Article roadmap
This article is organized around the core clinical question raised by Clark and colleagues: can high-risk HPV self-sampling improve cervical cancer screening for transmasculine and nonbinary people? The discussion moves from disease burden and screening disparities, to the design and scope of the narrative review, then to the main findings on acceptability and adherence, followed by practical implications, limitations, and research priorities.
Highlights
Transmasculine and nonbinary people with a cervix remain at risk for HPV-related cervical cancer but are screened less often than cisgender women. In the reviewed literature, high-risk HPV self-sampling was generally well accepted, and most participants preferred it over clinician-collected sampling. One included study suggested that offering self-sampling improved screening adherence. The evidence supports self-sampling as a pragmatic, gender-affirming option, although follow-up pathways and long-term outcomes still need better definition.
Background and unmet need
Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus is the necessary causal factor in nearly all cervical cancers. The public health logic of screening is therefore straightforward: detect high-risk HPV infection and identify precancerous lesions before invasive disease develops. Yet the success of screening programs depends not only on test performance, but also on whether eligible individuals are willing and able to complete screening in the first place.
For transmasculine and nonbinary people who retain a cervix, this remains a major gap in care. Multiple barriers contribute to under-screening. These include prior trauma, gender dysphoria related to pelvic exams, anticipation of stigma or misgendering in clinical settings, discomfort with gynecologic spaces that are often designed around cisgender women, concerns about pain from speculum examination, and in some cases testosterone-associated vaginal atrophy that can make clinician-collected sampling physically difficult. Administrative problems also matter: electronic medical records, insurance systems, and preventive care reminders may not reliably identify screening eligibility when legal sex and organ inventory do not align.
The consequence is clinically important. A lower likelihood of screening does not imply lower biologic risk. Any person with a cervix who has been exposed to HPV remains potentially at risk for cervical precancer and cancer. This is why alternative screening modalities, particularly those that reduce dysphoria and increase autonomy, have attracted growing interest.
Self-sampling for high-risk HPV testing is one such strategy. In broad populations, self-collected vaginal sampling for HPV has shown good diagnostic performance, especially when polymerase chain reaction-based assays are used. It also tends to improve participation among people who avoid clinic-based screening. Clark and colleagues address a key translational question: whether this approach is similarly valuable for transmasculine and nonbinary populations, in whom conventional cervical screening may carry unusually high barriers.
Study design and scope of the review
The article by Clark M, Rusley J, Graham C, and Cronin B is a narrative review published in Obstetrics and Gynecology on April 30, 2026. According to the abstract, the review evaluates high-risk HPV self-sampling as a cervical cancer screening modality in transmasculine and nonbinary populations. The review appears to synthesize evidence on patient acceptability, test preference, and the effect of self-sampling options on screening adherence.
Because this is a narrative review rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis, its main contribution is interpretive and practice-oriented rather than quantitative. Narrative reviews can be especially useful when a field is emerging, heterogeneous, and not yet amenable to pooled effect estimates. That is clearly the case here: the available literature in transmasculine and nonbinary populations is still relatively small, study designs vary, and outcomes often focus on feasibility and patient experience rather than long-term cancer endpoints.
The patient population of interest is clinically well defined: transmasculine and nonbinary individuals with a cervix who are eligible for cervical cancer screening. The intervention is self-collected sampling for high-risk HPV testing. The implicit comparator is clinician-collected cervical sampling, whether through Pap testing, clinician-collected HPV testing, or cotesting depending on the study context. The most relevant endpoints are screening acceptability, preference, completion or adherence rates, and the practical implications for follow-up care after a positive result.
Key findings
1. Self-sampling was highly accepted
The central message of the review is that self-sampling appears highly acceptable in transmasculine and nonbinary populations. This finding matters because acceptability is not a soft endpoint in this setting; it is directly linked to whether screening occurs at all. A technically excellent test has limited value if the screening process itself is experienced as intolerable or inaccessible.
The abstract notes that the majority of participants in reviewed studies preferred self-sampling to any form of clinician-collected sample. This preference is clinically plausible and aligns with what is already known about barriers to pelvic examination in gender-diverse populations. Self-sampling may reduce exposure to dysphoria-triggering procedures, increase privacy and control, and shift cervical cancer prevention from an exam-centered model to a patient-centered one.
