Adherence to National Guidelines on Cervical Screening: A Population-Based Evaluation from a Statewide Registry.

In 2012, national recommendations for cervical-cancer screening of women aged 30-64 years were quinquennial human papillomavirus and cytology co-testing or triennial cytology. Data from a state-wide surveillance program in New Mexico demonstrated 65.2% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]= 64.6%% to 65.7%) of women screened in 2019 had negative co-test within the last 3 years. Percentages of women screened in 2013, 2016, and 2019 with a prior negative co-test more than 5 and up to 7 years ago were 2.6% (95% CI = 2.2% to 2.9%), 2.1% (95% CI = 1.9% to 2.2%), and 6.5% (95% CI = 6.2% to 6.8%), respectively (2-sided P trend<.001). Percentages of women screened in 2013, 2016, and 2019 with a prior negative cytology more than 5 and up to 7 years ago were 3.8% (95% CI = 3.7% to 3.9%), 9.0% (95% CI = 8.7% to 9.3%), and 14.9% (95% CI = 14.4% to 15.4%), respectively (2-sided P trend<.001). Thus, in 2019, only 12.7% (95% CI = 12.4% to 13.1%) of the 30,215 women aged 30-64 years underwent co-testing and 27.7% (95% CI = 27.1% to 28.3%) of the 18,733 underwent cytology at the recommended interval. The observed under- and over-screening could result in increases in cervical-cancer incidence and harms and costs, respectively.

Relationships of p16 Immunohistochemistry and Other Biomarkers With Diagnoses of Cervical Abnormalities: Implications for LAST Terminology.

CONTEXT.­: Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) standardization recommended p16INK4a immunohistochemistry (p16 IHC) for biopsies diagnosed morphologically as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 (CIN2) to classify them as low-grade or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). OBJECTIVE.­: To describe the relationships of p16 IHC and other biomarkers associated with cervical cancer risk with biopsy diagnoses. DESIGN.­: A statewide, stratified sample of cervical biopsies diagnosed by community pathologists (CPs), including 1512 CIN2, underwent a consensus, expert pathologist panel (EP) review (without p16 IHC results), p16 IHC interpretation by a third pathology group, and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping, results of which were grouped hierarchically according to cancer risk. Antecedent cytologic interpretations were also available. RESULTS.­: Biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with increasing severity of CP diagnoses, overall (Ptrend ≤ .001) and within each HPV risk group (Ptrend ≤ .001 except for low-risk HPV [Ptrend < .010]). All abnormal grades of CP-diagnosed biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with a higher HPV risk group (Ptrend < .001), and testing p16 IHC positive was associated with higher HPV risk group than testing p16 IHC negative for each grade of CP-diagnosed biopsies (P < .001). p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies were less likely than CP-diagnosed CIN3 biopsies to test HPV16 positive, have an antecedent HSIL+ cytology, or to be diagnosed as CIN3+ by the EP (P < .001 for all). p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN1 biopsies had lower HPV risk groups than p16 IHC-negative, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS.­: p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 appears to be lower cancer risk than CP-diagnosed CIN3. LAST classification of "HSIL" diagnosis, which includes p16 IHC-positive CIN2, should annotate the morphologic diagnosis (CIN2 or CIN3) to inform all management decisions, which is especially important for young (<30 years) women diagnosed with CIN2 for whom surveillance rather than treatment is recommended.

Absolute risks of cervical precancer among women who fulfill exiting guidelines based on HPV and cytology cotesting.

US guidelines recommend that most women older than 65 years cease cervical screening after two consecutive negative cotests (concurrent HPV and cytology tests) in the previous 10 years, with one in the last 5 years. However, this recommendation was based on expert opinion and modeling rather than empirical data on cancer risk. We therefore estimated the 5-year risks of cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ [CIN3]) after one, two and three negative cotests among 346,760 women aged 55-64 years undergoing routine cotesting at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (2003-2015). Women with a history of excisional treatment or CIN2+ were excluded. No woman with one or more negative cotests was diagnosed with cancer during follow-up. Five-year risks of CIN3 after one, two, and three consecutive negative cotests were 0.034% (95% CI: 0.023%-0.046%), 0.041% (95% CI: 0.007%-0.076%) and 0.016% (95% CI: 0.000%-0.052%), respectively (ptrend < 0.001). These risks did not appreciably differ by a positive cotest result prior to the one, two or three negative cotest(s). Since CIN3 risks after one or more negative cotests were significantly below a proposed 0.12% CIN3+ risk threshold for a 5-year screening interval, a longer screening interval in these women is justified. However, the choice of how many negative cotests provide sufficient safety against invasive cancer over a woman's remaining life represents a value judgment based on the harms versus benefits of continued screening. Ideally, this guideline should be informed by longer-term follow-up given that exiting is a long-term decision.

