Adherence to the 2012 national cervical cancer screening guidelines: a pilot study

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.

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.

Evaluation of cervical cancer screening program in Gondar city administration public health facilities, Northwest Ethiopia, 2021: mixed method approach

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is one of the most malignancies in women all over the world. Over 90% of cases occurred in low and middle-income countries with limited resources. Even though cervical cancer is preventable, the Sub-Saharan countries are the most burdened. In Ethiopia 27.19 million women are at risk of acquiring cervical cancer. Although the prevalence of cervical cancer screening among women aged 18 to 69 was around 14%, due to COVID 19 and internal conflict the screening prevalence was lowered to 0.2% by 2022.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate cervical cancer screening program implementation at Gondar city administration public health facilities, Northwest Ethiopia.

METHODS

Single case study design with mixed method evaluation was employed in eight public health facilities of Gondar city administration from March 29 to May 30, 2021. The quantitative data were collected through exit interviews and resources inventory observations. While qualitative data were collected through Key informant interviews, non-participatory observation and document review. A total of 310 clients, 14 key informants, 30 non-participatory observations and six months retrospective document reviews were included in this evaluation. Quantitative data were entered into EPI-data version 4.6 and exported into SPSS version 20 for analysis. For qualitative data; records were transcribed, translated and analyzed in themes. Variables with P-value < 0.05 at 95% confidence interval and adjusted odds ratio were used to declare associated variables with client satisfaction.

RESULTS

The overall implementation of cervical cancer screening program with visual inspection with acetic acid was 64.5%. The availability of program resources, compliance of healthcare providers and satisfaction of mothers were 52.3%, 64.3% and 77.1% respectively. Being educated, having information on cervical cancer screening and the number of lifetime sexual partners were positively associated variables with client satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The cervical cancer screening program was judged as partially-implemented and needs urgent improvement based on pre-determined judgment parameters. To implement the program properly and serve more women; human and material resources should be available, providers shall be trained and the health facilities should equip with full infrastructures like electric power supply and separate procedure rooms.

Underscreening, overscreening, and guideline-adherent cervical cancer screening in a national cohort

OBJECTIVE

To explore rates of under- and overscreening for cervical cancer among a national cohort.

METHODS

The MarketScan database, a national administrative database of employee-sponsored insurance, was queried for elements relevant to cervical cancer screening among women aged 21-65 with 6 years of continuous enrollment (2015-2019). Average-risk women were defined as those without high-risk medical conditions or abnormal screening histories, and without evidence of hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for benign indications. Average-risk women were considered adequately screened if they had Pap tests alone at 2.5-3.5 year intervals, or HPV tests or co-tests at 4.5-5.5 year intervals. Logistic regressions were used to predict the odds of receiving guideline-adherent screening, underscreening, and overscreening.

RESULTS

Among 1,872,809 eligible patients, 1,471,063 (78.5%) qualified for routine screening. Of these, only 18.1% received guideline-adherent screening, and 25.4% were unscreened during the 6-year period. Younger women (aged 21-39) were more likely to be overscreened [OR 1.46]. Older women (aged 50-64) were more likely to be underscreened or unscreened during the study period [OR 2.54]. Guideline-adherent screening was highest with HPV testing alone (80%) followed by co-testing (44%), and lowest with cytology alone (15%). A total of 329,062 women in this general population sample (18%) met high-risk criteria that required increased frequency of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

High rates of both underscreening and overscreening indicate a need for additional strategies to improve guideline-adherent care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

The Impact of Continuity of Care on Cervical Cancer Screening: How Visit Pattern Affects Guideline Concordance

Cervical cancer can be prevented and highly curable if detected early. Current guidelines recommend women to receive cervical cancer screening starting at age 21. Our study aims to investigate how improving continuity of care (COC) may influence guideline concordance of cervical cancer screening. Using the eligibility and claims data, we created a person-month panel data set for women who were enrolled in Oregon Medicaid for at least 80% of the period from 2008 to 2015. We then selected our study cohort following the cervical cancer screening guidelines. Our dependent variable is whether a woman received cervical cancer screening concordant with guidelines in a given month, when she did not receive Pap test in the past 36 months and did not receive co-testing of HPV test plus Pap test in the past 60 months. We used both population-averaged logit model and conditional fixed-effect logit model to estimate the association between the guideline concordance and the COC index, after controlling for high risk, pregnancy, age, race, and ethnicity. A total of 466,526 person-month observations were included in our main models. A 0.1 unit increase of the COC score was significantly associated with a decrease in the odds of receiving guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening (population-averaged logit model: OR = 0.988, p < .001; conditional fixed-effect logit model: OR = 0.966, p < .001). Our findings remain robust to a series of sensitivity analyses. A better COC may not be necessarily beneficial to improving cervical cancer prevention. Educations for both physicians and patients should be supplemented to assure quality of preventive care.

