Why does cervical cancer occur in a state-of-the-art screening program?

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

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

Recent trends in cervical cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality according to county-level income in the United States, 2000-2019

Early evidence suggests that declining cervical cancer incidence reversed in low-income regions in the United States in recent years; however, it is unclear whether there are distinct patterns by race/ethnicity and stage at diagnosis and if the increase has translated into rising mortality. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, we evaluated trends in hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer incidence rates (2000-2019) and mortality rates (2005-2019) by county-level income and race/ethnicity, with further stratification of incidence by stage at diagnosis. Following a period of decline, hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer incidence increased 1.0%/year (95% CI = 0.1% to 4.5%) among Non-Hispanic White women in low-income counties. Particularly, a statistically significant 4.4%/year (95% CI = 1.7% to 7.5%) increase in distant-stage cancer occurred in this group. Additionally, recent increases in cervical cancer mortality (1.1%/year [95% CI = -1.4% to 3.7%]) were observed among this group and Non-Hispanic Black women in low-income counties (2.9%/year [95% CI = -2.3% to 18.2%]), but trends were not statistically significant. Among Hispanic women in low-income counties, distant-stage cervical cancer incidence increased 1.5%/year (95% CI = -0.6% to 4.1%), albeit not statistically significant. The increasing incidence of distant-stage cervical cancer and mortality in specific racial/ethnic groups suggests that the recent introduction of higher sensitivity screening tests may not explain increasing trends in low-income counties. Our findings suggest that the observed rise in cervical cancer incidence may reflect disruptions along the screening and treatment continuum. Future research to further comprehend these trends and continued enhancements in prevention are crucial to combat rising cervical cancer incidence and mortality in low-income counties in the United States.

U.S. Women with Invasive Cervical Cancer: Characteristics and Potential Barriers to Prevention

Objectives: Although invasive cervical cancer (ICC) rates have declined since the advent of screening, the annual age-adjusted ICC rate in the United States remains 7.5 per 100,000 women. Failure of recommended screening and management often precedes ICC diagnoses. The study aimed to evaluate characteristics of women with incident ICC, including potential barriers to accessing preventive care. Materials and Methods: We abstracted medical records for patients with ICC identified during 2008-2020 in five U.S. population-based surveillance sites covering 1.5 million women. We identified evidence of adverse social and medical conditions, including uninsured/underinsured, language barrier, substance use disorder, incarceration, serious mental illness, severe obesity, or pregnancy at diagnosis. We calculated descriptive frequencies and compared potential barriers by race/ethnicity, and among women with and without symptoms at diagnosis using chi-square tests. Results: Among 1,606 women with ICC (median age: 49 years; non-White: 47.4%; stage I: 54.7%), the majority (68.8%) presented with symptoms. Forty-six percent of women had at least one identified potential barrier; 15% had multiple barriers. The most common potential barriers among all women were being underinsured/uninsured (17.3%), and language (17.1%). Presence of any potential barrier was more frequent among non-White women and women with than without symptoms (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this population-based descriptive study of women with ICC, we identified adverse circumstances that might have prevented women from seeking screening and treatment to prevent cancer. Interventions to increase appropriate cervical cancer screening and management are critical for reducing cervical cancer rates.

Survival rates in Hispanic/Latinx subpopulations with cervical cancer associated with disparities in guideline-concordant care

BACKGROUND

Failure to deliver guideline-concordant treatment may contribute to disparities among Hispanic/Latinx cervical cancer patients. This study investigated the association between survival rates in Hispanic/Latinx subpopulations and the provision of guideline-concordant care.

METHODS

We analyzed patients with primary cervical cancer from 2004 to 2019 (National Cancer Database). We developed nine quality metrics based on FIGO staging (2009). Clinical and demographic covariates were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. Adjusted associations between receipt of guideline-concordant care and races and ethnicities were analyzed using multivariable marginal Poisson regression models. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to evaluate survival probability.

RESULTS

A total of 95,589 patients were included. Hispanic/Latinx and Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) populations were less likely to receive guideline-concordant care in four and five out of nine quality metrics, respectively. Nonetheless, the Hispanic/Latinx group exhibited better survival outcomes in seven of nine quality metrics. Compared to Mexican patients, Cuban patients were 1.17 times as likely to receive timely initiation of treatment in early-stage disease (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.37, p < 0.001). Puerto Rican and Dominican patients were, respectively, 1.16 (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.27, p < 0.001) and 1.19 (RR 1.19, 95% 1.04-1.37, p > 0.01) times as likely to undergo timely initiation of treatment in early-stage disease. Patients of South or Central American (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001) origin were more likely to undergo timely initiation of treatment in locally advanced disease.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in survival were identified among our cohort despite the receipt of guideline concordant care, with notably higher survival among Hispanic/Latinx populations.

Global Cervical Cancer Incidence by Histological Subtype and Implications for Screening Methods

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a major global health concern, disproportionately affecting women in developing countries. Cervical cancer has two primary subtypes, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC), each with distinct characteristics and screening effectiveness. In this study, we aimed to estimate the global incidence of cervical cancer according to histological subtype to inform prevention strategies.

METHODS

Using data from population-based cancer registries, we computed the rates of SCC, AC, and other specified histology among all cervical cancer cases by country and by 5-year age group. Proportions were subsequently applied to the estimated number of cervical cancer cases from the Global Cancer Observatory 2020. Age-standardized incidence rates were calculated.

RESULTS

SCC accounted for 82.72% of global cervical cancer cases, with AC contributing 12.18%. The highest SCC incidence was in Sub-Saharan Africa (29.79 per 100,000 population). The AC incidence was highest in South-Eastern Asia (3.67 per 100,000 population). Age-specific trends showed SCC peaking at approximately age 55 years and AC plateauing after age 45 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided a comprehensive estimate of cervical cancer incidence by histological subtype. SCC remained the dominant subtype globally, whereas the incidence of AC varied across regions. These findings highlighted the need for tailored prevention strategies, especially testing for human papillomavirus to detect AC in high burden areas.

Cervical cancer screening in menopause: when is it safe to exit?

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE

Despite a decreasing incidence of cervical cancer in North America overall, disparities in screening and cervical cancer rates persist, especially in the postmenopausal age group.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature regarding cervical cancer screening considerations for postmenopausal persons, with a focus on cervical cancer in postmenopausal persons, existing guidelines, screening methods, and gaps in care.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Postmenopausal persons are an important population at risk because age 65 years in the United States and up to 70 years in some parts of Canada is a milestone for screening cessation if the criteria are met. Unfortunately, inadequate screening is common, with most women 65 years or older discontinuing ( exiting ) screening despite not meeting the criteria to do so. Screening cessation recommendations are nuanced, and if not all criteria are met, screening should be continued until they are. Cervical cancer screening should be stopped at the recommended age if adequate screening has occurred or at any age if life expectancy is limited or the patient has had a hysterectomy in the absence of high-grade preinvasive cervical lesions or cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus infection, which is causally linked to almost all cervical cancer cases, can persist or reactivate from a prior infection or can be newly acquired from sexual contact. With more persons aging with a cervix in place, the potential for cervical cancer has increased, and higher cancer rates may be observed if recommended screening is not adhered to. We propose an algorithm based on current cervical cancer screening guidelines to aid providers in identifying whether exit criteria have been met. Until adequate screening has been confirmed, cervical cancer screening should continue.

