Trends of human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening at a large academic cytology laboratory

Use Trends and Recent Expenditures for Cervical Cancer Screening-Associated Services in Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Older Than 65 Years

Importance

Since 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against cervical cancer screening in average-risk women 65 years or older with adequate prior screening. Little is known about the use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in this age group.

Objective

To examine annual use trends in cervical cancer screening-associated services, specifically cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests, colposcopy, and cervical procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cone biopsy, and ablation) in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2019, and estimate expenditures for services performed in 2019.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, cross-sectional analysis included health service use data across 21 years for women aged 65 to 114 years with Medicare fee-for-service coverage (15-16 million women per year). Data analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of testing modalities (cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing [cotesting], HPV testing alone); annual use rate per 100 000 women of cytology and HPV testing, colposcopy, and cervical procedures from 1999 to 2019; Medicare expenditure for these services in 2019.

Results

There were 15 323 635 women 65 years and older with Medicare fee-for-service coverage in 1999 and 15 298 656 in 2019. In 2019, the mean (SD) age of study population was 76.2 (8.1) years, 5.1% were Hispanic, 0.5% were non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.0% were non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 7.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and 82.0% were non-Hispanic White. From 1999 to 2019, the percentage of women who received at least 1 cytology or HPV test decreased from 18.9% (2.9 million women) in 1999 to 8.5% (1.3 million women) in 2019, a reduction of 55.3%; use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased 43.2% and 64.4%, respectively. Trend analyses showed a 4.6% average annual reduction in use of cytology or HPV testing during 1999 to 2019 (P < .001). Use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased before 2015 then plateaued during 2015 to 2019. The total Medicare expenditure for all services rendered in 2019 was about $83.5 million. About 3% of women older than 80 years received at least 1 service at a cost of $7.4 million in 2019.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that while annual use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in the Medicare fee-for-service population older than 65 years has decreased during the last 2 decades, more than 1.3 million women received these services in 2019 at substantial costs.

Trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests in a large medical claims database, United States, 2013-2019

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests during 2013-2019 among commercially insured women.

METHODS

The study population included women of all ages with continuous enrollment each year in the IBM MarketScan commercial or Medicare supplemental databases and without known history of cervical cancer or precancer (range = 6.9-9.8 million women per year). Annual cervical cancer screening test use was examined by three modalities: cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing (cotesting), and HPV testing alone. Trends were assessed using 2-sided Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Use of cytology alone decreased from 34.2% in 2013 to 26.4% in 2019 among women aged 21-29 years (P < .0001). Among women aged 30-64 years, use of cytology alone decreased from 18.9% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2019 (P < .0001), whereas cotesting use increased from 14.9% in 2013 to 19.3% in 2019 (P < .0001). Annual test use for HPV testing alone was below 0.5% in all age groups throughout the study period. Annually, 8.7%-13.6% of women aged 18-20 years received cervical cancer screening. There were persistent differences in screening test use by metropolitan residence and census regions despite similar temporal trends.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporal changes in the use of cervical cancer screening tests among commercially insured women track changes in clinical guidelines. Screening test use among individuals younger than 21 years shows that many young women are inappropriately screened for cervical cancer.

Increases in Human Papillomavirus Testing Preceding Diagnosis of Cervical Precancer in 5 US States, 2008-2016

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe trends in human papillomavirus (HPV) testing preceding diagnosis of cervical precancer during a time of changing screening recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from active, population-based, laboratory surveillance among 1.5 million residents of 5 areas in the United States. We included women aged 21-39 years diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2, 2/3, or 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ (collectively, CIN2+) during 2008-2016, who had a cytology and/or HPV test before diagnosis (n = 16,359).

RESULTS

The proportion of women with an HPV test preceding CIN2+ increased from 42.9% in 2008 to 73.3% in 2016 (p < .01); testing increased in all age groups (21-24 y: 35.3% to 47.6%, 25-29 y: 40.9% to 64.1%, 30-39 y: 51.7% to 85.9%, all p < .01). The HPV testing varied by cytology result and was highest among women with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance (n = 4,310/4,629, 93.1%), negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (n = 446/517, 86.3%), and atypical glandular cells (n = 145/257, 56.4%). By 2016, at least half of all cases in every surveillance area had an HPV test before diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

During 2008-2016, the proportion of women with an HPV test preceding CIN2+ increased significantly for all age groups, cytology results, and surveillance areas. By 2016, most (85.9%) women aged 30-39 years had an HPV test, consistent with recommendations. Increasing utilization of HPV tests, which have demonstrated improved sensitivity for detecting cervical disease, may in part explain increasing rates of cervical precancer among women 30 years and older.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

POPULATION

Improving the Utilization of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cytology Co-testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in an Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident Clinic

