Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests screening interval recommendations in the United States

Screening for occult cancer: where are we in 2020?

The relationship between venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer has become an area of intense debate due to the importance and the potential benefits of the identification of occult cancer following the diagnosis of unprovoked VTE. At present, extended screening is not recommended in patients with unprovoked VTE. However, if we were able to identify a group at greater risk of presenting cancer during follow-up, these patients would benefit from extended screening. The creation of a trans-organ screening model enables the unification of metrics of quality in the screening of cancer in different localizations. Likewise, it can incorporate cancer screening for other localizations or other specific situations of risk such as unprovoked VTE. This study summarizes the contribution of the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) initiative aimed at improving the cancer screening process. Likewise, we have carried out an updated review of unprovoked VTE and occult cancer. Finally, we discuss the studies currently ongoing aimed at identifying the population at greatest risk of presenting cancer during follow-up. The identification of this population at high risk could help to determine the following steps to undertake in order to implement screening in this population.

Are uninsured women in a national screening program having longer intervals between cervical cancer screening tests?

With increased understanding of the natural history of cervical cancer, cervical cancer screening recommendations have evolved (Schiffman & Wentzensen, 2013). As research better quantified the balance of benefits and harms of screening, new recommendations called for longer intervals between screening tests. Adherence to longer screening intervals detects similar numbers of abnormalities and decreases harms associated with overscreening/overtreatment. In this descriptive study, we examined the cervical cancer screening intervals from 2010 to 2018 in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). There were 1,397,899 women aged 21-64 who were screened for cervical cancer from 2010 to 2018 and 556,743 rescreenings of average risk women were performed. The median cervical screening interval increased from 2.02 years in 2010 to 3.88 years in 2018. Providers serving uninsured women in a national screening program are following the recommendations of longer intervals between cervical cancer screenings.

Clinical and Analytical Evaluation of the Anyplex II HPV HR Detection Assay within the VALGENT-3 Framework

In 2012, VALidation of human papillomavirus (HPV) GENotyping Tests (VALGENT) was initiated to provide a formalized and uniform study framework for comparison and validation of HPV assays with genotyping capability. In VALGENT-3, the clinical and analytical performance of Anyplex II HPV HR detection (Anyplex) was compared to that of the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test (hc2) and the cobas 4800 HPV test (cobas). The panel comprises 1,300 stored samples that were obtained from women 25 to 64 years old who participated in the Slovenian cancer screening program, enriched with 300 samples from women with abnormal cervical cytology. The sensitivity and specificity of Anyplex were noninferior to those of hc2, with a relative sensitivity of 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.04) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06) for CIN3+ and relative specificity of 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.03) for a CIN grade of ≤1. The clinical sensitivity of Anyplex for CIN2+ and CIN3+ was comparable to that of hc2 (P values for McNemar test [p _McN] of 0.655 and 0.564, respectively), but its specificity was significantly higher (p _McN = 0.008). The sensitivity and specificity of Anyplex were also noninferior to those of cobas, with relative sensitivity of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04) for CIN2+ and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.04) for CIN3+ and relative specificity of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.01) (p _McN value of >0.05 in all cases). Regardless of the clinical outcome (CIN2+ or CIN3+), age restriction (women ≥30 years old), or comparator test used, Anyplex consistently showed excellent clinical performance and can be considered validated for primary cervical cancer screening.

Factors associated with high-risk human papillomavirus test utilization and infection: a population-based study of uninsured and underinsured women

Background

Current cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend a Pap test every 3 years for women age 21–65 years, or for women 30–65 years who want to lengthen the screening interval, a combination of Pap test and high-risk human papilloma virus testing (co-testing) every 5 years. Little population-based data are available on human papilloma virus test utilization and human papilloma virus infection rates. The objective of this study was to examine the patient-level, cervical cancer screening, and area-level factors associated with human papilloma virus testing and infection among a diverse sample of uninsured and underinsured women enrolled in the New Jersey Cancer Early Education and Detection (NJCEED) Program.

Methods

We used data for a sample of 50,510 uninsured/underinsured women, age ≥ 29 years, who screened for cervical cancer through NJCEED between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2015. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between ever having a human papilloma virus test or a positive test result, and individual- (age, race/ethnicity, birthplace) and area-level covariates (% below federal poverty level, % minority, % uninsured), and number of screening visits.

Results

Only 26.6% (13,440) of the sample had at least one human papilloma virus test. Among women who underwent testing, 13.3% (1792) tested positive for human papilloma virus. Most women who were positive for human papilloma virus (99.4%) had their first test as a co-test. Human papilloma virus test utilization and infection were significantly associated with age, race/ethnicity, birthplace (country), and residential area-level poverty. Rates of human papilloma virus testing and infection also differed significantly across counties in the state of New Jersey.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that despite access to no-cost cervical cancer screening for eligible women, human papilloma virus test utilization was relatively low among diverse, uninsured and underinsured women in New Jersey, and test utilization and infection were associated with individual-level and area-level factors.