Cervical Cancer Screening: A Review

Importance

Each year in the US, approximately 100 000 people are treated for cervical precancer, 14 000 people are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and 4000 die of cervical cancer.

Observations

Essentially all cervical cancers worldwide are caused by persistent infections with one of 13 carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes: 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68. HPV vaccination at ages 9 through 12 years will likely prevent more than 90% of cervical precancers and cancers. In people with a cervix aged 21 through 65 years, cervical cancer is prevented by screening for and treating cervical precancer, defined as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. High-grade lesions can progress to cervical cancer if not treated. Cervicovaginal HPV testing is 90% sensitive for detecting precancer. In the general population, the risk of precancer is less than 0.15% over 5 years following a negative HPV test result. Among people with a positive HPV test result, a combination of HPV genotyping and cervical cytology (Papanicolaou testing) can identify the risk of precancer. For people with current precancer risks of less than 4%, repeat HPV testing is recommended in 1, 3, or 5 years depending on 5-year precancer risk. For people with current precancer risks of 4% through 24%, such as those with low-grade cytology test results (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US] or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL]) and a positive HPV test of unknown duration, colposcopy is recommended. For patients with precancer risks of less than 25% (eg, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 [CIN1] or histologic LSIL), treatment-related adverse effects, including possible association with preterm labor, can be reduced by repeating colposcopy to monitor for precancer and avoiding excisional treatment. For patients with current precancer risks of 25% through 59% (eg, high-grade cytology results of ASC cannot exclude high-grade lesion [ASC-H] or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL] with positive HPV test results), management consists of colposcopy with biopsy or excisional treatment. For those with current precancer risks of 60% or more, such as patients with HPV-16-positive HSIL, proceeding directly to excisional treatment is preferred, but performing a colposcopy first to confirm the need for excisional treatment is acceptable. Clinical decision support tools can facilitate correct management.

Conclusions and Relevance

Approximately 100 000 people are treated for cervical precancer each year in the US to prevent cervical cancer. People with a cervix should be screened with HPV testing, and if HPV-positive, genotyping and cytology testing should be performed to assess the risk of cervical precancer and determine the need for colposcopy or treatment. HPV vaccination in adolescence will likely prevent more than 90% of cervical precancers and cancers.

The combined finding of HPV 16, 18, or 45 and cytologic Atypical Glandular Cells (AGC) indicates a greatly elevated risk of in situ and invasive cervical adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Cervical screening has not effectively controlled cervical adenocarcinoma (AC). Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for cervical screening but the optimal management of HPV-positive individuals to prevent AC remains a question. Cytology and HPV typing are two triage options to predict the risk of AC. We combined two potential biomarkers (atypical glandular cell, AGC, cytology and HPV-types 16, 18, or 45) to assess their joint effect on detecting AC.

METHODS

Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) used triennial co-testing with cytology and HPV testing (positive/negative) for routine cervical screening between 2003 and 2020. HPV typing of a sample of residual HPV test specimens was performed on a separate cohort selected from KPNC (Persistence and Progression, PaP, cohort). We compared risk of prevalent and incident histologic AC/AIS (adenocarcinoma in situ) associated with preceding combinations of cytologic results and HPV typing. Risk of squamous cell cancer (SCC)/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) (SCC/CIN3) was also included for comparison.

RESULTS

Among HPV-positive individuals in PaP cohort, 99% of prevalent AC and 96% of AIS were linked to HPV-types 16, 18, or 45 (denoted HPV 16/18/45). Although rare (0.09% of screening population), the concurrent detection of HPV 16/18/45 with AGC cytology predicted a highly elevated relative risk of underlying histologic AC/AIS; the absolute risk of diagnosing AC/AIS was 12% and odds ratio (OR) was 1341 (95%CI:495-3630) compared to patients with other high-risk HPV types and normal cytology. Cumulatively (allowing non-concurrent results), approximately one-third of the AC/AIS cases ever had HPV 16/18/45 and AGC cytology (OR = 1785; 95%CI:872-3656). AGC was not as strongly associated with SCC/CIN3.

CONCLUSION

Detection of HPV 16/18/45 positivity elevates risk of adenocarcinoma, particularly if AGC cytology is also found.

Cervical cancer screening history among women diagnosed with cervical cancer in Estonia 2017-18

BACKGROUND

Despite the national cervical cancer screening programme launched in 2006, Estonia has one of the highest cervical cancer incidence rates in Europe. While the overall coverage of cervical cytology is high, the factors related to cancer screening history prior to cancer diagnosis need to be studied.

METHODS

In this study, we aimed to examine the 10-year screening history of women diagnosed with cervical cancer in Estonia in 2017-18, using data collected from laboratory reports from 2007 to 2018. From each report, we extracted information on the date and result of cytology and on the laboratory where the sample was assessed. We analysed these data across cancer histology, the time interval between the last test result and cancer diagnosis and the laboratory type (local or regional).

RESULTS

Among 319 women with cervical cancer, 181 (56.7%) did not have any cytology reports available. Among 138 women with at least one cytology, 60% had 1-3, 24% 4-6 and 16% ≥7 tests (mean 3.7) before cancer. In 78% of women, the last test was performed less than 5 years before cancer diagnosis and 62% of these tests did not report any abnormalities. The last cytology results differed significantly between the regional and local laboratories (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Women received the cervical cancer diagnosis in Estonia despite having several screening tests 10 years prior to the diagnosis. The proportion of cytology tests without any abnormalities less than 5 years before the diagnosis was worryingly high and needs further investigation together with the difference between laboratory types.

Impact of human papillomavirus vaccine on cervical cancer epidemic: Evidence from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program

Introduction

Since 2006, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been recommended for females aged 9-26 years in the United States. Aiming to evaluate the early effect of the HPV vaccine on cervical cancer, this study assessed the incidence of cervical cancer by age and histology before and after the introduction of HPV vaccination.

Methods

Data on cervical cancer incidence from 1975-2019 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Joinpoint regression was used to determine temporal trends over time. Future cervical cancer incidence (2015-2039) was projected using Bayesian age-period-cohort analysis. Age-period-cohort (APC) models were created to evaluate age, period, and cohort effects.