Role of Screening History in Clinical Meaning and Optimal Management of Positive Cervical Screening Results.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is caused by persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. US consensus management guidelines for a positive cervical screening result typically focus on the current screening result only. A negative testing history may alter risk of the following positive screening results, caused by a new HPV infection, and therefore its optimal management. METHODS: Women ages 30 years and older were screened with triennial HPV and cytology co-testing at Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2003 to 2014. We estimated the subsequent 5-year risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe diagnoses (CIN3+) in a cohort of 1 156 387 women following abnormal (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US] or worse) cytology and/or positive HPV testing, when the test result followed 0 (n = 990 013), 1 (n = 543 986), 2 (n = 245 974), or 3 (n = 79 946) consecutive negative co-test(s). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Following 0-3 successive negative co-tests, 5-year CIN3+ risks following a positive HPV test decreased progressively from 7.2% (95% CI = 7.0% to 7.4%) to 1.5% (95% CI = 0.7% to 3.4%) (Ptrend < .001). Similarly, risks following an abnormal (ASC-US or worse) cytology result decreased from 6.6% (95% CI = 6.4% to 6.9%) to 1.1% (95% CI = 0.5% to 2.3%) (Ptrend < .001). Risks following low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, the risk threshold for referral to colposcopy in the United States, decreased from 5.2% (95% CI = 4.7% to 5.7%) to 0.9% (95% CI = 0.2% to 4.3%). Risks following high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or more severe, a specific marker for the presence of precancerous lesions, decreased from 50.0% (95% CI = 47.5% to 52.5%) to 10.0% (95% CI = 2.6% to 34.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Following one or more sequential antecedent, documented negative co-tests or HPV tests, women with HPV-positive ASC-US or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion might have sufficiently low CIN3+ risk that they do not need colposcopy referral and might instead undergo 6-12-month surveillance for evidence of higher risk before being referred to colposcopy.

Impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on the clinical meaning of cervical screening results.

Women previously vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 and 18 are now reaching the age (21 years) at which cervical-cancer screening is recommended in the U.S. The impact of HPV vaccination on risks of cervical precancer following a positive and negative screen among women aged 21-24 years who just started routine cervical screening are not well described. Therefore, three-year absolute and relative (RR) cumulative risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (≥CIN2) and grade 3 or more severe diagnoses (≥CIN3) were estimated for women undergoing cervical screening at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Risks were estimated in women aged 21-24 years (n = 75,008) undergoing cervical screening since late 2006, 6 months after HPV vaccination became available; women were categorized vaccinated at ages <18, 18-20, and 21-24 years and compared to those who were unvaccinated. Three-year risks were estimated for normal, low-grade, and high-grade cytology results. Three-year risks of ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 for unvaccinated women following low-grade cytology were 10.89% for and 3.70%, respectively. By comparison, Three-year risks of ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 were 5.26% (RR = 0.48, 95%CI = 0.24-0.99) and 0.99% (RR = 0.27, 95%CI = 0.06-1.13), respectively, for women vaccinated under the age of 18 years. Three-year ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risks were lower for those HPV vaccinated at younger age for any screening result (ptrend ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). These data support initiating cervical screening at an older age or changing the management of a low-grade cytology result in women aged 21-24 years who were vaccinated against HPV younger than age of 18 years.

Low Risk of Cervical Cancer/Precancer Among Most Women Under Surveillance Postcolposcopy.