Adherence to the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines: an observational study

Objective

The 2012 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) guidelines were developed to provide guidance regarding cervical pathology and to minimize overtreatment of lesions that may resolve spontaneously. We aimed to evaluate the adherence to these guidelines with referrals for colposcopy at a large academic center and to understand the factors associated with incorrect referrals.

Methods

This retrospective observational study involved women referred to the Virginia Commonwealth University for colposcopy or loop electrosurgical excision procedure from January 2015 to December 2016.

Results

Referral requests from 430 women were reviewed. Among these, 17.4% were discordant with the ASCCP guidelines. The most common discordant colposcopy referrals were low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (48%) and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (29%). The possibility of incorrect referrals was decreased among high-grade lesions (odds ratio [OR], 0.03), while it was increased in women aged <25 years (OR, 31.6) and in those referred by family medicine (OR, 3.6) or internal medicine (OR, 4.4). Ten patients were referred for cervical cytology results of samples collected from the vaginal cuffs despite hysterectomies performed for benign lesions.

Conclusion

Patients referred outside of the guidelines were most often women aged <25 years with low-grade lesions. Referrals outside evidence-based guidelines may lead to unnecessary procedures and additional healthcare expenses. Our results help identify the areas for provider education and potential areas of concern regarding the implementation of the 2019 ASCCP guideline updates.

National Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in Adolescents

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To characterize patterns of cervical cancer screening among adolescents ages 14-20 years before and after the 2009 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommendations.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2005-2016 data.

PARTICIPANTS

Female adolescents and young women ages 14-26 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Multivariable logistic regression models identified independent predictors of unindicated cervical cancer screening at office-based visits among adolescents ages 14-20 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cervical cancer screening in women ages 14-20 and 21-26 years in 2 time periods: 2005-2008 and 2009-2016.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2016, 11,768 office visits were among adolescents ages 14-20 years. Overall, the cervical cancer screening rate for young women ages 14-20 years was 4.0%, which decreased from 4.5% to 0.4% (P = .008) during the study period. Adolescents who received cervical cancer screening during an office visit were older (18-20 years: 24.1% vs 14-17 years: 8.2%; P < .001), had a preventive care visit (preventive care: 79.7% vs other visit types: 20.3%; P < .001), and saw an obstetrician/gynecologist (obstetrician/gynecologist: 74.81% vs other specialties: 25.1%; P < .001). After adjusting for age, year, period, insurance status, region, and provider type, screening for cervical cancer was associated with living in the Southern region of the United States (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.25; P = .02) and public insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47, 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.64; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations, cervical cancer screening continued to occur in the adolescent population-especially older adolescents-creating unnecessary costs and potential harms. These findings show a slow uptake of guidelines nationally and the need for initiatives that encourage implementation of performance measures for providers, including ongoing provider and patient education.

Rural-urban differences in HPV testing for cervical cancer screening

PURPOSE

Rural preventable cancer disparities are often attributed in part to lower screening rates secondary to compromised health care access. When considering higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality, existing analyses primarily consider differences in Pap testing rather than the preferred method of HPV testing, which is more sensitive in identifying severe cases of cervical dysplasia.

METHODS

Logistic regression using data from the 2016 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System was used to examine urban and rural rates of cervical cancer screening according to national guidelines. Propensity score weighting was used to account for baseline sociodemographic differences between rural and urban populations in the 2016 landline sample.

FINDINGS

In 2016 and 2018, rural women were less likely than urban women to have current cervical cancer screening. This disparity was explained by sociodemographic variables in 2016. Among women with current cervical cancer screening, rural women were significantly less likely than urban women to undergo HPV testing in both 2016 and 2018.

CONCLUSION

Rural women with current cervical cancer screening were significantly less likely than their urban counterparts to have HPV testing. It is possible that updates to preventive care guidelines may be slower to reach rural providers, rural patients may be unaware that HPV testing was completed, or rural practice configuration may complicate the integration of HPV testing into clinical practice. Failure to undergo HPV testing may lead to delayed cervical dysplasia diagnosis, missed opportunities for early intervention, and contribute to rural/urban disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

The Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Regarding Pap Smear, Cervical Cancer, and Human Papillomavirus among Women Attending a Mother and Child Health Clinic in Kuantan, Malaysia

Background: Cervical cancer (CC) is a foremost reason of global cancer death in women, and a good portion remains with the developing countries. This study was conducted to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding Pap smear, CC, and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) among the women attending a Mother and Child Health Clinic in Kuantan, Malaysia. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 respondents involved in this cross-sectional study. The convenience sampling was to select the respondents. The data were collected from in 2013. Results: The mean age 32.19 years. Up to 54.2% of respondents never had Pap smear in the past 5 years, while over 67.5% of respondents never had HPV vaccination. There was a significant correlation between knowledge with attitude (P < 0.001) and attitude with practice (P < 0.001) regarding Pap smear, CC, and HPV. However, knowledge and practice regarding Pap smear, CC, and HPV was not significantly correlated (P = 0.525). There was no significant correlation between mean age and knowledge (P = 0.455) while there was a significant correlation between mean age with attitude (P = 0.011) and practice (P < 0.001) regarding Pap smear, CC, and HPV. It was also shown that there were differences between races in term of knowledge and attitude (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in term of practice regarding Pap smear, CC, and HPV (P > 0.05) between races. Conclusions: Important barriers to Pap smear screening among women are highlighted through this study. The health institution involved needs to come up with better strategies to deal with these barriers to improve the awareness of women regarding Pap smear, CC, and HPV.

