and sensitivity. Methods and Materials: A comparative cross-sectional study involving 100 samples of Conventional Pap Smear (CPS) and 20 samples of Liquid-Based Cytology (LBC) was conducted with 120 women, whose mean age was 45±9.5 years, presenting with gynaecological complaints at the Institute of Medical Research in Kuala Lumpur. Samples are analysed using several cytological characteristics, including sensitivity, specificity, pathogenic organisms, and adequacy rates of LBC and CPS. A standardised grading system ranging from 1 to 4, indicating poor to excellent performance, is employed in accordance with the Bethesda method. Virgins, expectant mothers, known cases of gynaecological cancer, and slides in poor shape are all grounds for exclusion. Research Result: The findings showed that LBC performed much better than CPS in terms of specificity (96% vs. 88%) and sensitivity (92%), CPS versus 15 (78% LBC) (P&lt;0.05). The technological benefits of LBC, specifically its ability to produce sharper slides, are responsible for this improved performance. The cellularity of the smears was not different between the two techniques (P&gt;0.05). Three (15%) LBC smears and 35 (35%) Pap smears had hemorrhagic backgrounds (P&lt;0.05). 42 (42%) of LBC smears and 19 (95%) of CPS preparations have cellular overlap. The results demonstrated a statistically significant (P&lt;0.05) increase in cell overlap in CPS smears. Artefacts were detected in 12 (60%) of the LBC smears and 95 (95%) of the CPS smears. In CPS smears, artefacts were clearly evident (P &lt; 0.05). The cytoplasmic parameters of cell distortion, cell shrinkage, vacuolization, boundaries, and folding were used to examine architectural and cellular morphological alterations. These parameters were observed in 22 (22%) CPS cases and 4 (20%) LBC instances (P &gt; 0.05). Conclusion: The LBC technique, in contrast to CPS, provides substantial advancements in evaluating morphological distinctions, hence improving diagnostic accuracy. The LBC approach offers a clearer backdrop, a more uniform cell distribution, less cell overlap, and fewer artefacts. LBC possesses multiple advantages over PAP smear, since the specimen can be utilised in molecular analyses, including the identification of high-risk Human Papillomavirus (hrHPV). Furthermore, LBC proves to be cost-effective for extensive screening for cervical cancer in the long term. However, in terms of cellular morphology, there was little difference in the detection of pathological organisms or diagnoses in satisfactory CPS smears [2].

A real-world multicenter study on opportunistic cervical cancer screening in hospital in China: comparison of TruScreen device, cytology, and HPV testing for detecting high-grade cervical lesions.

Widespread vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV) alters the landscape of cervical cancer (CC) risk, requiring adaptations to the CC screening program. To assess the cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit tradeoffs of adapting CC screening strategies on the basis of age at HPV vaccination. Individual-based mathematical modeling study. Published data. Hypothetical cohorts of women vaccinated in 7 different age groups (12, 13 to 15, 16 to 18, 19 to 21, 22 to 24, 25 to 27, and 28 to 30 years) with either bivalent or nonavalent vaccines in Norway. Lifetime. Extended health care sector (that is, including patient time and travel costs). HPV-based screening strategies that varied screening start age, interval, and number of lifetime screening tests. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, defined as the additional cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. "Preferred" (that is, cost-effective) screening for each age group was identified using a cost-effectiveness threshold of $55 000 per QALY. Harm-benefit tradeoffs were quantified as the ratio of colposcopy referrals to CC cases averted. For all vaccination age groups and both vaccines, less frequent screening with longer intervals between screening than the 5-year interval currently recommended was consistently preferred at the threshold of $55 000 per QALY, but the preferred strategy varied by age at vaccination. For women vaccinated between ages 12 and 24 years, preferred strategies involved screening every 15 to 25 years, resulting in screening 2 to 3 times per lifetime. Less frequent screening remained a preferred strategy under imperfect screening adherence and in scenarios that excluded bivalent vaccine cross-protection. The analysis did not address screening for unvaccinated women, who may benefit from herd immunity. A high-value screening program likely involves less frequent screening for women who were vaccinated against HPV by age 30 years. Strategies could be tailored on the basis of age at vaccination and type of HPV vaccine. Norwegian Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute.

Accelerating cervical cancer elimination in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women: a modelling study.

