A cross-sectional survey examining clinician characteristics, practices, and attitudes associated with adoption of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines

Impact of management guidelines for abnormal cervical cytology on colposcopy procedure rates among young women

OBJECTIVE

In 2012, updated ASCCP management guidelines for abnormal cervical cytology recommended observation rather than immediate referral to colposcopy for low-grade abnormalities in women ages 21-24. We evaluated the impact of these guidelines on changes in colposcopy procedure rates among young women.

METHODS

We analyzed administrative and claims data from the largest statewide family planning program between July 2011 and June 2015. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we estimated changes in colposcopy procedure rates among women ages 21-24 years before and after the 2012 ASCCP management guidelines, relative to a comparison group of women ages 25-44.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 333,977 women from 216 primary care provider sites. After publication of the 2012 ASCCP management guidelines, colposcopy rates significantly declined from 6.70% (95% CI 6.21-7.19) to 3.94% (95% CI 3.60-4.29) among women ages 21-24 and from 4.35% (95% CI 4.03-4.67) to 3.53% (3.25-3.80) among women over 24 years. These declines correspond to a 1.93 percentage point reduction (95% CI 1.62-2.25; p < 0.001) in colposcopy rate among women 21-24 vs. over 24 years, or a two-fold relative reduction. Among women ages 21-24, colposcopy receipt was associated with speaking primarily English vs. non-English (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.35-1.57), having a cervical cytology test within the past year vs. not (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.44-1.66), and receiving care from a public vs. private provider (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Colposcopy procedure rates among young women significantly declined following publication of the 2012 management guidelines, which has implications for reducing potential harms of overtreatment.

Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.

OBJECTIVE

Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.

DESIGN

A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.

PARTICIPANTS

Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.

MAIN MEASURES

Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.

KEY RESULTS

In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.

Health Care Provider Willingness to Recommend Self-collected Tests for Human Papillomavirus: A Mixed Methods Examination of Associated Factors

INTRODUCTION

Cervical cancer disproportionately affects those who are underscreened. Human papillomavirus self-collection is a promising tool to expand screening.

OBJECTIVE

Study objectives were to examine 1) factors (provider characteristics and practice type) associated with and 2) attitudes (perceived benefits and concerns) toward using human papillomavirus self-collection for cervical cancer screening in clinical practice.

METHODS

This study had a mixed method design; prior to regulatory approval of self-collection, we conducted a national survey and interviews of health care providers who perform cervical cancer screening. Quantitative measures included provider and practice characteristics, willingness to recommend, and preferences related to self-collection. Qualitative interviews further elucidated provider perspectives.

RESULTS

A total of 1,251 providers completed surveys, and 56 completed interviews. Among survey respondents, 33.4% reported they were likely to offer self-collection, 28.6% were unsure, and 38.0% reported they were unlikely. Most would offer self-collection either in the clinic or at home per patient preference. Male participants, advanced practice providers, internal and family physicians, and those practicing in academic medical center, hospital, or community health settings were more likely than female participants, obstetrician-gynecologist physicians, and those in private practice to indicate they were likely to offer self-collection. Concerns expressed in both surveys and interviews included the adequacy of sample collection and the ability to follow-up. Respondents felt that self-collection would be particularly beneficial for those who did not have access to clinician-collected screening, as well as for patients who may have difficulty with pelvic examinations for any reason.

CONCLUSION

Providers considered human papillomavirus self-collection to be a way to expand access for patients with health care barriers and pelvic examination difficulties. They had concerns related to sample adequacy and follow-up after abnormal results.

Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings

BACKGROUND

Follow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up.

METHODS

We identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology) among women of ages 25 to 65 years at three US healthcare systems during 2010 to 2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines.

RESULTS

Among 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/human papillomavirus-negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and 90% for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%, respectively. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese body mass index, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to the recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, although suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities.

IMPACT

There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to the appropriate management of cervical abnormalities.