Results

For overall cervical cancer and cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), incidence rate showed decreasing trends (-0.7%, and -1.0% annually, respectively), whereas cervical adenocarcinoma (AC) incidence continuously increased (2.6% annually). The incidence trends for AC were stable in the 20-24 and 25-29-year age groups, whereas there was an increasing trend in older age groups. Similarly, the projected trend for AC in females aged 20-30 years exhibited a decline, whereas an increase was predicted in the 31-40-year age group, especially in the 35-44 year age group. The birth cohort and period effects in SCC and AC were extracted from APC models.

Discussion

During the period of 1975-2019, the incidence of cervical AC remained almost unchanged in the age groups receiving HPV vaccines while increased in the age groups not receiving HPV vaccines. The birth cohort effects of SCC and AC of the cervix provided evidence supporting the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in preventing cervical cancer.

Disparities in Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Adenocarcinoma Compared With Squamous Cell Carcinoma: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database, 2004-2017

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study are to compare trends in diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the cervix (AC) to squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (SCC) and to examine associations between stage at diagnosis and guideline-concordant treatment with race, age, and insurance type for AC and SCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of cervical AC ( n = 18,811) and SCC ( n = 68,421) from the 2004-2017 National Cancer Database. We used generalized linear models to evaluate trends in frequency of histologies and to evaluate associations between race, age, and insurance status with stage of diagnosis and receipt of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment for AC and SCC.

RESULTS

The proportion of AC relative to SCC increased from 19.4% (95% CI = 18.4-20.5) to 23.2% (95% CI = 22.2-24.2) from 2004 to 2017 ( p < .001). Compared with SCC, women with AC were younger, more likely to be White, and privately insured ( p < .001). Older women with AC were 44% less likely to be diagnosed with early-stage disease than younger women (adjusted relative risk = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.52-0.60); there was no significant difference for SCC. Black women with AC were 16% less likely to be diagnosed with early-stage disease (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79-0.89) than White women. Women with public insurance were less likely to be diagnosed at an early stage for both AC (aRR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.78-0.84) and SCC (aRR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.77-0.81). Rates of guideline-concordant treatment were similar for AC and SCC, with minimal differences by age, race, and insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

As the proportion of AC to SCC rises, important race and age-related disparities must be addressed to reduce unnecessary morbidity and death.

Colposcopy Standards: Guidelines for Endocervical Curettage at Colposcopy

OBJECTIVE

The most recent guidelines for colposcopy practice in the United States, the 2017 Colposcopy Standards Consensus Guidelines, did not include recommendations for endocervical curettage (ECC). This document provides updated guidelines for use of ECC among patients referred for colposcopy.

METHODS

Consensus guidelines for the use of ECC were developed in 2012. To update these guidelines in concordance with the 2017 Colposcopy Standards process, an expert workgroup was convened in 2021. Literature had been previously reviewed through 2011, before the 2012 guideline. Literature from the years 2012-2021 and data from the NCI Biopsy study were reviewed, focusing on the additional yield of ECC.

RESULTS

Endocervical curettage is recommended for patients with high-grade cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18 infection, positive results on dual staining for p16/Ki67, for those previously treated for known or suspected cervical precancer or considering observation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, and when the squamocolumnar junction is not fully visualized at colposcopy. Endocervical curettage is preferred for all patients aged older than 40 years. Endocervical curettage is acceptable for all nonpregnant patients undergoing colposcopy but may be omitted when a subsequent excisional procedure is planned, the endocervical canal does not admit a sampling device, or in nulliparous patients aged younger than 30 years, with cytology reported as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion regardless of whether the squamocolumnar junction is fully visualized. Endocervical curettage is unacceptable in pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines for ECC add to the 2017 consensus recommendations for colposcopy practice in the United States.

Gaps in the screening process for women diagnosed with cervical cancer in four diverse US health care settings

BACKGROUND

Potential care gaps in the cervical cancer screening process among women diagnosed with cervical cancer in an era with increased human papillomavirus (HPV) testing have not been extensively evaluated.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with cervical cancer between ages 21 and 65 at four study sites between 2010 and 2014 were included. Screening histories were ascertained from 0.5 to 4 years prior to cervical cancer diagnosis. We identified potential care gaps in the screening history for each woman and classified them into one of three mutually exclusive types: lack of a screening test, screening test failure, and diagnostic/treatment care gap. Distributions of care gaps were tabulated by stage, histology, and study site. Multivariable nominal logistic regression was used to examine the associations between demographic and cancer characteristics and type of care gap.

RESULTS

Of 499 women evaluated, 46% lacked a screening test in the time window examined, 31% experienced a screening test failure, and 22% experienced a diagnostic/treatment care gap. More than half of the women with advanced cancer and squamous cell carcinoma lacked a screening test compared to 31% and 24% of women with localized cancer and adenocarcinoma, respectively. Women aged 21-29 at diagnosis were more likely to experience screening test failure and diagnostic/treatment care gap, while those aged 50-65 were more likely to lack a screening test, compared to women aged 30-39.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate a continuing need to develop interventions targeting unscreened and under-screened women and improve detection and diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in women undergoing cervical cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up.

Should screening for cervical cancer go to primary human papillomavirus testing and eliminate cytology?

This review will systematically highlight the pros and cons of cervical cancer screening with HPV (human papillomavirus) testing and cytological methods (Papanicolaou (Pap) test). When comparing the screening modalities, various facets will be addressed, such as cost effectiveness, and harms and benefits across different demographics and age groups. It is important to note that due to the expansive variance in material costs, practices, and resource availability across different geographical regions, these comparisons are far from straight forward, and ultimately make it challenging to render definitive global recommendations. Thus, the intent of this review is to highlight some of the differences in difference cervical cancer screening modalities that can help one to choose an optimal screening method in their specific situation.

Disparities in the increases of cervical cancer incidence rates: observations from a city-wide population-based study

Background

Globally cervical cancer incidence rate has been declining continuously. However, an unfavorable trend has been observed in China during the past decades, and the underlying reasons remain unclear. We hereby explore the recent trends of cervical cancer incidence, as well as the underlying determinants using data from Guangzhou, one of biggest cities in China.

Methods

City-wide cancer registration data were obtained from the Guangzhou Center for Disease Prevention and Control from 2004 to 2018. We used the Joinpoint regression models to estimate the average annual percentage change (AAPC) of age-standardized and age-specific incidence rates by regions and by histological subtype. Age-period-cohort models were applied to analyze the period and birth cohort effects on the time trends.