Adapting Cervical Cancer Screening in Vaccinated Populations: Individualized Versus Population-Based Approaches.

Summary for Patients: Optimizing Cervical Cancer Screening by Age at Vaccination for Human Papillomavirus.

Communicating the harms associated with participation in national screening programmes is not a straightforward process. In a previous study, we interviewed Danish women in the age group 23–55 and found that they tended to reject or downplay the harms presented in an information pamphlet related to cervical cancer screening. This phenomenon we termed the ‘Perception Gap’. In this article, we revisit the original data and draw on theoretical frameworks of governmentality and risk to elucidate the dynamics behind this perception gap. We found that the information material, itself, has minimal influence on how individuals understand and give meaning to the benefits and harms of screening. Instead, culturally and socially constructed logics of cancer and screening were essential to the women’s meaning-making of cancer screening. We argue that the perception gap emerges from governmental power, as participants were not passively governed, but internalised prevailing norms and aligned their attitudes with socially constructed expectations that position screening participation as the only responsible way to manage health. This leaves little room for individuals to pursue individual preferences that conflict with this collectively constructed notion. We found that non-participation itself was constructed as implying that the individual bears responsibility for potential burdens such as later development of cancer. We argue that the collectively constructed concepts of cancer and screening identified in this article, as well as how they are used in governance, need to be addressed and critically challenged before harms of screening can be effectively communicated and meaningfully incorporated into decision-making.

There is a lack of evidence to support UK and international clinical recommendations to delay cervical screening to 12-weeks postnatal. In previous studies, half of women were out of date for screening by the end of pregnancy and the majority would be more likely to take up cervical screening, if offered at the 6-week postnatal check-up. We explored views about postnatal cervical screening the acceptability of offering cervical screening, using conventional and urine self-sampling, earlier within the postnatal period. A cross-sectional qualitative design was used with recruitment from a larger questionnaire-based study. Twenty-six online semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 pregnant or recently pregnant participants. Interviews were transcribed and pseudonymised. A topic guide was developed, and data analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes were generated from qualitative analysis of verbatim interview transcripts: 1) A window of opportunity; 2) Am I ready yet? Postpartum recovery; and 3) Neglect of women's health in and around pregnancy. Overall, there was a perception that women's health was not a priority in the postnatal period compared with their babies. This is the first study to use qualitative interview methods to explore women's views about the offer of cervical screening alongside the postnatal check-up. Results support the feasibility of a clinical trial to test the accuracy and effect on uptake of offering cervical screening at the postnatal check-up, although recognised it might be too soon for some. This should be considered in future feasibility research that includes assessment of concurrent acceptability. This study was performed following focus groups in a quality improvement project, designed to increase uptake of cervical screening in women and people who were pregnant or recently pregnant. The suggestion for combining cervical screening with the routine 6-week postnatal follow up was an idea generated by new parents and GP practice staff. The Somerset Maternity Voices group provided feedback on study materials, including the consent form and posters. The semi-structured interview topic guide was designed following free-text comments in the pre-PINCS web-based survey, results of which are published separately. Female pregnant and recently pregnant people, regardless of current gender identity, were included in this study. In line with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists language guide, we will use 'women' to describe participants. Trial was registered with the National Institute for Health and Care Research Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS ID: 55489) and https://bepartofresearch.nihr.ac.uk/.

Females with HIV (FWH) are recommended to receive cervical cancer screening annually, with the interval extended to every 3 years after three sequential normal results. Lifelong screening is highly recommended due to their increased risk of human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer. We assessed the trends in cervical cancer screening rates and cervical cancer/precancer prevalence among older FWH and females without HIV (FWOH) using 2007-2019 US Medicare data. We found that age-adjusted cervical cancer screening rates decreased similarly in both FWH and FWOH (average annual percentage change: -4.4 [95% CI: -5.2, -3.6] vs. -5.7 [95% CI: -6.8, -4.7], p = 0.11). However, the age-adjusted cervical cancer/precancer prevalence showed increasing rates among FWH (5.4, [2.9, 7.9]) while stable in FWOH (-0.6 [-1.4, 0.1]). These findings underscore the need for strict adherence to clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer screening in older FWH.

Uptake and performance of self-collection offered through primary care to all eligible participants in a national cervical screening programme in Australia: a retrospective cohort study.