At the same time, the review appropriately avoids treating preference as universal. Preferences varied across studies, and choice of methods remained important. That nuance is essential. Some patients may still prefer clinician collection for reassurance, for same-visit comprehensive gynecologic assessment, or because they are uncertain about performing self-collection correctly. Others may value the opportunity to choose between in-clinic self-collection, home-based self-collection, and clinician collection. A screening program that preserves autonomy is likely to be more effective than one that simply replaces one mandated method with another.
2. Offering self-sampling may improve adherence
Perhaps the most practice-relevant finding is that in at least one study, offering self-sampling increased adherence to cervical cancer screening among transmasculine and nonbinary patients. This is the signal clinicians and health systems have been waiting for. The key outcome in preventive oncology is not merely how individuals rate the test, but whether uptake improves among those who are currently missed by standard care pathways.
Although the abstract does not report a pooled effect estimate or detailed numerical results, even a single study showing improved completion after self-sampling is important in this context. Screening nonadherence is one of the most actionable drivers of preventable cervical cancer. If self-sampling converts avoidance into participation, it may reduce downstream inequities in precancer detection and treatment.
The finding also fits with the broader cervical screening literature in the general population, where mailing or offering self-sampling kits has often increased participation among underscreened groups. The transmasculine and nonbinary context adds a distinct layer: the benefit is not only convenience, but potentially relief from a care experience that can feel invalidating or psychologically unsafe.
3. Self-sampling should be viewed as an option, not a one-size-fits-all replacement
The review’s wording is careful and clinically useful: clinicians should feel comfortable offering high-risk HPV self-testing as an option for cervical cancer screening. That framing matters. It avoids overclaiming and is consistent with shared decision-making. For some patients, self-sampling may be the preferred and most feasible route. For others, clinician-collected testing may remain appropriate. An options-based approach is particularly important in gender-affirming care, where the manner of offering care is often as important as the test itself.
In practical terms, this means screening programs should not assume that one pathway fits all eligible patients with a cervix. Instead, systems should support multiple routes to completion, ideally with clear education on what a positive self-sampled HPV result means and what follow-up steps may be needed.
4. Follow-up after positive results remains a key implementation issue
The authors highlight an important evidence gap: more research is needed to guide follow-up recommendations and to determine the long-term effect of self-sampling on adherence. This is a central implementation challenge. Self-sampling can identify high-risk HPV, but a positive result generally triggers further evaluation, which may include clinician-collected testing, colposcopy, or biopsy depending on local guidelines and assay type.
For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, the follow-up step may reintroduce the same barriers that prevented screening in the first place. A program that succeeds at initial self-sampling but loses patients after a positive result will only partially solve the problem. Therefore, the full care pathway matters: not just access to self-collection, but also trauma-informed counseling, streamlined referral systems, and gender-affirming colposcopy services when indicated.
Clinical interpretation
This review reinforces a broader principle in preventive care: equity requires redesigning delivery models, not merely reiterating guideline eligibility. Transmasculine and nonbinary people with a cervix have long fallen into a mismatch between risk and access. HPV self-sampling directly addresses one of the most modifiable barriers, namely the dependence of screening on a pelvic exam performed by a clinician.
From a biological perspective, the rationale is sound. Cervical carcinogenesis is driven by persistent high-risk HPV infection, and HPV testing is now central to modern screening strategies. If a self-collected specimen can accurately detect high-risk HPV and improve participation, then it has strong potential clinical value, particularly for populations that are systematically underserved by conventional screening models.
From a systems perspective, self-sampling also offers advantages beyond the individual patient encounter. It may allow integration into primary care, telehealth-enabled prevention workflows, mailed kit programs, and community-based outreach. For populations that have experienced healthcare discrimination, these delivery models may be more acceptable than referral into traditional gynecology settings.
However, implementation must be thoughtful. Clinicians should avoid presenting self-sampling as a lesser or informal substitute. Instead, it should be discussed as an evidence-based screening option with clear explanation of its role, limitations, and follow-up requirements. Language matters: anatomy-based, affirming communication is more effective than assumptions based on gender markers or past gynecologic care patterns.
