PURPOSE:The WHO now recommends thermal ablation as an alternative to cryotherapy within "screen-and-treat" cervical cancer programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted a safety and acceptability clinical trial of thermal ablation in a Kenyan Ministry of Health hospital among women living with HIV (WLWH; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04191967). METHODS:Between August 2019 and February 2020, WLWH age 25-65 years underwent human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection in western Kenya. HPV-positive women underwent visual inspection with acetic acid, biopsy, and treatment with thermal ablation performed by a nonphysician clinician, if eligible by standard guidelines. A questionnaire was administered after treatment to assess for pain and treatment acceptability. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated 4-6 weeks after treatment with a standardized grading tool. RESULTS:A total of 293 HPV-positive WLWH underwent thermal ablation in the study period. The mean age was 40.4 years (standard deviation, 8.7 years). After treatment, 15 (5.1%), 231 (78.8%), 42 (14.3%), and 5 (1.8%) reported none, mild, moderate, and severe pain with treatment, respectively. At follow-up, spotting, vaginal discharge, and pelvic pain were reported by 99 (37.8%), 258 (98.5%), and 46 (17.6%), respectively, for a median of 3.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3), 14 (IQR, 7-21), and 7 (IQR, 3-7) days, respectively. Most participants graded their AEs as mild (grade 1): 94 (95.0%) for bleeding, 125 (48.5%) for vaginal discharge, and 37 (80.4%) for pelvic pain. No grade 3 or 4 AEs were reported. The vast majority (99.2%) were satisfied with the treatment and would recommend it to a friend. CONCLUSION:Thermal ablation performed by nonphysicians in the public health sector in Kenya proved safe and highly acceptable in treating HPV-positive WLWH.

The World Health Organization recommends thermal ablation (TA) as an alternative to cryotherapy within "screen-and-treat" cervical cancer programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including among women living with HIV (WLWH). Data on TA efficacy among WLWH are limited, however. We conducted a clinical trial to evaluate efficacy of TA for treatment of biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2/3) among WLWH in Kenya. Nonpregnant HPV-positive WLWH age 25 to 65 years underwent colposcopy-directed biopsy, and same-day treatment with TA, if eligible. Women with biopsy-confirmed CIN2/3 at baseline had colposcopy-directed biopsies at 12 months to determine cure. A total of 376 participants underwent TA during the study period. At baseline, 238 (63.3%) had normal histology, 39 (10.4%) had CIN1, 15 (4.0%) had CIN2, 55 (14.6%) had CIN3, 7 (1.9%) had microinvasive cancer and 22 (5.6%) had indeterminate results. Twelve-month follow-up pathology results are available for 59 of 70 (84.3%) participants with CIN2/3 at baseline. Of these, 39 (66.1%, 95% CI 0.54-0.99) had successful treatment, defined as biopsy-confirmed CIN1 or normal findings, while 20 (33.9%, 95% CI 0.22-0.46) had treatment failure, defined as persistent biopsy-confirmed CIN2 or worse. Treatment failure was 23.1% (95% CI 0.17-0.46) and 39.9% (95% CI 0.23-0.51) among women with CIN2 and CIN3 at baseline, respectively. HIV-positive women with CIN2/3 have high rates of treatment failure at 1-year following thermal ablation. This highlights a significant limitation in the current WHO cervical cancer secondary-prevention strategy and calls for strategies to optimize cervical precancer treatment in this population.

Purpose

Adjunct cervical cancer screening methods are under evaluation to improve the diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening in low- and middle-income countries. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone-based cervicography among HPV-positive women living with HIV (WLWH) in Western Kenya.

Methods

HPV-positive WLWH of 25-49 years of age enrolled in a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04191967) had digital images of the cervix taken using a smartphone by a nonphysician provider following visual inspection with acetic acid. All participants had colposcopy-directed biopsy before treatment. Cervical images were evaluated by three off-site colposcopists for quality, diagnostic utility, and assigned a presumed diagnosis. We determined the proportion of images rates as low, medium, or high quality, interobserver agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic, and the off-site colposcopist's sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared with histopathology. Acceptability was evaluated using a questionnaire.

Results

One hundred sixty-four HPV-positive WLWH underwent cervicography during the study period. Mean age was 37.3 years. Images from the first 94 participants were evaluated by off-site colposcopists, with a majority (70.9%) rated as high quality. Off-site colposcopists had a sensitivity ranging from 21.4% (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.43) to 35.7% (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.46) and a specificity between 85.5% (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.90) to 94.9% (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98) for diagnosis of CIN2+ based compared with histopathology. The majority of women, 99.4%, were comfortable having an image of their cervix taken as part of screening.

Conclusion

Cervicography by a nonphysician provider as an adjunct to HPV-based screening among WLWH in a low- and middle-income country setting is feasible and acceptable. However, low sensitivity for diagnosis of CIN2+ by off-site expert colposcopists highlights the limitations of cervicography.