An Exploratory Study of Primary Care Clinicians' Perspectives on 2021 New and Updated Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cancer screening rates remain low in rural, racial and ethnic minority, low-income, and uninsured populations. Prior studies showed that cancer screening recommendations vary based on clinicians' factors. We conducted an exploratory study on primary care clinicians' beliefs about new or updated cancer screening guidelines according to clinician demographics. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved administering a web-based survey in July and August of 2021 to primary care clinicians practicing in diverse ambulatory settings in the Pacific Northwest belonging to the same health system. The survey assessed clinician demographics, attitudes about the impact of cancer screening on mortality, and how clinicians stay up-to-date with guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 191 clinicians, 81 responded (42.4%), after removing 13 incomplete surveys, we analyzed 68 (35.6%). The majority agreed/strongly agreed that breast (76.1%), colorectal (95.5%), and cervical (90.9%) cancer screening, and HPV vaccination (85.1%) prevent early cancer mortality: there were no differences according to clinician gender or years in practice. Female compared to male clinicians were more likely to agree/strongly agree that tobacco smoking cessation (female: 100% vs male: 86.4%, P = .01) prevents early cancer mortality, whereas male compared to female clinicians were more likely to agree/strongly agree that lung cancer screening (male: 86.4% vs female: 57.8%, P = .04) prevents early cancer mortality. One-third (33.3%) of clinicians were unaware of the 2021 update on lung cancer screening and females were more likely than males to say they did not know about this change (females: 43.2% vs males: 13.6%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that clinicians' attitudes are not likely the primary factor affecting low cancer screening rates in some populations and that few differences exist in beliefs based on gender, and none based on years in practice.

ASCCP Committee Opinion: Adjuvant Human Papillomavirus Vaccine for Patients Undergoing Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) are at long-term risk of persistent or recurrent disease despite treatment. This committee opinion aims to summarize and provide evidence-based recommendations for adjuvant human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination based on available, published literature. METHODS: A task force from the ASCCP Practice Committee reviewed current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and previously published literature about the role of adjuvant HPV vaccination in previously unvaccinated individuals undergoing treatment for CIN2+ and other HPV-related diseases. RESULTS: Current CDC guidelines recommend routine or catch-up HPV vaccination for individuals aged 9 to 26 years, and shared decision making regarding vaccination for individuals aged 27 to 45 years. Multiple published studies suggest a possible benefit for adjuvant HPV vaccination in previously unvaccinated individuals undergoing treatment for CIN2+. CONCLUSIONS: The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology recommends adherence to current CDC recommendations for vaccination of individuals aged 9 to 26 years and consideration of the possible benefit of adjuvant HPV vaccination during shared decision making for previously unvaccinated individuals aged 27 to 45 years who are undergoing treatment for CIN2+.

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

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. and Demarco et al. 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.

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

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 presentation 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.