Results

The age-standardized rates (ASRs) of cervical cancer incidence increased at an annual rate of 2.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0%-3.2%] during 2004–2018. The largest increase in ASRs was found for rural regions, with AAPC of 6.6% [95% CI: 3.7%-9.5%], followed by the suburbs (2.2% [95% CI: 1.0%-3.4%]), while there was no statistically significant increase in urban regions. The ASRs of adenocarcinoma increased faster than those of the squamous cell carcinoma (AAPC = 6.53% [95% CI: 5.0%-8.1%] versus 1.79% [95% CI: 0.8%-2.8%]). A downward trend in urban regions was found in the 20–49 age group, whereas an upward trend was found in the 50 + age group, especially in rural regions. An inverted V-shape was found for cohort effects, with the peak varied by regions, i.e., peaked in the 1966 and 1971 birth cohort in the urban and suburb regions, respectively. Period effects kept increasing during the study period.

Conclusions

We systematically examine the disparities in the increases of cervical cancer incidence rates using city-wide data from Guangzhou. Extensive efforts are warranted to address the large urban–rural disparities in cervical cancer prevention. The combined strategies of vaccination, screening, and health education should be reinforced and locally customized.

Impact of prior underinsurance on cervical cancer screening among Davidson County, Tennessee, women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer, 2008-2018

INTRODUCTION

We sought to investigate the association between insurance coverage history and cervical cancer screening among Davidson County, Tennessee, women diagnosed with incident cervical cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer from 2008 through 2018 identified via the state's cancer registry and by active surveillance of diagnostic pathology reports for the HPV-IMPACT project. Per 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended cervical cancer screening guidelines, women were characterized into three screening history categories: "no screening", "no follow-up" and "test/screening failure". Multivariable logistic regression measured the association of prior inadequate insurance (underinsurance) and screening history ("no screening/no follow-up" compared to "test/screening failure").

RESULTS

Of 212 women, most (77%) had not undergone recommended cervical cancer screening or follow-up prior to cancer diagnosis. Overall, 28% of women had history of underinsurance in 5 years prior to diagnosis. In adjusted analyses, underinsured women were more likely to have a "no screening/no follow-up" prior to cancer diagnosis (aOR 4.26; 95% CI 1.15-15.80) compared to "test/screening failure" history. Non-white race (aOR 2.73; 95% CI 0.98-7.61), older age (aOR 1.03 per year; 95% CI 1.00-1.07), and history of smoking (aOR 4.07; 95% CI 1.54-10.74) were also associated with increased likelihood of "no screening/no follow-up".

CONCLUSIONS

Previous underinsurance was independently associated with non-adherence to cervical cancer screening and follow-up guidelines among women with incident cervical cancer. Further study of factors contributing to inadequate cervical cancer screening and interventions to increase cervical cancer screening in high-risk populations is needed.

Risk stratification for cervical neoplasia using extended high-risk HPV genotyping in women with ASC-US cytology: A large retrospective study from China

BACKGROUND

Extended high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotype testing (hrHPVGT) has emerged as a new strategy to help optimize the efficiency of hrHPV triage.

METHODS

Women with an atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) cervical Papanicolaou test result who underwent hrHPVGT between October 2017 and May 2021 at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, were studied. For hrHPVGT, a proprietary multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction assay was used. hrHPVGT and viral load test results in selected patients were correlated with histopathologic follow-up findings available within 6 months.

RESULTS

In total, 17,235 women with ASC-US cytology who had hrHPVGT results were identified in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University database. The hrHPV-positive rate was 61.8%, and the most prevalent hrHPV genotypes were type 52 (HPV52) (16%), HPV16 (11.3%), HPV58 (10.2%), and HPV53 (8.4%). Single hrHPV genotypes were detected in 65.9% of women with hrHPV-positive results, and multiple genotypes were detected in 34.1%. Histopathologic cervical findings within 6 months were available in 5627 hrHPV-positive women and 2223 hrHPV-negative women. High-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions or cervical cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater [CIN2+]) were identified in 7.5% of hrHPV-positive women who had ASC-US cytology and in 0.9% of hrHPV-negative women who had ASC-US cytology. The greatest risk for CIN2+ was in single hrHPV genotype infections with HPV16 (21.1%), HPV33 (15.2%), HPV82 (10%), and HPV18 (9.9%). hrHPVGT for genotypes HPV16, HPV33, HPV82, HPV18, HPV31, HPV45, HPV58, and HPV52 identified 95% of CIN2+ cases with 90.8% sensitivity, 53.8% specificity, a positive predictive value of 10.2%, and a negative predictive value of 99%. A significantly increased viral load was associated only with women who had HPV16-related CIN2+.

CONCLUSIONS

hrHPVGT for women who have ASC-US cytology allows for risk stratification capable of optimizing the efficiency of triage for hrHPV-positive women.

Impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer screening: Challenges and opportunities to improving resilience and reduce disparities

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on a wide range of health outcomes. Disruptions of elective health services related to cervical screening, management of abnormal screening test results, and treatment of precancers, may lead to increases in cervical cancer incidence and exacerbate existing health disparities. Modeling studies suggest that a short delay of cervical screening in subjects with previously negative HPV results has minor effects on cancer outcomes, while delay of management and treatment can lead to larger increases in cervical cancer. Several approaches can mitigate the effects of disruption of cervical screening and management. HPV-based screening has higher accuracy compared to cytology, and a negative HPV result provides longer reassurance against cervical cancer; further, HPV testing can be conducted from self-collected specimens. Self-collection expands the reach of screening to underserved populations who currently do not participate in screening. Self-collection and can also provide alternative screening approaches during the pandemic because testing can be supported by telehealth and specimens collected in the home, substantially reducing patient-provider contact and risk of COVID-19 exposure, and also expanding the reach of catch-up services to address backlogs of screening tests that accumulated during the pandemic. Risk-based management allows prioritizing management of patients at highest risk of cervical cancer while extending screening intervals for those at lowest risk. The pandemic provides important lessons for how to make cervical screening more resilient to disruptions and how to reduce cervical cancer disparities that may be exacerbated due to disruptions of health services.

Cervical Stenosis: Previously Unrecognized Cause of False-Negative Human Papillomavirus Tests in Women Developing Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Cervical stenosis can jeopardize adequate posttreatment cytologic follow-up of patients treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions. An impact on human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has not been described.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe 2 patients with cervical stenosis, followed by cytology and HPV co-testing after excisions of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions. Each had 1 or more co-test "double-negative" results. Hysterectomies revealed unexpected cervical carcinomas.

RESULTS

In case 1, an 80-year-old woman with complete cervical stenosis and earlier high-grade squamous dysplasia presented with abdominal pain, nausea, and an enlarged uterus. Attempted endometrial biopsy was unsuccessful. Cytology and HPV tests 9 months earlier were negative. Hysterectomy revealed a cervical squamous carcinoma. In case 2, a 40-year-old woman followed conservatively after excision of endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ had 5 follow-up cytology and HPV co-tests. All were HPV negative. Elective hysterectomy revealed cervical adenocarcinoma. Both carcinomas tested HPV positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical stenosis in women developing cervical cancer can cause misleading sampling and false-negative HPV test results.