Uptake of HPV testing and extended cervical cancer screening intervals following cytology alone and Pap/HPV cotesting in women aged 30-65 years

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adoption of HPV testing and recommended extended cervical cancer screening intervals in clinical practice, we described yearly uptake of Pap/HPV cotesting and estimated length of time between normal screens by patient characteristics.

METHODS

We examined 55,575 Pap/HPV records from 27,035 women aged 30-65 years from the Johns Hopkins Hospital Pathology Data System between 2006 and 2013. Cotest uptake and median times to next screening test for cotests and cytology only were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, with random effects adjustment for clustering within clinic.

RESULTS

Cotest usage increased from < 10% in 2006 to 78% in 2013. The median time to next screening test following normal cytology alone remained constant around 1.5 years. Screening intervals following a dual-negative cotest increased from 1.5 years in 2006/2007 to 2.5 years in 2010, coincident with increases in the proportion of women cotested. Intervals following a dual negative cotest were longer among Medicare patients (3 years) compared with privately insured women (2.5 years), and shorter among black (2 years) compared with white women (2.8 years).

CONCLUSION

By mid-2013 we observed broad adoption of Pap/HPV cotesting in routine screening in a large academic medical center. Increased screening intervals were observed only among cotested women, while those screened by cytology alone continued to be screened almost annually. The influence of different combinations of race and insurance on screening intervals should be further evaluated to ensure balance of screening risks and benefits in the U.S.

POPULATION

Screening Cervical Cancer by the Pap Test – Relevance of Age Ranges Recommended by the Brazilian Programme for Prevention and Control

Objective:

To evaluate screening by the Papanicolaou smear (Pap) and the frequency of cervical abnormalities in the age range recommended by the Brazilian programme for prevention and control of cervical cancer (CC) in the years 2012 and 2013 in a high prevalence city.

Methods:

This retrospective study covered results of Pap examinations performed on women aged ≥12 years residing in urban areas of the city of Maringá, Paraná in Brazil. The examinations were performed in the years 2012 and 2013 for the System of Public Health (SPH) which maintains a city database. The age ranges were grouped as recommended into <15-24, 25-64, and >64 years.

Results:

A total 40,866 women were screened, 19,606 in 2012 and 21,260 in 2013. The Pap exams performed for the age range 25-64 years accounted for 80.7% of the total in 2012 and 80.3% in 2013 (p=0.13), while those for <15 to 24 years accounted for 11.7% and 11.3%, respectively. There were more tests performed in the >64 years age group in 2013 (8.46%) than in 2012 (7.52%) (p<0.001). A total of 1,354 (3.31%) women presented with abnormal test results, with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) as the most prevalent finding (2.12%) in 2012, while in 2013 it was LSIL (1.56%) (p<0.001 for both). Women with ASC-US showed a lower mean age than did those with other lesions in both years.

Conclusions:

This study detected a significant expansion of women screened for CC in age ranges not recommended by the Brazilian government.

Cervical Cancer Screening

Cervical cancer screening in the United States has accompanied profound decreases in cancer incidence and mortality over the last half century. Two screening strategies are currently endorsed by US-based guideline groups: (1) triennial cytology for women aged 21 to 65 years, and (2) triennial cytology for women aged 21 to 29 years followed by cytology plus testing for high-risk human papillomavirus types every 5 years for women aged 30 years and older. Providing women with affordable, easily accessible screening, follow-up of abnormal tests, and timely treatment will result in the greatest impact of screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Knowledge about cervical cancer screening and its practice among female health care workers in southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Background

Cervical cancer remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among the women in the world. Early screening for cervical cancer is a key intervention in reduction of maternal deaths. Health care workers have a significant contribution to improve cervical cancer screening practice among women. Hence, this study aimed to assess the knowledge and practice of cervical cancer screening among female health care workers in southern Ethiopia.

Methods

Institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted during March and April, 2015. All hospitals in Hawassa city administration and Sidama zone were purposively selected. A simple random sampling technique was used to draw the health centers. After proportional allocations to their respective health facilities, a total of 367 female health workers were selected by simple random sampling technique. A structured and pretested questionnaire was used to collect the data. Data were entered to SPSS version 20.0 for further analysis. Logistic regression analyses were used to see the association of different variables.

Results

Out of the total respondents, 319 (86.9%) had a good level of knowledge on cervical cancer. Similarly, a majority of them, 329 (89.6%), 321 (87.5%), and 295 (80.4%), knew about the risk factors, symptoms, and outcomes of cervical cancer, respectively. More than two thirds of the respondents, 283 (77.1%), knew that there is a procedure used to detect premalignant cervical lesions and 138 (37.6%) of them mentioned visual inspection with acetic acid as a screening method. In this study, only 42 (11.4%) of the respondents were screened for cervical cancer (confidence interval [CI]: 8.7, 13.9). Being a physician (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] =0.12, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.79) and working in a cervical cancer screening center (AOR =0.14, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.68) had a lower odds of cervical cancer screening practices.

