Background: Cervical cancer screening is a cost-effective method responsible for reducing cervical cancer-related mortality by 70% in countries that have achieved high coverage through nationwide screening strategies. However, there are disparities in access to screening. In Ecuador, although cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women, only 58.4% of women of reproductive age have ever been screened for cervical cancer. Methodology: A qualitative study was performed to understand the current barriers to screening and to identify strategies that could increase uptake in Azuay province, Ecuador. Seven focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with under-screened women and health professionals (HPs). The FGDs were recorded and transcribed. Content analysis was done using the socio-ecological framework to categorize and analyse the data. Results: Overall, 28 women and 27 HPs participated in the study. The two groups perceived different barriers to cervical cancer screening. The HPs considered barriers to be mainly at the policy level (lack of a structured screening plan; lack of health promotion) and the individual level (lack of risk perception; personal beliefs). The women identified barriers mainly at organizational level, such as long waiting times, lack of access to health centres, and inadequate patient–physician communication. Both groups mentioned facilitators at policy level, such as national campaigns promoting cervical cancer screening, and at community and individual level, including health literacy and women’s empowerment. Conclusions: The women considered access to health services the main barrier to screening, while the HPs identified a lack of investment in screening programmes and cultural patterns at the community level as major obstacles. To take an integrated approach to cervical cancer prevention, the perspectives of both groups should be taken into account. Additionally, new strategies and technologies, such as self-administered human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and community participation, should be implemented to increase access to cervical cancer screening.

Background: Colposcopy imaging is widely used to diagnose, treat and follow-up on premalignant and malignant lesions in the vulva, vagina, and cervix. Thus, deep learning algorithms are being used widely in cervical cancer diagnosis tools. In this study, we developed and preliminarily validated a model based on the Unet network plus SVM to classify cervical lesions on colposcopy images. Methodology: Two sets of images were used: the Intel & Mobile ODT Cervical Cancer Screening public dataset, and a private dataset from a public hospital in Ecuador during a routine colposcopy, after the application of acetic acid and lugol. For the latter, the corresponding clinical information was collected, specifically cytology on the PAP smear and the screening of human papillomavirus testing, prior to colposcopy. The lesions of the cervix or regions of interest were segmented and classified by the Unet and the SVM model, respectively. Results: The CAD system was evaluated for the ability to predict the risk of cervical cancer. The lesion segmentation metric results indicate a DICE of 50%, a precision of 65%, and an accuracy of 80%. The classification results’ sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 70%, 48.8%, and 58%, respectively. Randomly, 20 images were selected and sent to 13 expert colposcopists for a statistical comparison between visual evaluation experts and the CAD tool (p-value of 0.597). Conclusion: The CAD system needs to improve but could be acceptable in an environment where women have limited access to clinicians for the diagnosis, follow-up, and treatment of cervical cancer; better performance is possible through the exploration of other deep learning methods with larger datasets.

Background: HPV primary screening has shown effectiveness for cancer prevention; however, gynaecological examination is considered uncomfortable. Self-sampling methods increase the acceptance of screening. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of clinician sampling versus vaginal and urine self-sampling for HPV diagnosis. Methods: A diagnostic test study was conducted in a rural parish of Cuenca, Ecuador. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for HPV testing. The latter was considered as the golden standard. All three samples were processed with the same amplification and hybridization protocol for HPV detection (Hybribio) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Results: Characteristics of the participants were: median age 35 years; 40.8% married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; and median age of sexual onset, 17.6 years. The prevalence of any type of HPV with clinician sampling was 15.0%, 17.5% with urine sampling and 18.3% with vaginal self-sampling. Self-sampling sensitivity reached 94.4% (IC 74.2–99.9), and specificity 92.1% (IC 85.2–95.9). Urine sampling had a sensitivity of 88.8% (IC 67.2, 96.9), and specificity 94.1% (IC 67.2–96.9). The negative predictive value was 98.9% (IC 94.2–99.8) for vaginal self-sampling and 97.6% (IC 92.6–99.4) for urine sampling. Conclusions: This study shows that vaginal and urine self-sampling methods have similar sensitivity and specificity compared with clinician sampling for the diagnosis of HPV. The correlation between HPV genotypes among the three tests is satisfactory.

Introduction: Cervical cancer screening has demonstrated high efficacy in reducing cervical cancer mortality worldwide. However, clinician sampling is often perceived as an uncomfortable procedure that could reduce screening uptake. Self-sampling methods for HPV diagnosis have shown high sensitivity, which could increase acceptance and screening rates among women. Purpose: This study aims to identify the perceived barriers and advantages of self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling for cervical cancer screening in a rural setting in Ecuador. Patients and Methods: A qualitative study was conducted. Seven focus group discussions took place in the rural Parish of El Valle in Azuay Province, Cuenca, Ecuador. Women native to this rural area were included in the study. FGDs were recorded and transcribed, and content analysis was performed to categorize and analyze the data. Results: A total of 45 women participated in the study. Clinician sampling was perceived as a painful and intrusive method. However, participants believed that it is more reliable compared to self-sampling methods, attributing this to the direct visualization of the cervix, which facilitates the detection of cervical pathologies. The perceived advantages of self-sampling included increased comfort, pain reduction, time savings, the ability to perform the test at home, and the potential for widespread availability through pharmacies or local traditional healers. Nevertheless, doubts about the test’s reliability as well as the user’s proficiency in self-testing posed barriers to the adoption of this technique. Conclusion: Self-sampling methods offer several advantages over clinician sampling, such as enhanced privacy, comfort, and accessibility to cancer screening. Barriers primarily revolved around users’ proficiency in performing the test and the reliability of the results. Providing training for using self-sampling tests could address these barriers.

Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67–52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79–40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44–18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83–65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03–0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0–0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07–0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01–0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71–9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods.

Background: Cervical cancer continues to be a major health problem in developing countries. Educational programs, as well as Pap and HPV screening and vaccination, are important tools to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates associated with this disease. The objective of this study is to explore the diverse knowledge and perceptions about cervical cancer and the different diagnostic tests for HPV of populations living in the rural parish “El Valle”. Method: A qualitative study was conducted through eight focus groups, which included 46 participants from mixed ethnic groups. A phenomenological analysis was performed. Results: Four topics and seven sub-topics were identified. By analyzing all the narratives, it was possible to identify that the perception of cervical cancer was focused on its severity, secondary to its infectious process and screening periodicity. However, despite the diverse knowledge, indigenous people do not relate it to the human papilloma virus; in addition, there is also certain resistance to undergo the Pap smear test, for reasons such as inaccessibility and its sampling process. Conclusions: It is necessary to develop educational programs for the prevention of cervical cancer and to implement diagnostic alternatives to reach populations with precarious accessibility, as well as women who refuse to undergo the Pap smear test.