The performance of Cobas HPV test for cervical cancer screening in Chinese female migrant workers

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of Cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test in cervical cancer screening. A total of 3442 women aged ⩾20 years used Cobas HPV and hybrid capture 2 (HC2) tests were included in this study. Women with any positive result were examined by liquid-based cytology (LBC) test. Then subjects with abnormal LBC or positive Cobas HPV16/18 were further checked by colposcopy to observe the visible lesions to perform the pathological examination. Of these 3442 women, 328 cases were Cobas HPV positive, and the positive rate was 9.53% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.50–10.53). The positive rate of HPV16, HPV18, and other 12 types of high-risk HPV were 1.54% (95% CI 1.12–1.95), 0.55% (95% CI 0.30–0.80), and 7.44% (95% CI 6.56–8.32), respectively. The coincidence rate of Cobas HPV test and HC2 test was 90% (95% CI 89.00–91.00; Kappa = 0.526) in the primary screening. Age had a non-linear relationship with Cobas HPV positive rate (χ² = 4.240, P = 0.040) and HPV16/18 typing positive rate (χ² = 6.610, P = 0.010). Compared with the LBC test, the Cobas HPV test had higher sensitivity when detecting patients with high cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+ and CIN3+).

Cervical Cancer Among Older Women: Analyses of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program Data

OBJECTIVE

To describe age-specific cervical cancer incidence rates based on demographic and clinical characteristics.

METHODS

Women with cervical cancer in the SEER program were grouped into 3 age categories. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and incidence rates were obtained for each age group.

RESULTS

Older women (≥65 years) had higher incidence rates of cervical cancer than women <65 years with the highest rates in black women ≥75 years. Older black women had more adverse factors at diagnosis than similarly aged white and younger black women. There was a higher incidence rate of cervical cancer in women with lower socioeconomic status (SES), with the highest rates in older black women. However, the incidence rates were similar for older black women regardless of SES.

CONCLUSION

Older black have the highest cervical cancer incidence rates, regardless of SES, suggesting an age and race disparity when compared to younger and white women.

Summary of Current Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Test Results: 2016-2020

Cervical cancer can be prevented through routine screening and follow-up of abnormal results. Several guidelines have been published in the last 4 years from various medical societies and organizations. These guidelines aim to personalize screening and management, reducing unnecessary testing in low-risk patients and managing high-risk patients with more intensive follow-up. However, the resulting complexity can lead to confusion among providers. The CDC, NCI, and obstetrician-gynecologists involved in guideline development summarized current screening and management guidelines. For screening, guidelines for average-risk and high-risk populations are summarized and presented. For management, differences between the 2012 and 2019 consensus guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors are summarized. Current screening guidelines for average-risk individuals have minor differences, but are evolving toward an HPV-based strategy. For management, HPV testing is preferred to cytology because it is a more sensitive test for cancer precursor detection and also allows for precise risk stratification. Current risk-based screening and management strategies can improve care by reducing unnecessary tests and procedures in low-risk patients and focusing resources on high-risk patients. Knowledge of screening and management guidelines is important to improve adherence and avoid both over- and under-use of screening and colposcopy.

Light scattering pattern specific convolutional network static cytometry for label-free classification of cervical cells

Cervical cancer is a major gynecological malignant tumor that threatens women's health. Current cytological methods have certain limitations for cervical cancer early screening. Light scattering patterns can reflect small differences in the internal structure of cells. In this study, we develop a light scattering pattern specific convolutional network (LSPS-net) based on deep learning algorithm and integrate it into a 2D light scattering static cytometry for automatic, label-free analysis of single cervical cells. An accuracy rate of 95.46% for the classification of normal cervical cells and cancerous ones (mixed C-33A and CaSki cells) is obtained. When applied for the subtyping of label-free cervical cell lines, we obtain an accuracy rate of 93.31% with our LSPS-net cytometric technique. Furthermore, the three-way classification of the above different types of cells has an overall accuracy rate of 90.90%, and comparisons with other feature descriptors and classification algorithms show the superiority of deep learning for automatic feature extraction. The LSPS-net static cytometry may potentially be used for cervical cancer early screening, which is rapid, automatic and label-free.

Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system

One in five U.S. women with health insurance are underscreened for cervical cancer. We sought to identify whether underscreening correlates differed among women with different levels of health care interaction. Among women age 30-64 years who were members of an integrated U.S. health system, we used 2014-2015 electronic health record data to identify underscreened cases (≥3.4 years since last Papanicolaou (Pap) test, n=3352) and screening-adherent controls (<3.4 years since last Pap test, n=45,359) and extracted data on potential underscreening correlates (demographics, health history, and healthcare utilization). We calculated the odds of underscreening in the total population and by subgroups defined by healthcare visits and online health portal usage in the prior 12 months. Underscreening was associated with older age (50-64 vs. 30-39; odds ratio (OR)=1.6; 95%CI=1.4-1.8), current tobacco use (vs. never use; OR=2.1; 95%CI=1.8-2.2), higher BMI (≥35 kg/m² vs <25 kg/m², OR=2.0; 95%CI=1.8-2.3), screening non-adherence for colorectal cancer (OR=5.1; 95%CI=4.6-5.7) and breast cancer (OR=8.1, 95%CI=7.2-9.0), and having no recent visit with their primary care provider (PCP) nor recent health portal use (vs. recent PCP visit and portal use; OR=8.4, 95%CI=7.6-9.4). Underscreening correlates were similar between the total study population and within all healthcare interaction groups. Interaction with the healthcare system is associated with lower odds of underscreening, but sociodemographic and health status correlates are similar regardless of primary care visits or online portal use. These data support the need for additional interventions to reach insured women who remain underscreened for cervical cancer.

Contributions of Liquid-Based (Papanicolaou) Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cotesting for Detection of Cervical Cancer and Precancer in the United States

Objectives

Given the recent debate challenging the contribution of cytology in cervical screening, we evaluated results of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in cotesting preceding cervical cancer (CxCa) and precancer diagnoses in a national, heterogeneous population.

Methods

We assessed the results of cotesting, performed by Quest Diagnostics, in 13,633,071 women 30 years and older, tested 2010 to 2018. Cotest results preceding CxCa or precancer diagnoses were analyzed and stratified by histopathology.

