Period Blood Tests Could ‘Replace’ Cervical Screening

Cervical screenings are key to spotting cell abnormalities and HPV (responsible for 99% of cervical cancers) early, preventing any changes from turning into cancer.

Since 1964, these screenings have happened through cervical screenings in the UK, in which a “soft brush” is inserted into a person’s cervix to collect cells.

But new research published in the BMJ said “HPV testing of menstrual blood could be a robust alternative or replacement to clinician-based testing”.

This could be promising, the researchers say, because people can “non-invasively collect samples at home”. The process also “reduces their discomfort and alleviates fear of pain”.

As many as 62% of people eligible for cervical screenings say they worry about discomfort, while one in three skip their appointment.

In this research, 3,068 women, aged 20-54 years, with regular periods, wore “minipads” while menstruating.

This was a sterile cotton strip added to their period pad.

They also provided a clinician-collected cervical sample, and an “an additional clinician collected cervical sample for laboratory processing” – like a regular cervical screening.

Researchers wanted to measure the respective diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of these different tests.

“Sensitivity indicates how well a test picks up people who have a disease and specificity indicates how well a test picks up those who don’t,” the BMJ said in a press release.

In this study, minipads had a sensitivity of 94.7% for detecting CIN2+ (precancerous cervical cells usually caused by HPV). This was not far from the sensitivity of clinician-collected samples (92.1%).

And while specificity was lower in the minipad tests (89.1% vs 90.0%), with clinician-collected samples performing better, the negative predictive value, or “the probability that a person with a negative test result truly does not have the disease,” was identical (99.9%).

Additionally, the positive predictive value – “the probability that a person with a positive test result truly has the disease” – was about the same (9.9% v 10.4%), and referrals for further testing were also about equal.

Researchers stressed that more research is needed. This study also said that real-world research should focus on factors like cost and accessibility, as well as ensuring the biomarkers they’re using to detect HPV help the tests to become as specific and sensitive as possible.

Still, the authors add, “The results of this large-scale community-based study show the utility of using minipad collected menstrual blood for HPV testing as a standardised, non-invasive alternative or replacement for cervical cancer screening.

“The findings of this study support the integration of menstrual blood-based HPV testing into national cervical cancer screening guidelines.”