Conclusions

Significant numbers of health care workers were knowledgeable on cervical cancer. Cervical cancer screening among health care workers in southern Ethiopia was found to be low. Being a physician and working in a screening center had lower odds of cervical cancer screening practice. In spite of having adequate knowledge on cervical cancer the reasons for low practice of cervical cancer screening among health care workers needs to be investigated.

Acceptable and Preferred Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals Among U.S. Women

INTRODUCTION

Current U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend a 3- or 5-year screening interval depending on age and screening modality. However, many women continue to be screened annually. The purpose of this study is to investigate U.S. women's self-reported frequency of cervical cancer screening, acceptance of an extended screening interval (once every 3-5 years), and preferred screening options.

METHODS

Data from a 2012 web-based survey of U.S. women aged ≥18 years who had not undergone a hysterectomy or been diagnosed with cervical cancer (N=1,380) were analyzed in 2014. Logistic regression models of extended screening interval use, acceptance, and preference were developed.

RESULTS

Annual Pap testing was the most widely used (48.5%), accepted (61.0%), and preferred (51.1%) screening option. More than one third of respondents (34.4%) indicated that an extended screening interval would be acceptable, but only 6.3% reported that they were currently screened on an extended interval. Women who preferred an extended screening interval (32.9% of those willing to accept regular screening) were more likely to report no primary care visits during the last 12 months (AOR=2.05, p<0.003), no history of abnormal Pap test results (AOR=1.71, p=0.013), and that their last Pap test was performed by an internist/family practitioner rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist (AOR=2.03, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

U.S. women's acceptance of and preference for an extended cervical cancer screening interval appears to be more widespread than utilization. Strategies to educate women about the reasoning behind recommendations for less-than-annual testing and to foster informed preferences should be devised and evaluated.

Cervical Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Women: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this best practice advice article is to describe the indications for screening for cervical cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 21 years or older.

METHODS

The evidence reviewed in this work is a distillation of relevant publications (including systematic reviews) used to support current guidelines.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1

Clinicians should not screen average-risk women younger than 21 years for cervical cancer.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2

Clinicians should start screening average-risk women for cervical cancer at age 21 years once every 3 years with cytology (cytologic tests without human papillomavirus [HPV] tests).

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3

Clinicians should not screen average-risk women for cervical cancer with cytology more often than once every 3 years.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4

Clinicians may use a combination of cytology and HPV testing once every 5 years in average-risk women aged 30 years or older who prefer screening less often than every 3 years.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5

Clinicians should not perform HPV testing in average-risk women younger than 30 years.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6

Clinicians should stop screening average-risk women older than 65 years for cervical cancer if they have had 3 consecutive negative cytology results or 2 consecutive negative cytology plus HPV test results within 10 years, with the most recent test performed within 5 years.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7

Clinicians should not screen average-risk women of any age for cervical cancer if they have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix.

Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening

General frameworks of the cancer screening process are available, but none directly compare the process in detail across different organ sites. This limits the ability of medical and public health professionals to develop and evaluate coordinated screening programs that apply resources and population management strategies available for one cancer site to other sites. We present a trans-organ conceptual model that incorporates a single screening episode for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers into a unified framework based on clinical guidelines and protocols; the model concepts could be expanded to other organ sites. The model covers four types of care in the screening process: risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Interfaces between different provider teams (eg, primary care and specialty care), including communication and transfer of responsibility, may occur when transitioning between types of care. Our model highlights across each organ site similarities and differences in steps, interfaces, and transitions in the screening process and documents the conclusion of a screening episode. This model was developed within the National Cancer Institute-funded consortium Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR). PROSPR aims to optimize the screening process for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer and includes seven research centers and a statistical coordinating center. Given current health care reform initiatives in the United States, this conceptual model can facilitate the development of comprehensive quality metrics for cancer screening and promote trans-organ comparative cancer screening research. PROSPR findings will support the design of interventions that improve screening outcomes across multiple cancer sites.

Patient concerns about human papillomavirus testing and 5-year intervals in routine cervical cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

To explore attitudes toward new cervical cancer screening options and understand factors associated with those beliefs among women in routine gynecologic care.

METHODS

We used an interviewer-administered survey of 551 women aged 36-62 years enrolled in the HPV in Perimenopause Study. Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare women's preferences for cervical cancer screening methods and frequency.

RESULTS

A majority of women (55.6%, 95% CI 51.4-59.8%) were aware that screening recommendations had changed, yet 74.1% (95% CI 70.3-77.7%) still believed women should be screened annually. If recommended by their doctor, 68.4% (95% CI 64.4-72.2%) were willing to extend screening to every 3 years, but only 25.2% (95% CI 21.9-29.2%) would extend screening to 5 years. Most women (60.7%, 95% CI 56.5-65.7%) expressed a strong preference for Pap testing, and 41.4% (95% CI 37.4-45.6%) expressed at least moderate concern over having a human papillomavirus (HPV) test without a Pap test. A desire for more frequent care, higher degree of worry and perceived risk, and abnormal screening history were all associated with reduced willingness to accept HPV testing and longer screening intervals.