Clair CM, Hou JY, Khoury-Collado F, Gockley A, Accordino M, Hershman DL. Overuse of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Women With Average Risk in the United States From 2013 to 2014

IMPORTANCE

While cervical cancer screening with cytologic and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has reduced mortality from cervical cancer, overuse of these tests is associated with downstream psychological and medical consequences, as well as significant costs. Guidelines now recommend less frequent testing, although adherence to these recommendations is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of overuse of cervical cancer screening tests.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included 2 299 177 women aged 30 to 65 years recorded in the MarketScan database who underwent cervical cancer screening with cervical cytologic testing, cotesting, or primary HPV testing in 2013 through 2014. Women were followed-up for 3 years, and use of repeat testing during this period was noted. Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with overuse of screening and the association between screening and performance of routine gynecologic examinations were recorded. Data were analyzed from June 15 to September 15, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cumulative performance of overuse of cervical cancer screening with repeat cytologic or HPV testing within 36 months of the index screening test.

RESULTS

A total of 2 299 177 women with a median (interquartile range) age of 47 (39-54) years were identified. Initial cervical cancer screening consisted of cytologic testing alone in 1 286 179 women (55.9%), cotesting in 991 583 women (43.1%) and HPV testing in 21 415 women (0.9%). The cumulative incidence of repeat cervical cancer screening was 17.7% (95% CI, 17.6%-17.7%) at 12 months, 51.1% (95% CI, 51.0%-51.2%) at 24 months and 65.8% (65.7%-65.8%) at 36 months. Repeat screening was less common in older women (32 198 women [60.2%] aged 60-64 years vs 194 665 women [67.8%] aged 30-39 years; P < .001), women with medical comorbidities (125 197 women [64.1%] with ≥2 comorbidities vs 423 012 women [64.7%] with no comorbidities; P < .001), women screened in 2014 (176 734 women [53.4%] in 2014 vs 555 767 women [69.4%] in 2013; P < .001), and those screened with cotesting (277 032 women [56.9%] for cotesting vs 450 438 [71.2%] for cytologic testing; P < .001). In contrast, overuse of testing was more common in the Northeastern US (143 916 women [68.1%] in the Northeast vs 81 552 women [51.6%] in the West; P < .001), in women with more frequent outpatient visits (238 510 women [71.1%] with ≥6 visits vs 279 412 [58.7%] with ≤2 visits; P < .001). Women with a sexually transmitted infection after their index testing were also more likely to undergo repeat testing (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.21-1.68]). Women who did not undergo repeat screening were significantly less likely to undergo a gynecological exam after the index screening test: during year 2 of follow-up, 657 749 women (96.7%) who underwent repeating screening had a gynecological examination compared with 203 566 women (26.2%) who did not undergo a gynecological examination.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that among commercially insured women with average risk, cervical cancer screening tests were frequently overused.

Midwives' practices related to cervical cancer screening during pregnancy: A vignette-based study

OBJECTIVE

To describe midwives' practices related to cervical cancer screening and women's eligibility for screening during pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional vignette-based study of French midwives during February-May 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants were asked to complete an internet-based questionnaire: a clinical case-vignette about a woman eligible for cervical cancer screening during pregnancy and a short self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

We obtained 273 complete questionnaires from eligible midwives. Of those responding, 15% reported that they never screened for cervical cancer during pregnancy, 63.7% did so for women 25 years or older, and 51% adhered to the recommended intervals between tests. Overall, 110 (40%) midwives adhered to the complete screening protocol (age at initiation and interval). In this clinical case vignette of a woman meeting the criteria for screening, only 29% of midwives reported they would perform a Pap test at 25 weeks of gestation, while 91% would at 10 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Midwives' practices of cervical cancer screening and their determination of women's eligibility during pregnancy vary, especially according to gestational age; Nevertheless, pregnancy is an appropriate time to screen women who meet the criteria for cervical cancer screening, especially if they are not receiving regular gynaecological care.