OBJECTIVE: To inform impending postcolposcopy guidelines, this analysis examined the subsequent risk of CIN 3+ among women with a grade lower than CIN 2 (< CIN 2) colposcopy results, taking into account the referring results that brought them to colposcopy and cotest results postcolposcopy. METHODS: We analyzed 107,005 women from 25 to 65 years old, recommended for colposcopy at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. We estimated absolute risks of CIN 3+ among women: (1) recommended for colposcopy (precolposcopy), (2) following colposcopy and with histology results < CIN 2 (postcolposcopy), and (3) with cotest results 12 months after a < CIN 2 colposcopy (return cotest). RESULTS: After colposcopy showing < CIN 2 (n = 69,790; 87% of the women at colposcopy), the 1-year risk of CIN 3+ was 1.2%, compared with 6.3% at the time of colposcopy recommendation. Negative cotest results 1 year after colposcopy identified a large group (37.1%) of women whose risk of CIN 3+ (i.e., <0.2% at 3 years after postcolposcopy cotest) was comparable with women with normal cytology in the screening population. These risks are consistent with current guidelines recommending repeat cotesting 12 months after colposcopy < CIN 2 and a 3-year return for women with a negative postcolposcopy cotest. CONCLUSIONS: Most women are at low risk of subsequent CIN 3+ after a colposcopy showing < CIN 2, especially those who are human papillomavirus-negative postcolposcopy, consistent with current management guidelines for repeat testing intervals. Before the finalizing the upcoming guidelines, we will consider additional rounds of postcolposcopy cotesting.

Clinical Outcomes after Conservative Management of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 (CIN2) in Women Ages 21-39 Years.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) frequently regresses, is typically slow-growing, and rarely progresses to cancer. Some women forgo immediate treatment, opting for conservative management (heightened surveillance with cytology and colposcopy), to minimize overtreatment and increased risk of obstetric complications; however, there are limited data examining clinical outcomes in these women. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of younger women diagnosed with initially untreated CIN1/2, CIN2 and CIN2/3 lesions at Kaiser Permanente Northern California between 2003 and 2015. Clinical outcomes were categorized into five mutually exclusive hierarchical groups: cancer, treated, returned to routine screening, persistent high-grade lesion, or persistent low-grade lesion. Median follow-up for the 2,417 women was 48 months. Six women were diagnosed with cancer (0.2%), all with history of high-grade cytology, and none after a negative cotest. Thirty percent of women were treated, and only 20% returned to routine screening; 50% remained in continued intensive follow-up, of which 86% had either low-grade cytology/histology or high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity, but not necessarily persistence of a single HPV type. No cancers were detected after a single negative cotest in follow-up. Almost half of initially untreated women did not undergo treatment, but remained by protocol in colposcopy clinic for 2 or more years in the absence of persisting CIN2+ Their incomplete return to total negativity was possibly due to sequential new and unrelated low-grade abnormalities. The prolonged colposcopic surveillance currently required to return to routine screening in the absence of persisting CIN2+ might not be necessary after a negative cotest.Significance: Many younger women under conservative management following an initial CIN2 result remain in a clinical protocol of prolonged intensified surveillance without a subsequent diagnosis of CIN2 or more severe diagnoses. More research is needed to determine whether such prolonged management might be unnecessary following a negative cotest for those women with an initial CIN2 but otherwise only low-grade findings. Cancer Prev Res; 11(3); 165-70. ©2018 AACR.

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.

Adherence patterns to extended cervical screening intervals in women undergoing human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology cotesting.

Although guidelines have recommended extended interval cervical screening using concurrent human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology ("cotesting") for over a decade, little is known about its adoption into routine care. Using longitudinal medical record data (2003-2015) from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), which adopted triennial cotesting in 2003, we examined adherence to extended interval screening. We analyzed predictors of screening intervals among 491,588 women undergoing routine screening, categorizing interval length into early (<2.5years), adherent (2.5<3.5years), or late (3.5<6.0years). We also examined repeated early screening in a subgroup of 50,691 women. Predictors examined included: cohort year (defined by baseline cotest, 2003-2009), race/ethnicity, and baseline age. Compared to the 2003 cohort, women in the 2009 cohort were significantly less likely to screen early (aOR=0.22, 95% CI=0.21, 0.23) or late (aOR=0.47, 95% CI=0.45, 0.49). African American (AA) and Hispanic women were less adherent overall than Non-Hispanic White women, with increased early [(AA: aOR=1.21, 95%CI=1.17, 1.25) (Hispanic: aOR=1.08, 95%CI=1.06, 1.11)] and late screening [(AA: aOR=1.23, 95%CI=1.19, 1.27) (Hispanic: aOR=1.06, 95%CI=1.03, 1.08)]. Asian women were slightly more likely to screen early (aOR=1.03, 95%CI=1.01, 1.05), and less likely to screen late (aOR=0.92, 95% CI=0.90, 0.94). Women aged 60-64years were most likely to screen early for two consecutive intervals (aOR=2.09, 95%CI=1.91, 2.29). Our study found that widespread and rapid adoption of extended interval cervical cancer screening is possible, at least in this managed care setting. Further research examining multilevel drivers promoting or restricting extended interval screening across diverse healthcare settings is needed.