CONCLUSION

A majority of routinely screened women indicated a willingness to adopt a cervical cancer screening strategy of cytology alone or Pap-HPV cotesting every 3 years if recommended by their physician. However, they remain concerned about HPV testing and extension of screening intervals to once every 5 years. Our results suggest continued reticence to accepting newer HPV-based screening algorithms among routinely screened women older than age 35 years.

Provider beliefs associated with cervical cancer screening interval recommendations: A pilot study in Federally Qualified Health Centers

Background

Among providers who serve low-income and uninsured women, resistance to extending the cervical cancer screening interval following normal Pap and co-test results has been documented. Our objective was to examine provider characteristics and beliefs associated with guideline-consistent screening interval recommendations.

Method

We collected cross-sectional survey data between 2009 and 2010 from 82 primary care providers in six Federally Qualified Health Centers in Illinois, USA. The relationships between characteristics, beliefs, and screening interval recommendations (1 year vs. 3 years) were tested with Pearson chi-square, negative binomial and ordered logistic regression.

Results

Compared to providers who recommended annual intervals after a normal co-test, providers who recommended a guideline-consistent (i.e., 3 years) screening interval were significantly more likely to report the goodness, ease, and benefit of their recommendation and perceived encouragement for a 3-year interval from professional organizations and journals (p < .05). Providers who recommended a 3-year interval were also less likely to report that longer intervals increase patient risk for cervical cancer (p < .05). Interval recommendations were not associated with provider specialty, gender, or years in practice.

Conclusion

Messages that promote the benefits of longer screening intervals after a normal co-test, the natural history of human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, and low risk of developing cancer with a longer interval may be useful to promote evidence-based screening in this population of Federally Qualified Health Center providers. Dissemination of targeted messages through professional journals and specialty organizations should be considered.

•

Annual cervical cancer screening is common, but not recommended by guidelines.

•

Pilot study assessed provider factors associated with screening recommendations.

•

Screening recommendations are associated with positive beliefs about screening tests.

•

Perceived risk of the patient developing cancer between screenings is significant.

•

Professional journals and organizations can disseminate screening interval messages.

Type-specific HPV and Pap test results among low-income, underserved women: providing insights into management strategies

OBJECTIVE

The primary cervical cancer screening strategy for women over age 30 is high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing combined with Papanicolaou (Pap) testing (cotesting) every 5 years. This combination strategy is a preventive service that is required by the Affordable Care Act to be covered with no cost-sharing by most health insurance plans. The cotesting recommendation was made based entirely on prospective data from an insured population that may have a lower proportion of women with HPV positive and Pap negative results (ie, discordant results). The discordant group represents a very difficult group to manage. If the frequency of discordant results among underserved women is higher, health care providers may perceive the cotesting strategy to be a less favorable screening strategy than traditional Pap testing every 3 years.

STUDY DESIGN

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Cervical Cancer Study was conducted at 15 clinics in 6 federally qualified health centers across Illinois. Providers at these clinics were given the option of cotesting for routine cervical cancer screening. Type-specific HPV detection was performed on residual extracts using linear array.

RESULTS

Pap test results were abnormal in 6.0% and HPV was positive in 7.2% of the underserved women screened in this study (mean age, 45.1 years). HPV prevalence decreased with age, from 10.3% among 30- to 39-year-olds to 4.5% among 50- to 60-year-olds. About 5% of the women had a combination of a positive HPV test and normal Pap test results; HPV 16/18 was identified in 14% of discordant women.

CONCLUSION

The rate of discordant results among underserved women was similar to those reported throughout the US in a variety of populations. Typing for HPV 16/18 appears to assist in the management in a small proportion of women with discordant results.

Primary care providers human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations for the medically underserved: a pilot study in U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are safety-net clinics that provide cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to medically underserved women, some of whom may be at risk for developing cervical cancer. National guidelines recommend against using screening test results or sexual history to determine vaccine eligibility. Documenting HPV vaccine recommendations and beliefs of primary care providers in FQHCs may aid in promoting evidence-based practices and prioritizing health interventions for vulnerable populations.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2010, we collected data from 98 primary care providers in 15 FQHC clinics in IL, USA using a cross-sectional survey. Questions assessed provider and practice characteristics, HPV vaccine recommendations, and provider's belief about whether their screening and management procedures would change for women who were vaccinated.

RESULTS

93% of providers recommended the HPV vaccine, most frequently for females aged 13-26 years (98%). Some providers reported sometimes to always using HPV test results (12%), Pap test results (7%), and number of sexual partners (33%) to determine vaccine eligibility. More than half of providers (55%) reported they will not change their screening and management practices for vaccinated females, yet believe vaccination will yield fewer abnormal Pap tests (71%) and referrals for colposcopy (74%).

CONCLUSION

Study providers routinely recommended the HPV vaccine for their patients. However, providers made fewer recommendations to vaccinate females ages 9-12 years (which includes the target age for vaccination) compared to older females, and used pre-vaccination assessments not recommended by U.S. guidelines, such as screening test results and number of sexual partners. In order to maximize the public health benefit of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, adherence to guidelines is necessary, especially in settings that provide care to medically underserved women.