Prevalence of Inadequate Cervical Cancer Screening in Low-Income Older Women

Objective: At age 65 years, cervical cancer screening is not recommended in women with an adequate history of negative screening tests in the previous 10 years if they do not have other high-risk factors for cervical cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess the proportion of older low-income women at a safety net urban hospital system without other risk factors for cervical cancer who should have cervical cancer screening because of an inadequate screening history, and to evaluate if they were triaged appropriately. Materials and Methods: Medical records from 200 women 65 years and older at the Gynecology clinic of John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County were evaluated for adequate cervical cancer screening or hysterectomy to see if they could stop screening. Charts were reviewed to see if a screen was performed, and the results of that test and associated biopsies. Data using cytology alone and the cytology/human papillomavirus cotest were compared. Chi-square test was used. Results: Of 200 women included, the median age was 68.5 years, range 65-93 years. Of these women, 81 (40.5%) did not need testing because of adequate screening or hysterectomy for benign indications. There were 119 (59.5%) women who needed to continue testing because of inadequate screening. Of these women, 46 (38.7%) did not have appropriate testing carried out. Of 73 correctly screened women, 16 (21.9%) required biopsies, of which 11 demonstrated high-grade lesions or cancers. Conclusions: Many older women, especially low-income women, need to continue screening for cervical cancer because of inadequate screening histories. This is a group at increased risk for cervical cancer, and it is imperative that clinicians evaluate previous test results before exiting a woman from screening at age 65 years.

Effect of an Electronic Health Record Decision Support Alert to Decrease Excess Cervical Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

Cervical cancer screening is often conducted in excess of current screening guidelines. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of an electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support alert to decrease guideline-nonadherent cervical cancer screening beyond the age limits of screening or posthysterectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The proportion of guideline-nonadherent Pap tests in women younger than 21 years or older than 65 years or posthysterectomy were compared 4 months before and 3 months after implementation of an EHR clinical decision support alert warning providers that a Pap test is not indicated. Providers could cancel the Pap test or override the alert and place the order. Provider characteristics and Pap test indications were summarized by preintervention/postintervention period using descriptive statistics. The proportions of nonindicated Pap tests were compared by intervention period and provider characteristics using generalized estimating equation models.

RESULTS

In women beyond the screening age limits or posthysterectomy, a total of 388 Pap tests were ordered before intervention, and 313 tests were ordered after intervention. Proportion of guideline-nonadherent tests was similar before (62%) and after intervention (63%); thus, implementation of the clinical decision support alert did not change the proportion of guideline-nonadherent Pap tests ordered (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.77-1.52). It is notable that 52% of guideline-nonadherent tests were ordered by 11 providers. Even when controlling for providers who ordered more than 1 test during the study period, multivariate analysis showed that male providers were more likely to order guideline-nonadherent Pap tests (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.36-3.89); no other differences by provider characteristics were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

An EHR clinical decision support alert does not decrease guideline-nonadherent cervical cancer screening. These data suggest efforts to optimize clinical decision support should be focused on other aspects of cervical cancer prevention.

Adherence to the United States Preventative Services Task Force Female Screening Guidelines: An Internal Medicine Residency Program Experience

Background

Various guidelines exist for female preventative screening tests and medical resident physician adherence to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines varies. National screening rates for breast cancer and osteoporosis have improved but they are still below the expected target.

Material and methods

Ambulatory medical clinic records of female patients from the period July 2015 to December 2017 were reviewed for breast cancer and osteoporosis screening. Resident performance and commitment with regards to ordering the aforementioned screening tests according to the USPSTF guidelines were compared to the most recent national screening rates for mammograms and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Results

Of the 1327 charts reviewed, 1025 was included in the study. Of the 545 mammograms performed, 93% of them were indicated according to the USPSTF guidelines (P < 0.0001, 95% CI: 125.9-342.0). A total of 480 mammograms were not ordered, of which 6% were indicated and 93.9% were not indicated. Out of a total of 107 DXA scans performed, 88.7% were correctly indicated (P < 0.0001, 95% CI: 37.11-132.9).

Conclusion

Resident physician adherence to the USPSTF screening guidelines for breast cancer and DXA scans were higher than the national and state screening rates. Our well-structured educational project (strong faculty mentorship, resident to patient continuity of care and the reasonable resident-clinic load) resulted in higher screening rates.

Reducing overuse of cervical cancer screening: A systematic review

Overuse of clinical preventive services increases healthcare costs and may deprive underserved patients of necessary care. Up to 45% of cervical cancer screening is overuse. We conducted a systematic review of correlates of overuse of cervical cancer screening and interventions to reduce overuse. The search identified 25 studies (20 observational; 5 intervention). Correlates varied by the type of overuse measured (i.e., too frequent, before/after recommended age to start or stop screening, after hysterectomy), the most common correlates of overuse related to patient age (n = 7), OBGYN practice or provider (n = 5), location (n = 4), and marital status (n = 4). Six observational studies reported a decrease in overuse over time. Screening overuse decreased in all intervention studies, which used before-after designs with no control or comparison groups. Observational studies suggest potential targets for de-escalating overuse. Randomized clinical trials are needed to establish best practices for reducing overuse.