Results

Among all screening results, 1,615 cotests preceded 1,259 CxCa diagnoses, and 11,164 cotests preceded 8,048 cervical precancer diagnoses. More women who were subsequently diagnosed with CxCa within 1 year were identified by the LBC result than by the HPV result (85.1%, 1,015/1,193 vs 77.5%, 925/1,193). Among all women with CxCa, the overall rate of nondetection was 13.1% (212/1,615) for cotesting results (LBC negative/HPV negative) and this rate increased substantially when testing exceeded 12 months compared to within 1 year prediagnosis of either CxCa or precancer.

Conclusions

Analysis of 9-year cotest results from a national reference laboratory confirms the value of LBC element in cotesting. This supports that LBC/HPV cotesting enhances screening for the identification of CxCa in women 30 years and older, more so than LBC or HPV alone within cotesting.

Risk Estimates Supporting the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines

Objective

The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities recommend 1 of 6 clinical actions (treatment, optional treatment or colposcopy/biopsy, colposcopy/biopsy, 1-year surveillance, 3-year surveillance, 5-year return to regular screening) based on the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, or cancer (CIN 3+) for the many different combinations of current and recent past screening results. This article supports the main guidelines presentation¹ by presenting and explaining the risk estimates that supported the guidelines.

Methods

From 2003 to 2017 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), 1.5 million individuals aged 25 to 65 years were screened with human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology cotesting scheduled every 3 years. We estimated immediate and 5-year risks of CIN 3+ for combinations of current test results paired with history of screening test and colposcopy/biopsy results.

Results

Risk tables are presented for different clinical scenarios. Examples of important results are highlighted; for example, the risk posed by most current abnormalities is greatly reduced if the prior screening round was HPV-negative. The immediate and 5-year risks of CIN 3+ used to decide clinical management are shown.

Conclusions

The new risk-based guidelines present recommendations for the management of abnormal screening test and histology results; the key risk estimates supporting guidelines are presented in this article. Comprehensive risk estimates are freely available online at https://CervixCa.nlm.nih.gov/RiskTables.

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Methods for Risk Estimation, Recommended Management, and Validation

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Objective

To manage cervical screening abnormalities, the 2019 ASCCP management consensus guidelines will recommend clinical action on the basis of risk of cervical precancer and cancer. This article details the methods used to estimate risk, to determine the risk-based management, and to validate that the risk-based recommendations are of general use in different settings.

Methods

Based on 1.5 million patients undergoing triennial cervical screening by cotesting at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2003 to 2017, we estimated risk profiles for different clinical scenarios and combinations of past and current human papillomavirus and cytology test results. We validated the recommended management by comparing with the estimated risks in several external data sources.

Results

Risk and management tables are presented separately by Egemen et al.¹ and Demarco et al.² Risk-based management derived from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California largely agreed with the management implied from the estimated risks of the other data sources.

Conclusions

The new risk-based guidelines present management of abnormal cervical screening results. By describing the steps used to develop these guidelines, the methods presented in this article can provide a basis for future extensions of the risk-based guidelines.

Screening for Cervical Cancer

The most effective strategy for cervical cancer prevention involves vaccination to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) infections during adolescence followed by screening to detect HPV infections during adulthood. HPV vaccination before sexual debut can prevent HPV infections, precancers, and cancers. HPV vaccination of sexually active populations does not prevent cancer. Screening with HPV testing is the most effective method of detecting precancers and cancers between ages 25 and 65. Ensuring adequate screening around the age of menopause may be the key to preventing cervical cancer among elderly women. Most cervical cancers at all ages occur among unscreened or underscreened women.

A state-wide population-based evaluation of cervical cancers arising during opportunistic screening in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Despite widespread cervical screening, an estimated 13,800 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the United States in 2020. To inform improvements, the screening histories of women diagnosed with cervical cancer in New Mexico were assessed.

METHODS

Data were collected on all cervical screening, diagnostic tests and treatment procedures for all women diagnosed with cervical cancer aged 25-64 yrs. in New Mexico from 2006 to 2016. Women were categorized by their screening attendance in the 5-40 months (screening interval) and 1-4 months (peri-diagnostic interval) prior to cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of the 504 women diagnosed between May 2009-December 2016, 64% were not screened or had only inadequate screening tests in the 5-40 months prior to diagnosis, and 90 of 182 screened women (49%) had only negative screens in this period. Only 32% (N = 162) of cervical cancers were screen-detected. Women with adenocarcinomas were more likely to have had a recent negative screen (41/57 = 722%) than women with squamous cancers (50/112 = 45%). Both older women (aged 45-64 years) and women with more advanced cancers were less likely to have been screened, and if screened, were more likely to have a false-negative outcome. Only 9% of cancers were diagnosed in women who did not attend biopsy or treatment after positive tests requiring clinical management. Screening currently prevents 35% of cancers, whereas full screening coverage could prevent 61% of cervical cancers.

CONCLUSION

Improved screening coverage has the largest potential for reducing cervical cancer incidence, though there is also a role for improved recall procedures and screening sensitivity.

Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Claims for compensation from women with cervical cancer in Norway-A retrospective, descriptive study of a 12-year period

INTRODUCTION

In Norway, all patient-reported claims for compensation are evaluated by The Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE). The number of claims from women with cervical cancer is rising, and the approval rate is high. Our aim was to study claims for compensation from women with cervical cancer to identify the type of failures, when, during the time-course of treatment, the medical failures occurred, and the consequences of the failures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive study of claims for compensation to NPE from cervical cancer patients during a 12-year period, from 2007 through 2018. We used anonymized medical expert statements and summaries of NPE cases.

RESULTS

In all, 161 women claimed compensation for alleged medical failure related to cervical cancer. Compensation was approved for 100 (62%) women. Mean age at the time of alleged failure was 37.5 years (SD ±9.9). The main reasons why women sought medical attention were routine cervical screening (56%), or vaginal bleeding or discharge (30%). In approved cases, incorrect evaluation of cytology and histology was the cause of most failures (72%). Mean delay of cervical cancer diagnosis for approved cases was 28 months (SD ±22). Treatment not in accordance with guidelines was the cause of failure in 2% of the cases, and failure during follow up was the cause of failure in 12%. Consequences of the failures were as follows: worsening of cancer prognosis (89%), treatment-induced adverse effects, such as loss of fertility (43%) and/or loss of ovarian function in premenopausal women (50%), and permanent injury after chemo-radiation (27%). Seven women (7%) died, most probably as a consequence of the failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The main cause of medical failure in women with cervical cancer was incorrect pathological diagnosis. The main consequences of failures were worsening of cancer prognosis and treatment-induced adverse effects. Increased focus on the quality of pathological examinations, and better routines in all parts of the cervical examinations might improve patient safety for women in risk of cervical cancer.

