PAGE 22  | 
 assessment and data col-  | 
 Specific programs are being devel-  | 
 higher risk of having cervical disease  | 
 The only validated swab for self-col-  | 
 with age , reflecting natural immu-  | 
 lation , including participation rates ,  | 
 oped to address equity of access for  | 
 than those undergoing routine screen-  | 
 lection in Australia is the red-topped  | 
 nity . Of note is the persistence of low  | 
|||
| 
  rates of HPV infection , and follow-up information . 
 The register also provides data to 
 | 
 Indigenous populations , particularly in rural and remote settings . 11 Programs looking at specific needs in  | 
 ing . Performing the HPV and cytology tests concurrently decreases the risk of either a false-negative HPV result or  | 
 flocked swab ( see figure 8 ). It is vital that this is the only type used , as it is the specific nature of the swab that  | 
 rates of infection with HPV 16 or 18 . The rates of HPV infection in all age groups are higher in the self-col-  | 
|||
 the AIHW for its annual report . 5  | 
 these communities such as “ see and  | 
 false-negative cytology .  | 
 releases the viral DNA particles appro-  | 
 lection subgroup .  | 
|||
| 
  Participation and equity of access 
 Even before the 2017 renewal of Aus- 
 | 
  treat ” are being investigated . 
 Australia ’ s understanding of the significance of equity of access and barriers to screening has prompted 
 | 
  The sample , therefore , has to be taken from the cervix and collected into a liquid-filled jar . 
 If the patient is negative for HPV 
 | 
  priately into the test analyser . 
 The only collection device for clinician-collected swabs is the cervix sampler / broom / cytobrush . 
 | 
  Rates of detection of abnormalities 
 The rates of histologically-proven 
 | 
|||
 tralia ’ s cervical screening program ,  | 
 the introduction of the self-collect  | 
 they return in five years for routine  | 
 Figure 7 outlines the management  | 
 high-grade lesions , stratified by year ,  | 
|||
 it was known that participation had  | 
 screening option .  | 
 screening .  | 
 algorithms for the self-collect pathway .  | 
 appear in figure 10 .  | 
|||
| 
  fallen substantially from its peak in the early 2000s . 
 It is difficult to get an accurate current participation rate . The latest 
 | 
  SELF-COLLECT 
 THE Concept of self-collecting a cervical screening test sample has been 
 | 
 If the patient tests positive for HPV 16 or 18 , NCSP guidelines recommend direct referral for colposcopy , where a sample for cervical cytology will be  | 
  Outcomes of self-collection to date 
 The latest NCSR data since the expan- 
 | 
 Notably , there has been a significant increase in detection of high-grade abnormalities since the introduction of HPV testing in Aus-  | 
|||
 figures from the AIHW assess partic-  | 
 understood for many years ; this is now  | 
 taken . Douglass Hanly Moir pathology  | 
 sion of self-collection to all eligible  | 
 tralia ’ s screening program . This  | 
|||
 ipation at 62 % but this number also  | 
 possible because of the highly sensi-  | 
 continues to recommend cytology be  | 
 Australians shows there has been  | 
 was to be expected as it reflects the  | 
|||
 includes people returning for repeat  | 
 tive nature of HPV DNA testing . Some  | 
 done prior to colposcopy , as many col-  | 
 a consistent increase in self-collec-  | 
 higher sensitivity of HPV testing  | 
|||
 HPV testing after a previous positive  | 
 efforts were made to have a self-col-  | 
 poscopists prefer to have the cytology  | 
 tion uptake when analysed by age ,  | 
||||
 result . 5  | 
 lection option for cervical cytology but  | 
 result at the time of examination .  | 
 remoteness index and socio-eco-  | 
 POSITIVE PREDICTIVE VALUE  | 
|||
 Recruitment and participation  | 
 this was never really feasible .  | 
 If the patient tests positive for HPV  | 
 nomic status . Uptake of self-col-  | 
 An important measure in any screen-  | 
|||
 remain a significant issue for the cer-  | 
 International studies , including  | 
 non 16 / 18 , the NCSP recommends the  | 
 lection has also increased among  | 
 ing program is the confirmation  | 
|||
 vical program as some 70 % of cervi-  | 
 meta-analyses , have shown that a  | 
 patient returns to the clinician for a cer-  | 
 under-screened people . In March  | 
 rate of abnormalities . This shows  | 
|||
 cal cancers occur in those who have  | 
 self-collected vaginal test is as sensi-  | 
 vical cytology sample , as management  | 
 2023 the rate was about 20 % of all  | 
 how many patients sent to colpos-  | 
|||
 never been screened .  | 
 tive as a clinician-collected cervical  | 
 depends on the result of the cervical  | 
 samples . 14  | 
 copy will have a high-grade lesion  | 
|||
 One of the major tasks of the pro-  | 
 HPV test . 12  | 
 cytology .  | 
 The rate of HPV positivity is sig-  | 
 detected .  | 
|||
 gram is to ensure equity of access  | 
 A self-collection option was ini-  | 
 If the cytology is negative , or  | 
 nificantly higher in self-collected  | 
 AIHW data and work from the  | 
|||
 and elimination of barriers to partic-  | 
 tially included in the protocol for the  | 
 shows possible or low-grade lesions , a  | 
 compared with clinician-collected  | 
 Douglass Hanly Moir laboratory  | 
|||
 ipation . Marginalised and under-ser-  | 
 renewed program in 2017 but was  | 
 repeat HPV test is recommended in 12  | 
 samples ( 9.72 versus 8.04 , p < 0.001 ).  | 
 show this rate to be 24 %. This is well  | 
|||
 viced groups need to be identified  | 
 restricted to under-screened women  | 
 months ’ time . If the cytology shows a  | 
 Early analysis of this information  | 
 above the internationally accepted  | 
|||
 and targeted for attention .  | 
 older than 30 . The uptake was rela-  | 
 high-grade , glandular or possible high-  | 
 suggests this is because of a higher  | 
 level of 10 % and indicates that the  | 
|||
 Participation rates vary significantly depending on geographic location . These rates reflect the incidence and mortality rates of cervical disease , highlighting the significance of  | 
  tively low . 
