The objective of the present study is to assess the performance of a high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA test with individual HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping as a method for primary cervical cancer screening compared with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in a population of Greek women taking part in routine cervical cancer screening. The study, conducted by the “HEllenic Real life Multicentric cErvical Screening” (HERMES) study group, involved the recruitment of 4,009 women, aged 25–55, who took part in routine cervical screening at nine Gynecology Departments in Greece. At first visit cervical specimens were collected for LBC and HPV testing using the Roche Cobas 4800 system. Women found positive for either cytology or HPV were referred for colposcopy, whereas women negative for both tests will be retested after three years. The study is ongoing and the results of the first screening round are reported herein. Valid results for cytology and HPV testing were obtained for 3,993 women. The overall prevalence of HR-HPV was 12.7%, of HPV-16 2.7% and of HPV-18 1.4%. Of those referred for colposcopy, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was detected in 41 women (1.07%). At the threshold of CIN2+, cytology [atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse] and HPV testing showed a sensitivity of 53.7% and 100% respectively, without change between age groups. Cytology and HPV testing showed specificity of 96.8% and 90.3% respectively, which was increased in older women (≥30) in comparison to younger ones (25–29). Genotyping for HPV16/18 had similar accuracy to cytology for the detection of CIN2+ (sensitivity: 58.5%; specificity 97.5%) as well as for triage to colposcopy (sensitivity: 58.5% vs 53.7% for cytology). HPV testing has much better sensitivity than cytology to identify high-grade cervical lesions with slightly lower specificity. HPV testing with individual HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping could represent a more accurate methodology for primary cervical cancer screening in comparison to liquid-based cytology, especially in older women.

A systematic review of the literature has been conducted (last update March 2014) for clinical studies reporting the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the offspring of HPV-infected women in association to their mode of delivery. A meta-analysis was carried out according to the identification of concordant neonatal to maternal HPV types. Overall eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our pooled results, showed that caesarean section is associated with significantly lower rates of HPV transmission than vaginal birth (14.9% vs. 28.2%, risk ratio or RR: 0.515, 95% confidence interval or CI: 0.34–0.78). The number of caesarean sections needed to prevent one case of perinatal infection (number needed to treat or NNT) would be 7.5. As a conclusion it should be noted that caesarean section decreases the risk for perinatal HPV transmission by approximately 46%. Perinatal transmission still occurs in approximately 15% of the children born by caesarean section.

The aim of the present cohort study was to assess the long-term (follow-up period up to 22 years) recurrence rate of preinvasive disease and the newly detected invasive disease rate in a cohort of women treated with excisional methods for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Women treated with large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) and cold knife conization (CKC) for histologically proven high-grade CIN were followed up for up to 22 years. Surgical specimens underwent histological examination and the status of endocervical as well as ectocervical margins was recorded. Follow-up protocol included conventional Pap test, colposcopy and pelvic examination at 3, 6, and 12 months after the initial treatment, and every 12 months thereafter, provided that the results were normal. In case of high-grade cytological findings and/or atypical colposcopic impression, multiple punch biopsies were taken in order to verify or exclude recurrent disease. In total, 804 women were followed for a mean time of 77.1 months (range: 6–266). LLETZ was used in 569 (70.7%) and CKC in 235 cases (29.2%). No woman developed invasive cervical cancer. Recurrent high-grade disease, developed in 9 women (1.1%, 95% confidence interval 0.5–2.2). Median treatment-to-recurrence time was 46.5 months (range: 6–235.3). One woman treated for squamous CIN2 on clear margins developed adenocarcinoma in situ 59.2 months post-treatment. Women having undergone excisional treatment for high-grade CIN indicate a very low risk for recurrent disease and potentially negligible risk for invasive cancer, provided that a strict and vigorous follow-up is offered after treatment.

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is an alternative to physician sampling particularly for cervical cancer screening nonattenders. The GRECOSELF study is a nationwide observational cross-sectional study aiming to suggest a way to implement HPV-DNA testing in conjunction with self-sampling for cervical cancer screening in Greece, utilizing a midwifery network. Women residing in remote areas of Greece were approached by midwives, of a nationwide network, and were provided with a self-collection kit (dry swab) for cervicovaginal sampling and asked to answer a questionnaire about their cervical cancer screening history. Each sample was tested for high-risk (hr) HPV with the Cobas HPV test. HrHPV-Positive women were referred to undergo colposcopy and, if needed, treatment according to colposcopy/biopsy results. Between May 2016 and November 2018, 13,111 women were recruited. Of these, 12,787 women gave valid answers in the study questionnaire and had valid HPV-DNA results; hrHPV prevalence was 8.3%; high-grade cervical/vaginal disease or cancer prevalence was 0.6%. HrHPV positivity rate decreased with age from 20.7% for women aged 25–29 years to 5.1% for women aged 50–60 years. Positive predictive value for hrHPV testing and for HPV16/18 genotyping ranged from 5.0% to 11.6% and from 11.8% to 27.0%, respectively, in different age groups. Compliance to colposcopy referral rate ranged from 68.6% (for women 25–29) to 76.3% (for women 40–49). For women residing in remote areas of Greece, the detection of hrHPV DNA with the Cobas HPV test, on self-collected cervicovaginal samples using dry cotton swabs, which are provided by visiting midwives, is a promising method for cervical cancer secondary prevention.

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA testing combined with self-sampling could increase cervical cancer screening effectiveness, utilizing a sensitive screening modality and an easy sampling method with minimal pain or discomfort. Self-sampling acceptability, though, is pivotal. Materials and Methods: This study is a nested cross-sectional survey within GRECOSELF, a cross-sectional study on HPV-based screening with self-sampling, aiming at investigating self-sampling acceptability among Greek women residing in rural areas, and the factors affecting it. Women between 25 and 60 years old were recruited by midwives participating in a nationwide midwifery network. Participants, after self-sampling, filled out a questionnaire with three sections, one regarding demographic characteristics, a second with questions pertaining to the participants' cervical cancer screening history, and a third with questions regarding the self-sampling process per se. Results: The sample included 13,111 women. Most participants (67.9%), including those screened or not in the past, would prefer self-sampling if assured that the results are not inferior to standard testing. Discomfort or pain during self-sampling was absent or minimal in 97.1% and 96.5% of the cases, respectively, and 74.4% of the women felt adequately confident that they followed the instructions correctly. Women mostly preferred self-sampling at home compared with health care facilities. Pain and discomfort during the procedure, although rare, were significant factors against acceptance. Most of the women reporting a negative impression had a negative experience with conventional sampling in the past. Conclusion: Self-sampling is highly acceptable. Acceptance can be further improved with proper communication of the process and its noninferiority compared with conventional screening.