Attitudes toward the American Cancer Society's 2020 cervical cancer screening guidelines: A qualitative study of a national sample of US clinicians

BACKGROUND

The 2020 American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for cervical cancer screening. These guidelines propose two major changes from current practice: initiating screening at age 25 years and using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, and therefore understanding clinician attitudes is important to facilitate practice change.

METHODS

Interviews with a national sample of clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening in a variety of settings explored attitudes toward the two major changes from the 2020 ACS cervical cancer screening guidelines. Clinicians participated in 30- to 60-min interviews exploring their attitudes toward various aspects of cervical cancer screening. Qualitative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seventy clinicians participated from across the United States. Few respondents were initiating screening at age 25 years, and none were using primary HPV testing. However, over half would be willing to adopt these practices if supported by scientific evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional societies, lack of laboratory availability and insurance coverage, limited autonomy within large health care systems, and concerns related to missed disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Few clinicians have adopted screening initiation or primary HPV testing, as recommended by the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to adopting these changes. Implementation may be facilitated via professional organization endorsement, clinician education, and laboratory, health care system, and insurance support.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The main changes to current practices were to initiate screening at age 25 years instead of age 21 years and to screen using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing rather than cytology alone or in combination with HPV testing. We performed in-depth interviews with 70 obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their attitudes toward these guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to changing practice if the changes were supported by evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional medical organizations, logistical issues, and concerns about missed disease.

PAX1 methylation as a robust predictor: developing and validating a nomogram for assessing endocervical curettage (ECC) necessity in human papillomavirus16/18-positive women undergoing colposcopy

OBJECTIVE

The major challenge in routine endocervical curettage (ECC) among Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18-positive patients is that only a small fraction benefit. Nevertheless, current reported models often overestimate the validity and necessity of ECC, making it difficult to improve benefits for patients. This research hypothesized that assessing paired boxed gene 1 methylation levels (PAX1m) and clinical characteristics could enhance the predictive accuracy of detecting additional high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL +) through ECC that were not identified by colposcopy-directed biopsy (CDB).

METHODS

Data from 134 women with HPV16/18 positivity undergoing CDB and ECC between April 2018 and April 2022 were collected and analyzed. Quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (qMSP) was utilized to measure PAX1m, expressed as ΔCp. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to screen variables and select predictive factors. A nomogram was constructed using multivariate logistic regression to predict additional HSIL + detected by ECC. The discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the nomogram were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) and the calibration plot.

RESULTS

Age (odds ratio [OR], 5.654; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.131-37.700), cytology (OR, 24.978; 95% CI, 3.085-540.236), and PAX1 methylation levels by grade (PAX1m grade) (OR, 7.801; 95% CI, 1.548-44.828) were independent predictive factors for additional detection of HSIL + by ECC. In HPV16/18-positive women, the likelihood of additional detection of HSIL + through ECC increased with the severity of cytological abnormalities, peaking at 43.8% for high-grade cytological lesions. Moreover, when cytological findings indicated low-grade lesions, PAX1 methylation levels were positively correlated with the additional detection of HSIL + by ECC (P value < 0.001). A nomogram prediction model was developed (area under curve (AUC) = 0.946; 95% CI, 0.901-0.991), demonstrating high sensitivity (90.9%) and specificity (90.5%) at the optimal cutoff point of 107. Calibration analysis confirmed the model's strong agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

CONCLUSION

The clinical nomogram presented promising predictive performance for the additional detection of HSIL + through ECC among women with HPV16/18 infection. PAX1 methylation level could serve as a valuable tool in guiding individualized clinical decisions regarding ECC for patients with HPV 16/18 infection, particularly in cases of low-grade cytological findings.

Survival disparities in non-Hispanic Black and White cervical cancer patients vary by histology and are largely explained by modifiable factors

PURPOSE

We investigated racial disparities in survival by histology in cervical cancer and examined the factors contributing to these disparities.

METHODS

Non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White (hereafter known as Black and White) patients with stage I-IV cervical carcinoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database were studied. Survival differences were compared using Cox modeling to estimate hazard ratio (HR) or adjusted HR (AHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The contribution of demographic, socioeconomic and clinical factors to the Black vs White differences in survival was estimated after applying propensity score weighting in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (AC).