Excess Cost of Cervical Cancer Screening Beyond Recommended Screening Ages or After Hysterectomy in a Single Institution

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to estimate the excess cost of guideline nonadherent cervical cancer screening in women beyond the recommended screening ages or posthysterectomy in a single healthcare system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All Pap tests performed between September 1, 2012, and August 31, 2014, in women younger than 21 years, older than 65 years, or after hysterectomy, were coded as guideline adherent or nonadherent per the 2012 America Society of Colposcopy and Clinical Pathology guidelines. We assumed management of abnormal results per the 2013 America Society of Colposcopy and Clinical Pathology management guidelines. Costs were obtained from a literature review and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and applied to nonadherent screening and subsequent diagnostic tests.

RESULTS

During this period, 1,398 guideline nonadherent Pap tests were performed (257 in women <21 years, 536 in women >65 years, and 605 after hysterectomy), with 88 abnormal results: 35 (13.5%) in women younger than 21 years, 14 (2.6%) in women older than 65 years, and 39 (6.5%) in women after hysterectomy. The excess cost for initial screening, diagnostic tests, and follow-up was US $35,337 for 2 years in women younger than 21 years, US $54,378 for 5 years in women older than 65 years, and US $77,340 for 5 years in women after hysterectomy, resulting in a total excess cost of US $166,100 for 5 years. Of the 1,398 women who underwent guideline nonadherent screening, there were only 2 (0.1%) diagnoses of high-grade dysplasia (VaIN3).

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline nonadherent cervical cancer screening in women beyond the recommended screening ages and posthysterectomy resulted in costs exceeding US $160,000 for screening, diagnostic tests, and follow-up with minimal improvement in detection of high-grade dysplasia.

Effects of an Education Intervention about HPV Self-Testing for Healthcare Providers and Staff

Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing is an emerging cervical cancer screening strategy, yet efforts to educate healthcare providers and staff about HPV self-testing are lacking. We report the findings of a brief education intervention about HPV self-testing for healthcare providers and staff. We conducted education sessions during 2015 with healthcare providers and staff (n = 33) from five federally qualified health centers located in Appalachian Ohio. Participants attended a one-time session and completed pre- and post-intervention surveys. Analyses for paired data assessed changes in knowledge and beliefs about HPV, HPV-related disease, and HPV self-testing. The intervention increased participants' knowledge and affected many of the beliefs examined. Participants answered an average of 4.67 of six knowledge items correctly on pre-intervention surveys and 5.82 items correctly on post-intervention surveys (p < 0.001). The proportion of participants who answered all six knowledge items correctly increased substantially (pre-intervention =9% vs. post-intervention =82%, p < 0.001). Compared to pre-intervention surveys, participants more strongly believed on post-intervention surveys that it is important to examine HPV self-testing as a potential cervical cancer screening strategy, that their female patients would be willing to use an HPV self-test at home by themselves, and that they have the knowledge to talk with their patients about HPV self-testing (all p < 0.05). A brief education intervention can be a viable approach for increasing knowledge and affecting beliefs about HPV self-testing among healthcare providers and staff. Findings will be valuable for planning and developing future HPV self-test interventions that include an education component for healthcare providers and staff.

The impact of health insurance status on the stage of cervical cancer diagnosis at a tertiary care center in Massachusetts

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of insurance status on the stage of cervical cancer diagnosed and treated at a tertiary care center in Massachusetts and review the preceding screening history.

METHODS

An IRB approved retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with a diagnosis of cervical cancer treated at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) between January 2011 and June 2016. Clinical and demographic data was extracted from the longitudinal medical record. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS.

RESULTS

117 cases of cervical cancer met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Most patients (76%) were diagnosed with stage I disease. On univariate analysis, compared to patients with private insurance, patients with public insurance or no documented insurance presented at older ages, were more likely to be non-white races, and present with advanced stage disease. In an adjusted model, the risk of being diagnosed with advanced stage disease persisted among women with public or no documented insurance, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.13 (1.37-12.45). There was no difference in screening history among women with private vs. public insurance, p = 0.30.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite access to insurance, patients with public issued insurance had an increased risk of presenting with advanced stage cervical cancer in this cohort. These data suggest that additional barriers to screening and prevention may exist and are important for future investigation.

Ending Cervical Cancer Screening in Low-Risk Women After Age 65: Understanding Barriers to Adherence With Evidence-Based Guidelines Among Primary Care Providers

Background:

Current evidence-based cervical cancer testing guidelines recommend that screening of low-risk women ceases after age 65. Despite this, research suggests that continued testing by primary care providers remains common and represents unnecessary patient discomfort, cost, and consumption of valuable primary care resources.

Objective:

To understand why primary care providers might knowingly ignore consensus evidence-based screening guidelines for cervical cancer in low-risk women of this age-group and to identify barriers to adherence with best practice recommendations.