Challenges in risk estimation using routinely collected clinical data: The example of estimating cervical cancer risks from electronic health-records.

Electronic health-records (EHR) are increasingly used by epidemiologists studying disease following surveillance testing to provide evidence for screening intervals and referral guidelines. Although cost-effective, undiagnosed prevalent disease and interval censoring (in which asymptomatic disease is only observed at the time of testing) raise substantial analytic issues when estimating risk that cannot be addressed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Based on our experience analysing EHR from cervical cancer screening, we previously proposed the logistic-Weibull model to address these issues. Here we demonstrate how the choice of statistical method can impact risk estimates. We use observed data on 41,067 women in the cervical cancer screening program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2003-2013, as well as simulations to evaluate the ability of different methods (Kaplan-Meier, Turnbull, Weibull and logistic-Weibull) to accurately estimate risk within a screening program. Cumulative risk estimates from the statistical methods varied considerably, with the largest differences occurring for prevalent disease risk when baseline disease ascertainment was random but incomplete. Kaplan-Meier underestimated risk at earlier times and overestimated risk at later times in the presence of interval censoring or undiagnosed prevalent disease. Turnbull performed well, though was inefficient and not smooth. The logistic-Weibull model performed well, except when event times didn't follow a Weibull distribution. We have demonstrated that methods for right-censored data, such as Kaplan-Meier, result in biased estimates of disease risks when applied to interval-censored data, such as screening programs using EHR data. The logistic-Weibull model is attractive, but the model fit must be checked against Turnbull non-parametric risk estimates.

Relative Performance of HPV and Cytology Components of Cotesting in Cervical Screening.

Background: The main goal of cervical screening programs is to detect and treat precancer before cancer develops. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for detecting precancer. However, reports of rare HPV-negative, cytology-positive cancers are motivating continued use of both tests (cotesting) despite increased testing costs. Methods: We quantified the detection of cervical precancer and cancer by cotesting compared with HPV testing alone at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), where 1 208 710 women age 30 years and older have undergone triennial cervical cotesting since 2003. Screening histories preceding cervical cancers (n = 623) and precancers (n = 5369) were examined to assess the relative contribution of the cytology and HPV test components in identifying cases. The performances of HPV testing and cytology were compared using contingency table methods, general estimating equation models, and nonparametric statistics; all statistical tests were two-sided. Results: HPV testing identified more women subsequently diagnosed with cancer (P < .001) and precancer (P < .001) than cytology. HPV testing was statistically significantly more likely to be positive for cancer at any time point (P < .001), except within 12 months (P = .10). HPV-negative/cytology-positive results preceded only small fractions of cases of precancer (3.5%) and cancer (5.9%); these cancers were more likely to be regional or distant stage with squamous histopathology than other cases. Given the rarity of cancers among screened women, the contribution of cytology to screening translated to earlier detection of at most five cases per million women per year. Two-thirds (67.9%) of women found to have cancer during 10 years of follow-up at KPNC were detected by the first cotest performed. Conclusions: The added sensitivity of cotesting vs HPV alone for detection of treatable cancer affected extremely few women.

Effect of Several Negative Rounds of Human Papillomavirus and Cytology Co-testing on Safety Against Cervical Cancer: An Observational Cohort Study.

Background: Current U.S. cervical cancer screening and management guidelines do not consider previous screening history, because data on multiple-round human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology "co-testing" have been unavailable. Objective: To measure cervical cancer risk in routine practice after successive negative screening co-tests at 3-year intervals. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Integrated health care system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California). Patients: 990 013 women who had 1 or more co-tests from 2003 to 2014. Measurements: 3- and 5-year cumulative detection of (risk for) cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer (≥CIN3) in women with different numbers of negative co-tests, overall and within subgroups defined by previous co-test results or baseline age. Results: Five-year ≥CIN3 risks decreased after each successive negative co-test screening round (0.098%, 0.052%, and 0.035%). Five-year ≥CIN3 risks for an HPV-negative co-test, regardless of the cytology result, nearly matched the performance (reassurance) of a negative co-test for each successive round of screening (0.114%, 0.061%, and 0.041%). By comparison, ≥CIN3 risks for the cytology-negative co-test, regardless of the HPV result, also decreased with each successive round, but 3-year risks were as high as 5-year risks after an HPV-negative co-test (0.199%, 0.065%, and 0.043%). No interval cervical cancer cases were diagnosed after the second negative co-test. Independently, ≥CIN3 risks decreased with age. Length of previous screening interval did not influence future ≥CIN3 risks. Limitation: Interval-censored observational data. Conclusion: After 1 or more negative cervical co-tests (or HPV tests), longer screening intervals (every 5 years or more) might be feasible and safe. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program.