Overview of the CDC Cervical Cancer (Cx3) Study: an educational intervention of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

The recommended screening interval when using the Papanicolaou (Pap) and human papillomavirus (HPV) test (co-testing) is 5 years. However because providers are reluctant to extend the screening interval, we launched a study to identify barriers to appropriate use of the co-test and to implement an educational intervention to promote evidence-based screening practices. This article provides an overview of the study including the multi-component intervention and participant demographics.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 15 clinics associated with 6 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Illinois. Each clinic received HPV tests to administer with routine Pap tests among enrolled patients (n=2,246) and was assigned to a study arm: intervention arm (n=7) received a multi-component educational intervention (small media, academic detailing, and website) for providers and printed educational materials for patients, and control arm (n=8) received printed copies of general guidelines. Clinic coordinators (n=15), providers (n=98), and patients (n=984) completed baseline surveys to assess screening practices.

RESULTS

Providers reported an average age of 41.3 years and were predominately female, non-Hispanic, and white. Patients reported an average age of 45.0 years and nearly two-thirds were Hispanic or black. Of the 2,246 patients, 89% had a normal co-test. Lessons learned from the study included the importance of buy-in at a high level in the organization, a champion provider, and a clinical coordinator devoted to the study.

CONCLUSION

Materials from this study can be adapted to educate providers and patients on appropriate use of the co-test and encourage extended screening intervals as a safe and effective practice.

Current practice patterns in cervical cancer screening in Indiana

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to describe current health care provider cervical cancer screening practice patterns for average-risk women in the state of Indiana in comparison to the 2012 guidelines as well as earlier guidelines. We also aim to describe what factors are associated with increased adherence to guidelines, and what factors may impede adherence.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a vignette-based survey among a convenience sample of obstetricians, gynecologists, midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants attending the Indiana American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Section meeting in January 2013.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 51% (112/218) of attendants. Of the 111 providers with completed surveys, 42 (38%) follow current guidelines. Of providers, 86% start screening at age 21 years. Of providers, 33% screen women aged 21-29 years every 3 years. Of providers, 33% follow recommendations for cotesting every 5 years for patients 30-65 years of age. The majority of providers follow guidelines to stop screening after a benign hysterectomy or age 65 years (75% and 51%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The majority of providers follow the 2012 guidelines for the initiation and cessation of cervical screening; however, most providers screen more frequently than currently recommended for patients between ages 21-65 years.

Cervical excisional treatment of young women: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of cytology and biopsy results preceding cervical excisional treatment and their association with excisional histology, to evaluate compliance with treatment recommendations and the potential effect of revisions in cervical histology terminology and usage.

METHOD

Data from a unique statewide population-based screening registry was used to describe the use and histologic outcomes of cervical excisional procedures in the year following an abnormal cervical screening cytology.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2011, LEEP rates decreased 87%, 45%, and 16% for women aged 15-20, 21-24, and 25-29 years, respectively. Reductions were attributable to an overall decline in cervical screening and colposcopy, and a decrease in LEEP following a diagnosis of less than cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (0.7) for women aged 30-39 years. Irrespective of age, CIN2 was the most common histologic antecedent of excisional treatment (42%), with most (80%) preceded by

CONCLUSION

Cervical excisions are an unavoidable consequence of cervical screening. Adherence to treatment guidelines stipulating conservative follow-up of young women with biopsies ≤CIN2 could significantly decrease the number of excisional procedures and associated harms. This opportunity will be lost if cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) and some or all of CIN2 are merged into a single histologic category, as has been recently recommended in the United States.

Collapse

Key Words

• Adherence to cervical treatment guidelines
• Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2 and CIN3)
• Cervical screening
• Colposcopy
• Effectiveness and harms of cervical screening
• Loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP)

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adolescent
• Adult
• Biopsy/methods
• Biopsy/statistics & numerical data
• Conization/methods
• Conization/statistics & numerical data
• Electrosurgery/methods
• Electrosurgery/statistics & numerical data
• Female
• Humans
• New Mexico/epidemiology
• Registries
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/classification
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/pathology
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/surgery
• Young Adult
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/classification
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/epidemiology
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/pathology
• Uterine Cervical Dysplasia/surgery

Collapse

Grants

• U19 AI084081 NIAID NIH HHS
• U54 CA164336 NCI NIH HHS
• U19AI084081 NIAID NIH HHS
• U54CA164336 NCI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Walter Kinney Department of Women's Health and Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, CA, USA
William C Hunt Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Helen Dinkelspiel Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA
Michael Robertson Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Jack Cuzick Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Cosette M Wheeler Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA.

Collapse

Challenges in meeting Healthy People 2020 objectives for cancer-related preventive services, National Health Interview Survey, 2008 and 2010

Introduction

Healthy People (HP) is the US program that formulates and tracks national health objectives for the nation. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a designated data source for setting and evaluating several HP targets in cancer. We used data from the 2008 and 2010 NHIS to provide a benchmark for national performance toward meeting HP 2020 cancer-related objectives.