RESULTS

This study included 10,111 Black and 43,252 White patients with cervical cancer. Black patients had worse survival than White cervical cancer patients (HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.35-1.45). Survival disparities between Black and White patients varied significantly by histology (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.15-1.24 for SCC; HR = 2.32, 95% CI = 2.12-2.54 for AC, interaction p < 0.0001). After balancing the selected demographic, socioeconomic and clinical factors, survival in Black vs. White patients was no longer different in those with SCC (AHR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.06) or AC (AHR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.96-1.24). In SCC, the largest contributors to survival disparities were neighborhood income and insurance. In AC, age was the most significant contributor followed by neighborhood income, insurance, and stage. Diagnosis of AC (but not SCC) at ≥65 years old was more common in Black vs. White patients (26% vs. 13%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Histology matters in survival disparities and diagnosis at ≥65 years old between Black and White cervical cancer patients. These disparities were largely explained by modifiable factors.

Factors Associated With Guideline-concordant and Excessive Cervical Cancer Screening: A Mixed Methods Study

INTRODUCTION

National guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening with Papanicolaou (Pap) testing at 3-year intervals or with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing alone or HPV/Pap cotesting at 5-year intervals for average-risk individuals aged 30-65 years.

METHODS

We explored factors associated with clinician-reported guideline-concordant screening, as well as facilitators and barriers to appropriate cervical cancer screening.

RESULTS

A national sample of clinicians (N = 1,251) completed surveys; a subset (n = 55) completed interviews. Most (94%) reported that they screened average-risk patients aged 30-65 years with cotesting. Nearly all clinicians who were categorized as nonadherent to national guidelines were overscreening (98%). Guideline concordant screening was reported by 47% and 82% of those using cotesting and HPV testing, respectively (5-year intervals), and by 62% of those using Pap testing only (3-year intervals). Concordant screening was reported more often by clinicians who were aged <40 years, non-Hispanic, and practicing in the West or Midwest, and less often by obstetrician-gynecologists and private practice physicians. Concordant screening was facilitated by beliefs that updated guidelines were evidence-based and reduced harms, health care system dissemination of guidelines, and electronic medical record prompts. Barriers to concordant screening included using outdated guidelines, relying on personal judgment, concern about missing cancers, inappropriate patient risk assessment, and lack of support for guideline adoption through health care systems or electronic medical records.

CONCLUSIONS

Most clinicians screened with Pap/HPV cotesting and approximately one-half endorsed a 5-year screening interval. Clinician knowledge gaps include understanding the evidence underlying 5-year intervals and appropriate risk assessment to determine which patients should be screened more frequently. Education and tracking systems can promote guideline-concordant screening.

Examining the association of clinician characteristics with perceived changes in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods assessment

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed method study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings and colposcopies.

Methods

In 2021, a national sample of 1251 clinicians completed surveys, including 675 clinicians who performed colposcopy; a subset (n=55) of clinicians completed qualitative interviews.

Results

Nearly half of all clinicians reported they were currently performing fewer cervical cancer screenings (47%) and colposcopies (44% of those who perform the procedure) than before the pandemic. About one-fifth (18.6%) of colposcopists reported performing fewer LEEPs than prior to the pandemic. Binomial regression analyses indicated that older, as well as internal medicine and family medicine clinicians (compared to OB-GYNs), and those practicing in community health centers (compared to private practice) had higher odds of reporting reduced screening. Among colposcopists, internal medicine physicians and those practicing in community health centers had higher odds of reporting reduced colposcopies. Qualitative interviews highlighted pandemic-related care disruptions and lack of tracking systems to identify overdue screenings.

Conclusions

Reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy among nearly half of clinicians more than 1 year into the pandemic raise concerns that inadequate screening and follow-up will lead to future increases in preventable cancers.

Funding

This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study's design, conduct, or reporting.