Risikobewertung von Zytologiebefunden im Zervixkarzinom-Screening

Zielstellung

Das CIN2+-/CIN3+(zervikale intraepitheliale Neoplasie)-Risiko plattenepithelialer zytologischer Befunde (Gruppe II‑p, IIID1, III‑p, IIID2 der Münchner Nomenklatur [MN] III) soll bewertet und mit Empfehlungen für das Patienten-Management korreliert werden.

Material und Methoden

Alle 4321 Frauen mit einer Gruppe II‑p, IIID1, III‑p, IIID2, IVa‑p, IVb-p und V‑p von Januar 2014 bis Dezember 2016 wurden in einer Praxis für Pathologie erfasst. Zytologische Vorbefunde, alle zytologischen und histologischen Folgebefunde bis Juli 2019 wurden dokumentiert. Für die Erstbefunde wurde pro Befundgruppe mittels Kaplan-Meier-Schätzung das Risiko für CIN2+/CIN3+ ermittelt. Das Risiko bei persistierenden Befunden und der Einfluss des Alters wurden untersucht.

Ergebnisse

Für die Erstbefunde der Gruppen II‑p, IIID1, III‑p und IIID2 beträgt das Risiko für CIN2+ nach 12, 24 und 60 Monaten 1,0/3,3/11,8; 3,1/9,4/22,7; 33,4/38,4/55,5 bzw. 35,1/46,2/64,4 (%). Das Risiko für CIN3+ beträgt für die gleichen Zeiträume 0,6/2,7/9,7; 1,9/5,2/14,3; 28,8/32,4/44,0 bzw. 28,5/36,7/52,4 (%). Bei persistierenden Befunden derselben Gruppe steigt das Risiko für CIN2+ und CIN3+ signifikant vom ersten zum zweiten II-p‑, IIID1-, III-p- und IIID2-Befund. Bei den Gruppen II‑p, IIID1 und IIID2 finden sich keine signifikanten Altersunterschiede, bei III-p-Befunden ist das Risiko für Frauen <30 und <35 signifikant größer als für ältere Frauen.

Schlussfolgerung

Die MN III mit 3‑gliedriger Dysplasiegraduierung klassifiziert die zytologischen Befunde risikoorientiert. Ihre Befundgruppen eignen sich als Basis für ein risikoadaptiertes Management, um insbesondere Überdiagnostik und -therapie zu vermeiden.

Cervical Human Papillomavirus Testing With Two Home Self-Collection Methods Compared With a Standard Clinically Collected Sampling Method

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of 2 self-collection methods to detect cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA with outcomes from a standard clinical method. The standard method samples were collected by a clinician at a routine pelvic examination. Self-samples were taken at home and mailed to the clinical laboratory.

METHODS

The 2 self-collection methods were a tampon-based method and a swab-based method using a commercial device, an Eve Medical HerSwab. All HPV samples were processed by a clinical laboratory using the Food and Drugs Administration approved Roche Cobase HPV method, which specifically identifies HPV 16, HPV 18, and a set of 12 other high-risk subtypes. Patients were recruited from 2 cancer screening clinics 2015 to 2017. All patients signed an informed consent. Screening outcomes, such as prevalence, percent agreement with standard, sensitivity, and specificity, were calculated for each self-collection method. Measures of similarity between self and standard collection outcomes, Cohen's κ, percent concordance, McNemar equivalence, and others were tested statistically.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients were randomized. The prevalence of 1 or more positive HPV high-risk subtypes from the standard clinical specimens was 13.5%. All clinical specimens were sufficient for valid HPV detection. For the tampon method, 15 (27%) of the specimens were insufficient quality. Only 1 (2%) swab specimen was insufficient. Only the swab self-collection method was found to be statistically noninferior to the clinical method. The tampon method had an unacceptably high rate of insufficient quality specimens and also failed the equivalency tests.

CONCLUSIONS

The swab home collection samples were equivalent to the clinical samples, but the tampon method had an unacceptably high rate of specimens insufficient for HPV detection.

Trends in cervical cancer incidence rates by age, race/ethnicity, histological subtype, and stage at diagnosis in the United States

Recent trends of cervical cancer incidence by histology and age in the United States (U.S.) have not been reported. We examined contemporary trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) incidence rates in the U.S. by age group, race/ethnicity, and stage at diagnosis after accounting for hysterectomy. Incidence data (1999-2015) were obtained from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Incidence Analytic Database. Hysterectomy prevalence was estimated using National Health Interview Survey data (2000-2015). Overall SCC incidence rates continued to decrease in all racial/ethnic groups except among non-Hispanic whites in whom rates stabilized in the 2010s, largely driven by stable trends in ages <50 years and a slower pace of decrease in ages 50-59 years. After a stable trend between 1999 and 2002, AC incidence rates among non-Hispanic whites rose during 2002-2015 (1.3% per year), mostly due to increases in ages 40-49 (4.4% annually since 2004) and 50-59 years (5.5% annually since 2011). Overall AC incidence rates during 1999-2015 decreased in blacks and Hispanics but were stable in Asian/Pacific Islanders; in all these race/ethnicities, rates were generally stable in ages <50 years but decreasing in older ages. Rates of distant stage cervical SCC and AC among non-Hispanic whites increased in several age groups but were generally stable in non-whites. Increasing or stabilized incidence trends for AC and attenuation of earlier declines for SCC in several subpopulations underscore the importance of intensifying efforts to reverse the increasing trends and further reduce the burden of cervical cancer in the U.S.

Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in California's Family Planning Program

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend 3-year cervical cancer screening intervals to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures; however, regular testing remains critical. We evaluated trends in cervical cancer screening among low-income women receiving family planning-related services and their association with patient and provider characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using claims and enrollment data from California's publicly funded family planning program, we identified 540,026 women with a clinician visit at 216 sites between 2011 and 2015. We calculated guideline adherent cervical cancer testing rates for 6-month periods among women aged 21 to 24, 25 to 29, and 30 to 64 years. We also calculated guideline adherent chlamydia testing for women aged 21 to 24 years.

RESULTS

Having a 3-year cervical cancer screening test declined for all age groups. The odds of cervical cancer screening declined for women aged 21 to 24 years by an estimated 11% every 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.90), a significantly greater decline than for the other age groups. Among women aged 21 to 29 years, the decrease was significantly larger for Latina (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) and Spanish-speaking (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) women compared with non-Latina and non-Spanish-speaking women. A smaller decline was seen for chlamydia screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in screening interval guidelines are associated with overall decreased screening. This trend was strongest among women aged 21 to 24 years, even as they continued to be screened appropriately for chlamydia, suggesting many missed opportunities. Efforts to reduce unnecessary cervical cancer screening should be monitored to maintain appropriate screening rates to avoid advanced-stage diagnoses and higher health care costs.

