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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Hispanic individuals' cervical cancer screening disparities amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening rates of Hispanic individuals compared to non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals in the United States, whether a responsive surge in catch-up screenings occurred as society adapted to pandemic changes, and to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics between the study populations.

METHODS

Using cross-sectional data from the All of Us Research Program, which incorporates electronic health record data and survey data from a demographically, geographically, and medically diverse participant group, we assessed the annual cervical cancer screening rates during 2019-2021 by race/ethnicity among eligible individuals ages 21-64.

RESULTS

Among 116,052 unique individuals (78,829 NHW and 37,223 Hispanic), Hispanic individuals had lower annual cervical cancer screening rates than NHWI across the three years studied. They experienced a more significant decrease in screening from 2019 to 2020 (39.27 %) compared to NHWIs (21.15 %) and less of a rebound increase in the following year, 2021 (10.33 % vs 13.83 %). Hispanic individuals aged 50-64 experienced the sharpest decline in screening rates (-43.01 % from 2019 to 2020). Hispanic individuals also experienced greater adverse social conditions, including lack of insurance or employment, lower educational attainment, and lower household income.

CONCLUSIONS

Hispanic individuals experienced a more significant decrease in cervical cancer screening rates with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with NHW individuals and did not experience a robust rebound in cervical cancer screening rates in 2021. As a result, the disparity in cervical cancer screening rates between NHW and Hispanic individuals considerably worsened with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Understanding the high-risk human papillomavirus prevalence and associated factors in the European country with a high incidence of cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) is a known cause of cervical cancer (CC). Latvia has a high incidence of CC compared with the average incidence in the European Union. This study aims to fill the data gap on the HR-HPV burden in Latvia, providing information on its prevalence and associated factors.

METHODS

The cross-sectional study was conducted from February 2021 to April 2022. Participants 25-70 years old visiting a general practitioner (general population) or those referred to a colposcopy clinic with changes in their cervical cytology (colposcopy population) collected vaginal self-sample and completed a paper-based questionnaire. Samples were analyzed with Cobas 6800 System (Roche) for HPV16, HPV18 and other HR-HPV (HPV31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68). Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were performed. The Chi-square test was used to determine for the statistical significance of differences in the proportions of the dependent variable between subgroups of the independent variable. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with positive HR-HPV status. Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 1274 participants provided a valid sample. The prevalence of any HR-HPV infection was 66.8% in the colposcopy group and 11.0% in the general population. Factors associated with positive HR-HPV status were marital status single/divorced/widowed (vs. married/cohabiting) [adjusted OR (aOR) 2.6; P = 0.003], higher number of lifetime sex partners [aOR 5.1 (P < 0.001) and 4.0 (P = 0.001)] for six or more and three to five partners in the general population; in the colposcopy group, the statistical significance remained only for Latvian ethnicity (vs. other) (aOR 1.8; P = 0.008) and current smoking (vs. never) (aOR 1.9; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We documented a comparison to European Union HR-HPV infection burden in Latvia. Any HR-HPV positivity was significantly associated with sexual and other health behavior.

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.

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.

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.

Pre-Vaccination Human Papillomavirus Genotypes and HPV16 Variants among Women Aged 25 Years or Less with Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2007, Australia introduced a national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program. In 2017, the onset of cervical screening changed from 18 to 25 years of age, utilising human papillomavirus (HPV) nucleic acid testing. The objective of the study is to describe the HPV genotypes and HPV16 variants in biopsies from women ≤ 25 years of age with cervical carcinoma (CC) (cases), compared with those aged >25 years (controls), in a pre-vaccination cohort.

METHODS

HPV genotyping of archival paraffin blocks (n = 96) was performed using the INNO-LiPA HPV Genotyping assay. HPV16-positive samples were analysed for variants by type-specific PCR spanning L1, E2 and E6 regions.

RESULTS

HPV16 was the commonest genotype in cases (54.5%, 12/22) and controls (66.7%, 46/69) (p = 0.30), followed by HPV18 (36.3%, 8/22 vs. 17.3% 12/69, respectively) (p = 0.08). Furthermore, 90% (20/22) of cases and 84.1% (58/69) of controls were positive for HPV16 or 18 (p = 0.42); 100% (22/22) of cases and 95.7% (66/69) of controls had at least one genotype targeted by the nonavalent vaccine (p = 0.3). The majority of HPV16 variants (87.3%, 48/55) were of European lineage. The proportion of unique nucleotide substitutions was significantly higher in cases (83.3%, 10/12) compared with controls (34.1%, 15/44), (p < 0.003, χ2, OR 9.7, 95%CI 1.7-97.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Virological factors may account for the differences in CCs observed in younger compared with older women. All CCs in young women in this study had preventable 9vHPV types, which is important messaging for health provider adherence to new cervical screening guidelines.