Methods

HP 2020 cancer screening, provider counseling, and health care access objectives were selected. For each objective, NHIS measures for the overall population and several sociodemographic subgroups were calculated; the findings were compared with established HP 2020 targets.

Results

From 2008 to 2010, rates of breast and cervical cancer screening declined slightly while colorectal cancer screening rates increased by 7 percentage points. Rates of cancer screening and provider counseling were below HP targets. Meeting HP targets seems less likely for subgroups characterized by low income, no health insurance, or no usual source of care. Meeting HP targets for access to health services will require an increase of 18 percentage points in the proportion of persons under age 65 with health insurance coverage and an increase of 10 percentage points in the proportion aged 18 to 64 with a usual source of care.

Conclusion

Whether HP objectives for cancer screening and health care access are met may depend on implementation of health care reform measures that improve access to and coordination of care. Better integration of clinical health care and community-based efforts for delivering high-quality screening and treatment services and elimination of health disparities are also needed.

Early detection of CIN3 and cervical cancer during long-term follow-up using HPV/Pap smear co-testing and risk-adapted follow-up in a locally organised screening programme

We evaluated compliance with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and risk-adapted patient pathways and monitored changes in high-grade cervical disease during long-term follow-up. Women aged >30 years attending routine screening for cervical cancer were managed according to results from first-round screening tests (cytology and high-risk HPV; Hybrid Capture 2). Between February 2006 and January 2011, 19,795 of 19,947 women agreed to participate, of whom 4,067 proceeded to a second screening round 5 years after recruitment. Predefined endpoints were compliance, grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer (CIN3+), new HPV infection, HPV persistence and abnormal smears in round 2. A total of 765 of 19,795 women (3.9%) in round 1 and 41 of 4,067 (1.0%) in round 2 were referred for colposcopy. Compliance rates with colposcopy were 93.1 and 92.7%, respectively, while histological assessment was performed in 680 of 712 (95.5%) and 36 of 38 (94.7%), respectively. CIN3+ rates were 172 of 19,795 (0.87%; 95% confidence intervals: 0.7-1.0) in round 1 and 2 of 4,064 (0.05%; 95% confidence intervals: 0.006-0.2) in round 2; the difference was statistically significant (Fisher's exact test, p<0.001). After 5 years, the incidence of new HPV infection was 124 of 3,906 (3.2%) and HPV persistence was observed in 22 of 161 (13.7%). Locally organised HPV/cytology co-testing is feasible and acceptable to women. Risk-adapted management rapidly detected a high rate of prevalent CIN3+, while the subsequent long-term risk of new high-grade cervical disease was surprisingly low. It remains unclear if this phenomenon is explained by CIN3 mostly occurring early in life or by modifying the natural course of HPV infection with colposcopy and histological assessment.

Patient knowledge and beliefs as barriers to extending cervical cancer screening intervals in Federally Qualified Health Centers

OBJECTIVE

Despite guidelines recommending cervical cancer screening intervals be extended beyond one year, clinical practice has been slow to change. Patient preferences are a potential barrier. In the Centers for Disease Control's Cervical Cancer (Cx3) Study at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) across Illinois, we surveyed patients about screening practices, and assessed beliefs regarding lengthening screening intervals.

METHOD

We analyzed data from 984 low income women in the Cx3 Study (2009-2011). Participants completed a survey assessing health history, knowledge about Pap testing, beliefs and intentions about extending screening intervals, and demographics.

RESULTS

The majority reported annual Pap testing (61%), while only 24% reported a 2-3 year screening interval (recommendation at time of survey). Misunderstandings about the Pap test were prevalent, with over half believing it screened for vaginal, yeast, and sexually transmitted infections (58%-72%). Unfavorable beliefs about extending screening intervals were common. The majority (57%) indicated that they would not wait 3 years to be screened if their physician recommended it, and intentions were associated with knowledge about Pap testing.

CONCLUSION

Most women reported annual cervical cancer screening, and intended to resist longer screening intervals. Patients' lack of knowledge and unfavorable beliefs may serve as barriers to extending screening intervals.

Evolution of cervical cancer screening and prevention in United States and Canada: implications for public health practitioners and clinicians

OBJECTIVE

Declines in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Canada and in the United States have been widely attributed to the introduction of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test. This article reviews changes in screening and introduction of HPV vaccination.

METHOD

Sentinel events in cervical cancer screening and primary prevention through HPV vaccination in the US and Canada are described.

RESULTS

Despite commonalities, cervical cancer screening and prevention differ between the two countries. Canada has a combination of opportunistic and organized programs at the provincial and territorial level, while the US has opportunistic screening and vaccination systems. In the US, the HPV test along with the Pap test (co-testing) is part of national recommendations for routine cervical cancer screening for women age 30 and older. Co-testing is not being considered anywhere in Canada, but primary HPV testing is currently recommended (but not implemented) in one province in Canada.

CONCLUSION

Many prevention strategies are available for cervical cancer. Continued public health efforts should focus on increasing vaccine coverage in the target age groups and cervical cancer screening for women at appropriate intervals. Ongoing evaluation will be needed to ensure appropriate use of health resources, as vaccinated women become eligible for screening.