Enhanced Detection of Cervical Cancer and Precancer Through Use of Imaged Liquid-Based Cytology in Routine Cytology and HPV Cotesting

OBJECTIVES

Cervical screening strives to prevent cervical cancer (CxCa), minimizing morbidity and mortality. Most large US reports on cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) cotesting of women aged 30 years and older are from one laboratory, which used conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) smears from 2003 to 2009.

METHODS

We quantified detection of CxCa and precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3/adenocarcinoma in situ [CIN3/AIS]) in 300,800 cotests at Magee Womens Hospital since 2005. Screening histories preceding CxCa and CIN3/AIS diagnoses were examined to assess the contribution of cytology and HPV testing. Cotesting utilized Food and Drug Administration-approved imaged liquid-based cytology (LBC) and from-the-vial HPV tests.

RESULTS

LBC identified more women subsequently diagnosed with CxCa and CIN3/AIS than HPV testing. HPV-negative/cytology-positive results preceded 13.1% of CxCa and 7.2% of CIN3/AIS diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

LBC enhanced cotesting detection of CxCa and CIN3/AIS to a greater extent than previously reported with conventional Pap smear and HPV cotesting.

Validation of a Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Cervical Screening Test That Provides Expanded HPV Typing

As cervical cancer screening shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, a major question is the clinical value of identifying individual HPV types. We aimed to validate Onclarity (Becton Dickinson Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), a nine-channel HPV test recently approved by the FDA, by assessing (i) the association of Onclarity types/channels with precancer/cancer; (ii) HPV type/channel agreement between the results of Onclarity and cobas (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA), another FDA-approved test; and (iii) Onclarity typing for all types/channels compared to typing results from a research assay (linear array [LA]; Roche). We compared Onclarity to histopathology, cobas, and LA. We tested a stratified random sample (n = 9,701) of discarded routine clinical specimens that had tested positive by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen, Germantown, MD). A subset had already been tested by cobas and LA (n = 1,965). Cervical histopathology was ascertained from electronic health records. Hierarchical Onclarity channels showed a significant linear association with histological severity. Onclarity and cobas had excellent agreement on partial typing of HPV16, HPV18, and the other 12 types as a pool (sample-weighted kappa value of 0.83); cobas was slightly more sensitive for HPV18 and slightly less sensitive for the pooled high-risk types. Typing by Onclarity showed excellent agreement with types and groups of types identified by LA (kappa values from 0.80 for HPV39/68/35 to 0.97 for HPV16). Onclarity typing results corresponded well to histopathology and to an already validated HPV DNA test and could provide additional clinical typing if such discrimination is determined to be clinically desirable.

Risks of CIN 2+, CIN 3+, and Cancer by Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Status: The Foundation of Risk-Based Cervical Screening Guidelines

As a foundation for the next guidelines revision, we confirmed with additional precision the risk estimates previously reported for combinations of human papillomavirus and cytology screening.

Objectives

The next round of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)-sponsored cervical cancer screening and management guidelines will recommend clinical actions based on risk, rather than test-based algorithms. This article gives preliminary risk estimates for the screening setting, showing combinations of the 2 most important predictors, human papillomavirus (HPV) status and cytology result.

Materials and Methods

Among 1,262,713 women aged 25 to 77 years co-tested with HC2 (Qiagen) and cytology at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we estimated 0–5-year cumulative risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+, CIN 3+, and cancer for combinations of cytology (negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy [NILM], atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL], atypical squamous cells cannot exclude HSIL [ASC-H], high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL], atypical glandular cells [AGC]) and HPV status.

Results

Ninety percent of screened women had HPV-negative NILM and an extremely low risk of subsequent cancer. Five-year risks of CIN 3+ were lower after HPV negativity (0.12%) than after NILM (0.25%). Among HPV-negative women, 5-year risks for CIN 3+ were 0.10% for NILM, 0.44% for ASC-US, 1.8% for LSIL, 3.0% for ASC-H, 1.2% for AGC, and 29% for HSIL+ cytology (which was very rare). Among HPV-positive women, 5-year risks were 4.0% for NILM, 6.8% for ASC-US, 6.1% for LSIL, 28% for ASC-H, 30% for AGC, and 50% for HSIL+ cytology.

Conclusions

As a foundation for the next guidelines revision, we confirmed with additional precision the risk estimates previously reported for combinations of HPV and cytology. Future analyses will estimate risks for women being followed in colposcopy clinic and posttreatment and will consider the role of risk modifiers such as age, HPV vaccine status, HPV type, and screening and treatment history.

Epidemiologic Evidence That Excess Body Weight Increases Risk of Cervical Cancer by Decreased Detection of Precancer

Purpose Obesity has been inconsistently linked to increased cervical cancer incidence and mortality; however, the effect of obesity on cervical screening has not been explored. We investigated the hypothesis that increased body mass might decrease detection of cervical precancer and increase risk of cervical cancer even in women undergoing state-of-the-art screening. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 944,227 women age 30 to 64 years who underwent cytology and human papillomavirus DNA testing (ie, cotesting) at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (January 2003 to December 2015). Body mass index was categorized as normal/underweight (< 25 kg/m²), overweight (25 to < 30 kg/m²), or obese (≥ 30 kg/m²). We estimated 5-year cumulative risks of cervical precancer and cancer by category of body mass index using logistic Weibull survival models. Results We observed lower risk of cervical precancer (n = 4,489) and higher risk of cervical cancer (n = 490) with increasing body mass index. Specifically, obese women had the lowest 5-year risk of precancer (0.51%; 95% CI, 0.48% to 0.54% v 0.73%; 95% CI, 0.70% to 0.76% in normal/underweight women; P trend < .001). In contrast, obese women had the highest 5-year risk of cancer (0.083%; 95% CI, 0.072% to 0.096% v 0.056%; 95% CI, 0.048% to 0.066% in normal/underweight women; P trend < .001). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by age (30 to 49 v 50 to 64 years), human papillomavirus status (positive v negative), and histologic subtype (glandular v squamous). Approximately 20% of cervical cancers could be attributed to overweight or obesity in the women in our study who underwent routine cervical screening. Conclusion In this large, screened population, overweight and obese women had an increased risk of cervical cancer, likely because of underdiagnosis of cervical precancer. Improvements in equipment and/or technique to assure adequate sampling and visualization of women with elevated body mass might reduce cervical cancer incidence.

The role of human papillomavirus vaccines in cervical cancer: Prevention and treatment

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted disease, worldwide. Primary prevention thorough vaccination si able to reduce the burden of HPV-related lesions. Ten years ago the Food and drug Administration (FDA) approved the first vaccine against HPV. In the last decades, growing data on safety and effectiveness have been collected. In the present review we report the current knowledge on vaccine against HPV, highlighting the current value and prospective regarding the widespread diffusion of HPV vaccines. The role of emerging therapeutic vaccines is reviewed.