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND: The goal of cervical screening is to detect and treat precancers before some become cancer. We wanted to understand why, despite state-of-the-art methods, cervical cancers occured in relationship to programmatic performance at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), where >1,000,000 women aged ≥30years have undergone cervical cancer screening by triennial HPV and cytology cotesting since 2003. METHODS: We reviewed clinical histories preceding cervical cancer diagnoses to assign "causes" of cancer. We calculated surrogate measures of programmatic effectiveness (precancers/(precancers and cancers)) and diagnostic yield (precancers and cancers per 1000 cotests), overall and by age at cotest (30-39, 40-49, and ≥50years). RESULTS: Cancer was rare and found mainly in a localized (treatable) stage. Of 623 cervical cancers with at least one preceding or concurrent cotest, 360 (57.8%) were judged to be prevalent (diagnosed at a localized stage within one year or regional/distant stage within two years of the first cotest). Non-compliance with recommended screening and management preceded 9.0% of all cancers. False-negative cotests/sampling errors (HPV and cytology negative), false-negative histologic diagnoses, and treatment failures preceded 11.2%, 9.0%, and 4.3%, respectively, of all cancers. There was significant heterogeneity in the causes of cancer by histologic category (p<0.001 for all; p=0.002 excluding prevalent cases). Programmatic effectiveness (95.3%) and diagnostic yield were greater for squamous cell versus adenocarcinoma histology (p<0.0001) and both decreased with older ages (ptrend<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A state-of-the-art intensive screening program results in very few cervical cancers, most of which are detected early by screening. Screening may become less efficient at older ages.

Protection against cervical cancer versus decreasing harms from screening - What would U.S. patients and clinicians prefer, and do their preferences matter?

The primary goal for many providers in the United States has been to deliver the level of protection against cervical cancer afforded by annual cervical cytology while improving screening test performance. Adoption of recent screening recommendations has been inconsistent and has created considerable consternation and confusion. This editorial addresses the perspective of U.S. patients and providers and how their preferences may run counter to current screening recommendations.

The population impact of human papillomavirus/cytology cervical cotesting at 3-year intervals: Reduced cervical cancer risk and decreased yield of precancer per screen.

BACKGROUND: The objective of cervical screening is to detect and treat precancer to prevent cervical cancer mortality and morbidity while minimizing overtreatment of benign human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and related minor abnormalities. HPV/cytology cotesting at extended 5-year intervals currently is a recommended screening strategy in the United States, but the interval extension is controversial. In the current study, the authors examined the impact of a decade of an alternative, 3-year cotesting, on rates of precancer and cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The effect on screening efficiency, defined as numbers of cotests/colposcopy visits needed to detect a precancer, also was considered. METHODS: Two cohorts were defined. The "open cohort" included all women screened at least once during the study period; > 1 million cotests were performed. In a fixed "long-term screening cohort," the authors considered the cumulative impact of repeated screening at 3-year intervals by restricting the cohort to women first cotested in 2003 through 2004 (ie, no women entering screening later were added to this group). RESULTS: Detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3/adenocarcinoma in situ (CIN3/AIS) increased in the open cohort (2004-2006: 82.0/100,000 women screened; 2007-2009: 140.6/100,000 women screened; and 2010-2012: 126.0/100,000 women screened); cancer diagnoses were unchanged. In the long-term screening cohort, the detection of CIN3/AIS increased and then decreased to the original level (2004-2006: 80.5/100,000 women screened; 2007-2009: 118.6/100,000 women screened; and 2010-2012: 84.9./100,000 women screened). The number of cancer diagnoses was found to decrease. When viewed in terms of screening efficiency, the number of colposcopies performed to detect a single case of CIN3/AIS increased in the cohort with repeat screening. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated cotesting at a 3-year interval eventually lowers population rates of precancer and cancer. However, a greater number of colposcopies are required to detect a single precancer. Cancer 2016;122:3682-6. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk human papillomavirus [hrHPV] testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective U.S.-based registration study. Thirteen experts, including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Cytopathology, the College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology and cotesting (cytology in combination with hrHPV testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for healthcare providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.