Methods:

A survey tool to identify barriers to adherence with current guidelines for cervical cancer screening in low-risk women older than age 65 was mailed to 4929 randomly selected primary care providers throughout California. Providers were asked to indicate the predominant reason(s) they might knowingly continue cervical cancer screening in women older than 65 years, despite evidence-based recommendations to the contrary.

Results:

Qualified surveys were received from 1259 (25.5%) of those surveyed, representing primary care providers of all types, practicing in areas of vastly different demographics. Despite published reassurance to the contrary, many providers retain fear that discontinuation of testing in low-risk women after age 65 may result in missed invasive cervical cancer. Even among health-care providers who agree that cessation of screening is safe, other circumstances prompt their recommendation to continue cervical screening.

Conclusion:

Although the data from this study suggest areas of policy intervention to lessen unnecessary cervical cancer screening, the broader implication is that advancement of evidence-based medicine will be of little value in improving the quality and cost of health care if barriers to guideline adherence are poorly understood and addressed.

Impact of Patient Reminders on Papanicolaou Test Completion for High-Risk Patients Identified by a Clinical Decision Support System

Background: A clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening identifies patients due for routine cervical cancer screening. Yet, high-risk patients who require more frequent screening or earlier follow-up to address past abnormal results are not identified. We aimed to assess the effect of a complex CDSS, incorporating national guidelines for high-risk patient screening and abnormal result management, its implementation to identify patients overdue for testing, and the outcome of sending a targeted recommendation for follow-up.

Materials and Methods: At three primary care clinics affiliated with an academic medical center, a reminder recommending an appointment for Papanicolaou (Pap) testing or Pap and human papillomavirus cotesting was sent to high-risk women aged 18 through 65 years (intervention group) identified by CDSS as overdue for testing. Historical control patients, who did not receive a reminder, were identified by CDSS 1 year before the date when reminders were sent to the intervention group. Test completion rates were compared between the intervention and control groups through a generalized estimating equation extension.

Results: Across the three sites, the average completion rate of recommended follow-up testing was significantly higher in the intervention group at 23.7% (61/257) than the completion rate at 3.3% (17/516) in the control group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: A CDSS with enhanced capabilities to identify high-risk women due for cervical cancer testing beyond routine screening intervals, with subsequent patient notification, has the potential to decrease cervical precancer and cancer by improving adherence to guideline-compliant follow-up and needed treatment.

Screening with Papanicolaou tests in Alberta: Are we Choosing Wisely?

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence and geographic distribution of cervical cancer screening, as well as the age groups of those undergoing screening, in Alberta, and to determine if screening practices conform to current guidelines and follow Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations.

DESIGN

Descriptive study using data from the Alberta Ministry of Health Analytics and Performance Reporting Branch.

SETTING

Alberta.

PARTICIPANTS

Women who had 1 or more Papanicolaou tests between 2011 and 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of women aged 15 to 20 and those aged 70 and older who had 1 or more Pap tests in a 3-year period; year-to-year trends in screening rates for women in these 2 age groups; trends in screening rates in various geographic regions (ie, cities and zones) in Alberta; and the discipline of clinicians who ordered the Pap tests.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2013, 805 632 women in the province of Alberta had 1 or more Pap tests for cervical cancer screening. Overall, 25 511 (17.5%) women aged 15 to 20 and 16 818 (10.3%) aged 70 and older were screened contrary to most existing guidelines. Screening rates varied markedly in different geographic regions of the province. Most Pap tests were ordered by family physicians or general practitioners.

CONCLUSION

Within the geographic regions of Alberta, provincial, national, and international guidelines for screening with Pap tests are inconsistently followed. This strongly echoes the need for clinicians and patients to consider the Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations and current guidelines for cervical cancer screening.

Primary HPV testing recommendations of US providers, 2015

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the HPV testing recommendations of US physicians who perform cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

Data from the 2015 DocStyles survey of U.S. health care providers were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression to identify provider characteristics associated with routine recommendation of primary HPV testing for average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old. The analysis was limited to primary care physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists who performed cervical cancer screening (N=843).

RESULTS

Primary HPV testing for average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old was recommended by 40.8% of physicians who performed cervical cancer screening, and 90.1% of these providers recommended primary HPV testing for women of all ages. The screening intervals most commonly recommended for primary HPV testing with average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old were every 3years (35.5%) and annually (30.2%). Physicians who reported that patient HPV vaccination status influenced their cervical cancer screening practices were almost four times more likely to recommend primary HPV testing for average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old than other providers (Adj OR=3.96, 95% CI=2.82-5.57).

CONCLUSION

Many US physicians recommended primary HPV testing for women of all ages, contrary to guidelines which limit this screening approach to women ≥25years old. The association between provider recommendation of primary HPV testing and patient HPV vaccination status may be due to anticipated reductions in the most oncogenic HPV types among vaccinated women.