 As previously outlined , increasing the participation rate and providing equity of access to all eligible participants in the screening program is of 
 | 
  grade lesions , then a referral directly to colposcopy is indicated . 
 There has been much discussion as to whether self-testing could be done via mail-out or whether a swab could 
 | 
 positivity among under- and never-screened people compared with those previously screened . Unsatisfactory sample rates were higher with self-collection than clini-  | 
  screening program is working well . 15 
 CASE STUDIES 
 Case study one 
 ROMA , a 36-year-old woman , pre- 
 | 
|||
 equity of access ( see figure 6 ).  | 
 utmost importance .  | 
 be given to the patient to undertake the  | 
 cian-collection ( 1.98 % versus 0.13 %,  | 
 sents to the GP requesting a sexually  | 
|||
 Consideration of equity of access  | 
 In July 2022 the self-collection  | 
 test at home .  | 
 p < 0.001 ). 14  | 
 transmitted infection ( STI ) check .  | 
|||
 needs to be given to Indigenous , cul-  | 
 option became available for all people  | 
 For the self-collected test to be as  | 
 Importantly , patients have been  | 
 She is new to the practice . Roma has  | 
|||
| 
  turally and linguistically diverse , and LGBTIQ + communities . 
 Any patient with , or who has had , 
 | 
 eligible for cervical screening . This option is suitable for both primary screening and as 12-month fol-  | 
 sensitive as the clinician-collected sample , the sampling needs to be done under well-controlled circumstances ,  | 
  returning for further investigation at a reasonable rate . 
 There was about a 70 % rate of 
 | 
 recently entered a new relationship with a female partner . She identifies as lesbian and uses the pronoun  | 
|||
 a cervix should have access to and be  | 
 low-up HPV testing where the patient  | 
 with validated swabs , transport and  | 
 colposcopy after a self-collect posi-  | 
 ‘ her ’.  | 
|||
 encouraged to participate in cervical  | 
 has tested positive to non 16 / 18 with  | 
 testing .  | 
 tive test for HPV 16 or 18 and about  | 
 Her past medical history is unre-  | 
|||
 screening services .  | 
 negative or low-grade cytology .  | 
 Recently published data from the  | 
 70 % of people returned for a liq-  | 
 markable . She keeps fit and healthy  | 
|||
 Lesbian women report almost half  | 
 It is important to note that a  | 
 Netherlands cervical screening pro-  | 
 uid-base cytology within six months  | 
 with exercise and diet . She has no  | 
|||
 the rates of cervical screening of het-  | 
 self-collected sample cannot be used  | 
 gram - which also offered a self-collect  | 
 of a self-collected non16 / 18 HPV pos-  | 
 symptoms or signs of any STI but ,  | 
|||
 erosexual women and account for a  | 
 where a co-test ( simultaneous HPV  | 
 option - showed an uptake of around  | 
 itive result . 14  | 
 given this is a new relationship ,  | 
|||
 much higher proportion of individuals who have never been screened compared with their heterosexual counterparts . 9 , 10  | 
 and cytology ) is the recommended investigation . The two major clinical situations where this applies are for a symptomatic patient ( potential symp-  | 
  7 % of all samples . 13 
 Notably , self-collected samples had a significantly lower rate of detection of both HPV and high-grade lesions than 
 | 
  Rates of detection of HPV related to age 
 Recent AIHW data provides an indi- 
 | 
  would like to be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhoea . 
 When the GP asks whether she has ever had any cervical screening tests , 
 | 
|||
 Lesbian and bisexual women  | 
 toms or signs of cervical cancer ) and  | 
 clinician-collected samples , a finding  | 
 cation of the rates of detection of HPV  | 
 Roma advises she had a Pap smear  | 
|||
 and transgender men who have not  | 
 when a patient is undergoing a test of  | 
 contrary to previous studies .  | 
 by subtype ( see figure 9 ).  | 
 10 years ago . She cannot remember  | 
|||
 undergone hysterectomy have been  | 
 cure .  | 
 Detailed analysis shows that the  | 
 The figure is stratified by age and  | 
 the result but found the whole expe-  | 
|||
 specifically included as priority pop-  | 
 A clinician-collected sample is  | 
 collection methodology was causing  | 
 clearly shows the highest rate of  | 
 rience unpleasant and embarrassing  | 
|||
 ulations in both the recent draft Aus-  | 
 needed in each of these cases so that  | 
 the lower sensitivity , highlighting the  | 
 infection is in the younger age group ,  | 
 and has not been tested since . Roma  | 
|||
 tralian Cancer Plan and the draft  | 
 an HPV and cytology test can be done  | 
 importance of the collection proce-  | 
 with most infections being the  | 
 has also been told that gay women do  | 
|||
 National Strategy for the Elimination  | 
 concurrently .  | 
 dure . The Netherlands subsequently  | 
 non-vaccine subtypes .  | 
 not need screening .  | 
|||
 of Cervical Cancer in Australia .  | 
 These patients are at significantly  | 
 changed their protocols .  | 
 The rate of infection diminishes  | 
 The GP orders the appropriate  | 
|||