Primary care provider practices and beliefs related to cervical cancer screening with the HPV test in Federally Qualified Health Centers

OBJECTIVE

Cervical cancer screening using the human papillomavirus (HPV) test and Pap test together (co-testing) is an option for average-risk women ≥ 30 years of age. With normal co-test results, screening intervals can be extended. The study objective is to assess primary care provider practices, beliefs, facilitators and barriers to using the co-test and extending screening intervals among low-income women.

METHOD

Data were collected from 98 providers in 15 Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinics in Illinois between August 2009 and March 2010 using a cross-sectional survey.

RESULTS

39% of providers reported using the co-test, and 25% would recommend a three-year screening interval for women with normal co-test results. Providers perceived greater encouragement for co-testing than for extending screening intervals with a normal co-test result. Barriers to extending screening intervals included concerns about patients not returning annually for other screening tests (77%), patient concerns about missing cancer (62%), and liability (52%).

CONCLUSION

Among FQHC providers in Illinois, few administered the co-test for screening and recommended appropriate intervals, possibly due to concerns over loss to follow-up and liability. Education regarding harms of too-frequent screening and false positives may be necessary to balance barriers to extending screening intervals.

Annual Papanicolaou screening for 5 years among human papillomavirus-negative women

Background

Primary human papilloma virus (HPV) screening is more effective than cytology in reducing the risk of cervical cancer, but screening intervals should be extended in HPV-negative women. However, some Markov models predicted that long intervals are associated with an excess risk of cervical cancer. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the real-life risks and benefits of annual Papanicolaou (Pap) screening in HPV-negative women with normal cytology.

Methods

Women with negative Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) results and normal cytology at the time of inclusion in the Hannover HPV screening trial underwent annual Pap smears for 5 years. A subgroup was randomly selected for retesting with cytology, HC2, and colposcopy 60–68 months after recruitment.

Results

Of 4236 women included, 3406 had at least one Pap smear, but only 1185 attended all five annual screening visits. The proportion of women with at least one abnormal smear was 14.4% in 60 months. The probability of abnormal smears increased continuously over time. No case of ≥ CIN2+ was observed during 5 years. Of 605 women selected for subgroup analysis, 292 agreed to be retested (48.3%). The rate of high-risk HPV at 60–68 months was 3.0% (9/296).

Conclusions

The long-term risk of high-grade neoplasia after an initial negative HC2 test and normal cytology result was low, while the rate of false-positive abnormal Pap smears was significant and increased constantly over time. Pap smear screening of HPV-negative women more frequently than every 5 years could be potentially harmful and seems to be of little clinical value.

The National Prevention Strategy and breast cancer screening: scientific evidence for public health action

Mammography screening rates in the United States have remained fairly stable over the past decade, and screening rates remain low for some groups. We examined insights from recent public health research on breast cancer screening to identify promising new approaches to improve screening rates and address persistent health disparities in mammography use. We considered this research in the context of the four strategic directions of the National Prevention Strategy: elimination of health disparities, empowered people, healthy and safe community environments, and clinical and community preventive services. This research points to the value of direct outreach and case management services, interventions to support more patient-centered models of care, and more organized, population-based approaches to identify women who are eligible to be screened, encourage participation, and monitor results.

Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening

Objectives

We previously developed and reported on a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening. However, the system is complex as it is based on multiple guidelines and free-text processing. Therefore, the system is susceptible to failures. This report describes a formative evaluation of the system, which is a necessary step to ensure deployment readiness of the system.

Materials and methods

Care providers who are potential end-users of the CDSS were invited to provide their recommendations for a random set of patients that represented diverse decision scenarios. The recommendations of the care providers and those generated by the CDSS were compared. Mismatched recommendations were reviewed by two independent experts.

Results

A total of 25 users participated in this study and provided recommendations for 175 cases. The CDSS had an accuracy of 87% and 12 types of CDSS errors were identified, which were mainly due to deficiencies in the system's guideline rules. When the deficiencies were rectified, the CDSS generated optimal recommendations for all failure cases, except one with incomplete documentation.

Discussion and conclusions

The crowd-sourcing approach for construction of the reference set, coupled with the expert review of mismatched recommendations, facilitated an effective evaluation and enhancement of the system, by identifying decision scenarios that were missed by the system's developers. The described methodology will be useful for other researchers who seek rapidly to evaluate and enhance the deployment readiness of complex decision support systems.

Cervical cancer screening among young adult women in the United States

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer screening guidelines have evolved significantly in the last decade for young adult women, with current recommendations promoting later initiation and longer intervals.

METHODS

Using self-reported cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2000-2010 data, trends in Papanicolaou (Pap) testing among women ages 18-29 years were examined. NHIS 2010 data were used to investigate age at first Pap test (N = 2,198), time since most recent Pap test (n = 1,622), and predictors of Pap testing within the last 12 months (n = 1,622).