Single Health System Adherence to 2012 Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines at Extremes of Age and Posthysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of guideline nonadherent Pap tests in women aged younger than 21 years and older than 65 years and posthysterectomy in a single large health system. Secondary objectives were to describe temporal trends and patient and health care provider characteristics associated with screening in these groups.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional chart review was performed at Fairview Health Services and University of Minnesota Physicians. Reasons for testing and patient and health care provider information were collected. Tests were designated as indicated or nonindicated per the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines. Point estimates and descriptive statistics were calculated. Patient and health care provider characteristics were compared between indicated and nonindicated groups using χ and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

A total of 3,920 Pap tests were performed between September 9, 2012, and August 31, 2014. A total of 257 (51%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 46.1-54.9%) of tests in the younger than 21 years group, 536 (40%; 95% CI 37.7-43.1%) in the older than 65 years group, and 605 (29%; 95% CI 27.1-31.0%) in the posthysterectomy group were not indicated. White race in the older than 65 years group was the only patient characteristic associated with receipt of a nonindicated Pap test (P=.007). Health care provider characteristics associated with nonindicated Pap tests varied by screening group. Temporal trends showed a decrease in the proportion of nonindicated tests in the younger than 21 years group but an increase in the posthysterectomy group.

CONCLUSION

For women aged younger than 21 years and older than 65 years and posthysterectomy, 35% of Pap tests performed in our health system were not guideline-adherent. There were no patient or health care provider characteristics associated with guideline nonadherent screening across all groups.

Human Papillomavirus and Its Testing Assays, Cervical Cancer Screening, and Vaccination

Human papillomavirus (HPV) was found to be the causative agent for cervical cancer in the 1980s with almost 100% of cervical cancer cases testing positive for HPV. Since then, many studies have been conducted to elucidate the molecular basis of HPV, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis of the virus, and the risk factors for HPV infection. Traditionally, the Papanicolaou test was the primary screening method for cervical cancer. Because of the discovery and evolving understanding of the role of HPV in cervical dysplasia, HPV testing has been recommended as a new method for cervical cancer screening by major professional organizations including the American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology. In order to detect HPV infections, many sensitive and specific HPV assays have been developed and used clinically. Different HPV assays with various principles have shown their unique advantages and limitations. In response to a clear causative relationship between high-risk HPV and cervical cancer, HPV vaccines have been developed which utilize virus-like particles to create an antibody response for the prevention of HPV infection. The vaccines have been shown in long-term follow-up studies to be effective for up to 8 years; however, how this may impact screening for vaccinated women remains uncertain. In this chapter, we will review the molecular basis of HPV, its pathogenesis, and the epidemiology of HPV infection and associated cervical cancer, discuss the methods of currently available HPV testing assays as well as recent guidelines for HPV screening, and introduce HPV vaccines as well as their impact on cervical cancer screening and treatments.

Randomized Comparison of Subcuticular Sutures Versus Staples for Skin Closure After Open Abdominal Surgery: a Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The incisional surgical site infection (SSI) is an extremely common complication following open abdominal surgery and imposes a considerable treatment and cost burden.

METHOD

We conducted a multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial at three Tokyo Metropolitan medical institutions. We enrolled adult patients who underwent either an elective or an emergency open laparotomy. Eligible patients were allocated preoperatively to undergo wound closure with either subcuticular sutures or staples. A central Web-based randomization tool was used to assign participants randomly by a permuted block sequence with a 1:1 allocation ratio and a block size of 4 before mass closure to each group. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a superficial SSI within 30 days after surgery in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. This trial was registered with UMIN-CTR as UMIN 000004836 ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr ).

RESULTS

Between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2015, 401 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either group. One hundred and ninety-nine patients were allocated to the subcuticular suture and 202 patients to the staple groups (hereafter the "suture" and "staple" group, respectively). Three hundred and ninety-nine were eligible for the primary endpoint. Superficial SSIs occurred in 25 of 198 suture patients and in 27 of 201 staple patients. Overall, the rate of superficial SSIs did not differ significantly between the suture and staple groups.

CONCLUSION

Subcuticular sutures did not increase the occurrence of superficial SSIs following open laparotomies mainly consisting of clean-contaminated surgical procedures. The applicability of the wound closure material and method is likely to depend on individual circumstances of the patient and surgical procedure.

Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations

OPINION STATEMENT

Since the publication of the American Cancer Society (ACS)/American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)/American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) clinical guidelines in 2012, the majority of practice organizations have reached a consensus on screening recommendations for a low-risk population. These guidelines were based on a thorough review of the evidence with reproducible methods to obtain high-quality, generalizable guidelines. Despite the strength of the evidence based recommendations comprising these guidelines, limitations in physician understanding and compliance remain with respect to reaching an unscreened population and defining and caring for women who are at "high risk." "High-risk" patients are poorly characterized but should include women with a history of a prior abnormal screening, as data has shown a subsequent increased risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or greater, even after treatment. These women warrant more intense screening than the general population-though there are no evidence-based guidelines for optimized screening protocols in this population. Emerging data in cervical cancer screening this year includes the FDA approval of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. While the data is promising, its role in clinical practice, impact on rates of colposcopy in a non-study population, and long-term outcomes are not fully understood, and ongoing research is needed. Challenges remain in this shifting environment on the optimal interval and modality for cervical cancer screening to provide the greatest benefit in detection of precancerous lesions while minimizing the harm of overtreatment. While rapid advancements in research provide improved knowledge on how to treat and prevent this disease, it is often difficult for providers across multiple specialties to remain abreast of these changes and to educate their patients about the most current recommendations. Ultimately, provider and patient education is critical both for improving primary prevention with HPV vaccination, as well as for the uptake of evidence-based screening and management guidelines aimed at detecting and treating precancerous changes of the cervix.

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.

Perceived effectiveness of HPV test as a primary screening modality among US providers

BACKGROUND

The human papillomavirus (HPV) test, administered alone without the Papanicolaou (Pap) test, was recently recognized as a cervical cancer screening option in the United States by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the Food and Drug Administration has approved an HPV test for primary screening.

METHODS

Surveys of US internists, family practitioners, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician-gynecologists were conducted in 2009 and 2012 to investigate providers' perceptions of the effectiveness of the HPV test administered alone as a population-based screening modality (2009: N=1040, 141-494 per provider group; 2012: N=1039, 155-435 per provider group).

RESULTS

The majority in each provider group agreed that the HPV test administered alone is an effective screening modality in 2009 (75.3%-86.1%) and 2012 (79.5%-91.8%), and agreement rose significantly during this time period among family practitioners (χ(2)=15.26, df=1, p<0.001) and nurse practitioners (χ(2)=4.53, df=1, p=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement that the HPV test administered alone is an effective cervical cancer screening modality was widespread among providers in both 2009 and 2012, however implementation of guidelines for screening with the HPV test may be influenced by many other factors including reimbursement and patient preferences.

Effectiveness of three interventions in improving adherence to cervical cancer screening

In countries where cervical cancer screening programmes are conducted on an opportunistic basis, an active search for women at risk should be made to increase coverage. The objective of our study was to assess the effectiveness of three primary care interventions consisting of providing written, telephone and face-to-face information to increase screening participation among women over the age of 25 years. A randomized experimental study with only one post-test control group was conducted on women aged 25-70 years. A total of 1676 women were randomly distributed into four groups and the following interventions were implemented: written briefing; telephone briefing; an invitation to attend a group meeting and no briefing (control group). The women were evaluated 2 years after the intervention. The outcome variable was participation or nonparticipation in cervical cancer screening. It proved possible to interview a total of 1122 women. Among the groups, homogeneity was tested in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables. Women who had undergone cytological testing in the 2 years preceding evaluation had a lower mean age (P<0.001) than women who had not done so (45.5±11.0 vs. 48.8±13.0 years). The proportion of women who had participated in screening was as follows: 35.3% in the written information group [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.8-40.9]; 38.4% in the telephone information group (95% CI 32.5-44.2); 29.3% in the face-to-face information group (95% CI 22.8-35.7) and 26.1% in the control group (95% CI 21.2-30.9), with this difference proving statistically significant (P=0.005). Logistic regression showed that only the interventions based on written or telephone briefing were effective vis-à-vis the control group. In conclusion, both written and telephone information can serve to improve women's participation in opportunistic cervical cancer screening. Current preventive strategies could be optimized by means of simple interventions within the scope of health professionals.

Communication practices about HPV testing among providers in Federally Qualified Health Centers

Objective

Little is known about the information providers share with patients when ordering a co-test, or combined human papillomavirus (HPV) and Papanicolaou (Pap) test, for cervical cancer screening. We assessed provider perceptions of such communication practices with female patients aged 30–60 years.

Methods

We analyzed data from 98 providers in 15 Federally Qualified Health Center clinics across Illinois (2009–2010).

Results

About 70% of the providers reported that when ordering a co-test, they would usually or always communicate information about the HPV test to their patients, explain the test detects a sexually transmitted infection, and discuss how the test results may determine their next screening interval. Most (> 85%) reported that they were comfortable discussing co-test results. Compared with concordant positive results (HPV positive/Pap positive), providers were more likely to perceive that discordant results (HPV positive/Pap negative) would be too complex for patients to understand (25% vs. 15%, p = 0.006), and make patients feel less assured that they were getting the best standard of care (67% vs. 88%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

As HPV testing plays a more prominent role in cervical cancer screening, more attention should be given to communications between providers and patients about the benefits and harms of different screening options.

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.