Strengths and limitations of the evidence
The review addresses an area of high clinical relevance that has historically received insufficient attention. Its greatest strength is likely its focus on a specific population with clear unmet needs, rather than extrapolating uncritically from data in cisgender women. This population-specific approach is essential because screening barriers, care preferences, and follow-up challenges are not interchangeable across groups.
The limitations are those expected in an emerging literature. First, the evidence base appears small, and some studies may involve modest sample sizes or single-center recruitment. Second, patient-reported acceptability, while important, does not fully answer questions about long-term screening interval adherence, downstream colposcopy completion, detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, or eventual cancer prevention. Third, self-sampling studies can vary substantially in assay platform, collection method, and whether testing is performed at home or in clinic, making cross-study comparisons difficult.
Another limitation is that preference data can be influenced by local care culture and prior negative healthcare experiences. In other words, a high preference for self-sampling may reflect both enthusiasm for autonomy and avoidance of stigmatizing clinical systems. That does not diminish the value of self-sampling, but it underscores the need to improve the underlying care environment as well.
Implications for practice
For clinicians, the main takeaway is pragmatic: if you care for transmasculine or nonbinary patients with a cervix, self-sampled high-risk HPV testing should be considered part of a gender-affirming cervical cancer screening strategy where available and guideline-concordant. It is especially relevant for patients who are overdue for screening, have declined speculum-based exams, or express distress about clinician-collected sampling.
Implementation in practice should include several elements. First, eligibility should be determined by organ inventory and screening history, not gender identity alone. Second, counseling should explain what the test detects, how the sample is collected, and what happens if the result is positive. Third, clinics should build reliable follow-up systems so that abnormal results do not disappear into fragmented care. Fourth, staff training in respectful communication is essential; offering a self-sampling kit in an otherwise non-affirming environment will have only limited impact.
Health systems should also pay attention to logistics: electronic reminders based on anatomy, insurance coverage, specimen labeling, laboratory workflows, and referral pathways for colposcopy. The success of self-sampling depends as much on these operational details as on the test itself.
Research priorities
The next wave of evidence should move beyond acceptability alone. Priorities include prospective studies evaluating completion of the entire care cascade after self-sampling, comparative effectiveness against clinician-collected strategies in real-world screening programs, and data on the management of positive self-sampled HPV results in transmasculine and nonbinary populations. Research should also examine differences between home-based and clinic-based self-collection, the influence of testosterone use and vaginal atrophy on sample adequacy and patient experience, and the impact of self-sampling on long-term screening interval adherence.
Importantly, future studies should include implementation outcomes such as equity of access, cost, laboratory feasibility, and linkage to treatment. Community-engaged research methods will be especially valuable in ensuring that study design reflects patient priorities rather than only institutional convenience.
Conclusion
Clark and colleagues provide an important early synthesis of a clinically meaningful and overdue topic. Their review suggests that high-risk HPV self-sampling is well accepted by many transmasculine and nonbinary patients and may improve screening adherence when offered as an option. The evidence is not yet complete, especially regarding follow-up after positive tests and long-term outcomes, but it is strong enough to influence practice now. For clinicians committed to equitable, gender-affirming preventive care, self-sampling represents a practical opportunity to reduce one of the most persistent barriers to cervical cancer screening.
Funding and trial registration
No funding information or ClinicalTrials.gov registration number was provided in the abstract supplied here. Readers should consult the full published article for funding disclosures, conflicts of interest, and any additional methodological details.
References
1. Clark M, Rusley J, Graham C, Cronin B. Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in Transmasculine and Nonbinary People. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2026-04-30. PMID: 42060925.
2. World Health Organization. WHO guideline on self-care interventions for health and well-being. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022 update.
3. Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P, on behalf of the Collaboration on Self-Sampling and HPV Testing. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018;363:k4823.
4. Fuzzell LN, Perkins RB, Christy SM, et al. Cervical cancer screening in transgender men: a review of current evidence and guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2021;36(12):3833-3840.
5. Reisner SL, Deutsch MB, Peitzmeier S, et al. Test performance and acceptability of self- versus provider-collected swabs for high-risk HPV DNA testing in female-to-male transgender adults. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0190172.
6. Peitzmeier SM, Reisner SL, Harigopal P, Potter J. Female-to-male patients have high prevalence of unsatisfactory Paps compared with non-transgender females: implications for cervical cancer screening. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2014;29(5):778-784.