RESULTS

The percentage of 18-year-olds who reported ever having a Pap test significantly decreased from 49.9% in 2000 to 37.9% in 2010. Mean age at first Pap test in 2010 was significantly younger for non-Hispanic black women (16.9 years), women < high school education (16.9 years), women who received the HPV vaccine (17.1 years), and women who have ever given birth (17.3 years). The majority reported their last Pap test within the previous 12 months (73.1%). Usual source of healthcare (OR, 2.31) and current birth control use (OR, 1.64) significantly increased chances of having a Pap test within the previous 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2000 to 2010, there was a gradual decline in Pap test initiation among 18-year-olds; however, in 2010, many women reported ≤12 months since last screening. Evidence-based guidelines should be promoted, as screening young adult women for cervical cancer more frequently than recommended can cause considerable harms.

IMPACT

A baseline of cervical cancer screening among young adult women in the United States to assess adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines.

Follow-up outcomes of a large cohort of low-risk women with negative imaged liquid-based cytology and negative HPV test results

Recently updated cervical screening guidelines have proposed a 5-year screening interval for women aged 30 years and older with "double-negative" Papanicolaou (Pap) and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) results (DNR); however, published US follow-up data on women with DNR tested with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - approved HPV testing are limited to studies from Kaiser Permanente using conventional Pap smear cytology. Between July 2005 and June 2006, 4,112 patients with DNR who were screened with computer-imaged liquid-based cytology (LBC) (ThinPrep) and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) hrHPV tests of LBC vial fluid were identified. Cytologic or histopathologic data were available for 3,211 patients who were followed up for a mean 44 months. Among 2,960 patients aged 30 years and older with DNR, follow-up cervical abnormalities of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or more severe (CIN3+) were documented in 5 (0.17%), including 1 endocervical adenocarcinoma. After DNR, CIN+ diagnoses were significantly more likely in women younger than 50 years than in older women. These data are consistent with previously published US and international studies that have consistently documented low rates of histopathologic CIN3+ during years of follow-up after DNR. Large-scale nationwide data are needed to further assess the level of risk of invasive cervical cancer after DNR using different available hrHPV testing methods.

Clinical decision support with automated text processing for cervical cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

To develop a computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening that can interpret free-text Papanicolaou (Pap) reports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CDSS was constituted by two rulebases: the free-text rulebase for interpreting Pap reports and a guideline rulebase. The free-text rulebase was developed by analyzing a corpus of 49 293 Pap reports. The guideline rulebase was constructed using national cervical cancer screening guidelines. The CDSS accesses the electronic medical record (EMR) system to generate patient-specific recommendations. For evaluation, the screening recommendations made by the CDSS for 74 patients were reviewed by a physician.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Evaluation revealed that the CDSS outputs the optimal screening recommendations for 73 out of 74 test patients and it identified two cases for gynecology referral that were missed by the physician. The CDSS aided the physician to amend recommendations in six cases. The failure case was because human papillomavirus (HPV) testing was sometimes performed separately from the Pap test and these results were reported by a laboratory system that was not queried by the CDSS. Subsequently, the CDSS was upgraded to look up the HPV results missed earlier and it generated the optimal recommendations for all 74 test cases.

LIMITATIONS

Single institution and single expert study.

CONCLUSION

An accurate CDSS system could be constructed for cervical cancer screening given the standardized reporting of Pap tests and the availability of explicit guidelines. Overall, the study demonstrates that free text in the EMR can be effectively utilized through natural language processing to develop clinical decision support tools.

Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries

CONTEXT

This article compares cervical cancer screening intensity and cervical cancer mortality trends in the United States and the Netherlands to illustrate the potential of cross-national comparative studies. We discuss the lessons that can be learned from the comparison as well as the challenges in each country to effective and efficient screening.

METHODS

We used nationally representative data sources in the United States and the Netherlands to estimate the number of Pap smears and the cervical cancer mortality rate since 1950. The following questions are addressed: How do differences in intensity of Pap smear use between the countries translate into differences in mortality trends? Can population coverage rates (the proportion of eligible women who had a Pap smear within a specified period) explain the mortality trends better than the total intensity of Pap smear use?

FINDINGS

Even though three to four times more Pap smears per woman were conducted in the United States than in the Netherlands over a period of three decades, the two countries' mortality trends were quite similar. The five-year coverage rates for women aged thirty to sixty-four were quite comparable at 80 to 90 percent. Because screening in the Netherlands was limited to ages thirty to sixty, screening rates for women under thirty and over sixty were much higher in the United States. These differences had consequences for age-specific mortality trends. The relatively good coverage rate in the Netherlands can be traced back to a nationwide invitation system based on municipal population registries. While both countries followed a "policy cycle" involving evidence review, surveillance of screening practices and outcomes, clinical guidelines, and reimbursement policies, the components of this cycle were more systematically linked and implemented nationwide in the Netherlands than in the United States. To a large extent, this was facilitated by a public health model of screening in the Netherlands, rather than a medical services model.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-country studies like ours are natural experiments that can produce insights not easily obtained from other types of study. The cervical cancer screening system in the Netherlands seems to have been as effective as the U.S. system but used much less screening. Adequate coverage of the female population at risk seems to be of central importance.