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing in combination with cervical cytology (HPV co-testing) has been recommended for cervical cancer screening for women 30 to 65 years of age. In several studies, HPV co-testing increased sensitivity for detecting high grade dysplasia and resulted in cost-savings. This retrospective cohort study assessed the prevalence of HPV co-testing in an obstetrics and gynecology resident clinic before and after a brief educational intervention which was designed to reinforce current cervical cancer screening recommendations. The intervention consisted of a short presentation that was given to all residents and medical assistants in October 2011. The proportion of women age 30-65 years of age who had cervical cancer screening with HPV co-testing as compared to cervical cytology alone was compared before and after the intervention using chi-square tests. The goal of the intervention was to increase the percentage of patients receiving co-testing from 0.5% to 7.8%. Each arm (pre- and post-intervention) required 130 subjects to achieve 80% power with a significance of P = .05. No significant differences in demographics including age, insurance type, and cytology were noted. HPV co-testing increased from 0% to 55% (P < .001). Of the 72 subjects who had co-testing, 58 (80%) will not need cervical cancer screening for another 5 years. HPV co-testing represents an underutilized cervical cancer screening modality for women 30 years and older. This brief educational intervention, adaptable to any clinical setting, significatnly increased co-testing at the clinical site.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Human papillomavirus testing 2007-2012: co-testing and triage utilization and impact on subsequent clinical management

In the United States, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for women with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance (ASC-US) cytology, and co-testing with cytology and HPV is a recommended option for screening women aged ≥ 30 years. No population-based data are available to examine utilization of HPV testing in the United States. Using the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry data resource, we describe population trends (2007-2012) in utilization and positivity rates for HPV testing as a routine co-testing screening procedure and for triage of ASC-US and other cytologic outcomes. For women aged 30-65 years co-testing increased from 5.2% in 2007 to 19.1% in 2012 (p < 0.001). Overall 82% of women with ASC-US cytology who did not receive co-testing also had an HPV test. HPV positivity was age and cytology result dependent but did not show time trends. For women with negative cytology, 64% received an additional screening test within 3 years if no co-test was done or if it was positive, but this was reduced to 47% with a negative co-test. Reflex HPV testing for ASC-US cytology is well established and occurs in most women. Evidence for reflex testing is also observed following other abnormal cytology outcomes. Co-testing in women aged 30-65 years has more than tripled from 2007 to 2012, but was still only used in 19.1% of women aged 30-65 years attending for screening in 2012. Women receiving co-testing had longer repeat screening intervals, but rescreening within 3 years is still very common even with co-testing.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for normal cervical cytology in low-risk women aged 30-65 years by family physicians

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess ordering of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for normal cervical cytology among low-risk women aged 30 to 65 years.

METHODS

Audits of 833 cytology request forms for low-risk women completing a Papanicolaou smear, from January 2008 to April 2011, from 5 Michigan family medicine clinics determined HPV orders completed by the clinician performing the Papanicolaou smear. Multivariate logistic regression models examined differences in HPV test ordering by patient age at Papanicolaou test, provider status and sex, and clinic across sites. A Poisson regression model analyzed the annual number of HPV test orders over time.

RESULTS

Cytology requests were completed by 622 faculty (75%), 169 residents/fellows (20%), and 42 nurse practitioner/physician assistants (NP/PAs) (5%). HPV testing for any cytology result was ordered on 324 request forms (39%) by residents/fellows (48%), faculty (38%), and NP/PAs (10%). Female providers were twice as likely as men to order HPV testing for any cytology result across all clinics and provider statuses (P < .001). There were significant differences in HPV test ordering among clinics. Between 2008 and 2011 annual cytology requests increased 46%, including HPV testing for any cytology result after adjusting for faculty provider sex.

CONCLUSION

HPV test ordering when cytology is collected varied by clinic and provider status and sex. HPV co-testing for any cytology result remains modest, but is increasing over time in these clinics.

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

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

Practice patterns in cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus testing

The use of human papillomavirus DNA testing plus Papanicolaou (Pap) testing (cotesting) for cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older has been recommended since 2006. However, few studies have detailed the adoption of such cotesting in clinical practice. We examined the trends in monthly percentage of Pap tests ordered as cotests in our laboratory over a 2.5-year period and used joinpoint regression to identify periods in which there was a change in the average monthly proportion of cotests. Cotesting of patients 30 years and older increased from 15.9% in January 2008 to 39.4% in June 2010. In patients aged 18 to 29 years, cotesting initially increased, but showed a downward trend in the last 14 months of the study, ending at 7.7% in June 2010. Our study highlights increased adoption of age-appropriate cotesting as well as the persistence of age-inappropriate cotesting.