Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality for US women. Trials have established that screening mammography can reduce mortality risk, but optimal screening ages, intervals, and modalities for population screening guidelines remain unclear. Objective: To review studies comparing different breast cancer screening strategies for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library through August 22, 2022; literature surveillance through March 2024. Study Selection: English-language publications; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies comparing screening strategies; expanded criteria for screening harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality; data extracted from fair- and good-quality studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, morbidity, progression to advanced cancer, interval cancers, screening harms. Results: Seven randomized clinical trials and 13 nonrandomized studies were included; 2 nonrandomized studies reported mortality outcomes. A nonrandomized trial emulation study estimated no mortality difference for screening beyond age 74 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.19]). Advanced cancer detection did not differ following annual or biennial screening intervals in a nonrandomized study. Three trials compared digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography screening with digital mammography alone. With DBT, more invasive cancers were detected at the first screening round than with digital mammography, but there were no statistically significant differences in interval cancers (pooled relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]; 3 studies [n = 130 196]; I2 = 0%). Risk of advanced cancer (stage II or higher) at the subsequent screening round was not statistically significant for DBT vs digital mammography in the individual trials. Limited evidence from trials and nonrandomized studies suggested lower recall rates with DBT. An RCT randomizing individuals with dense breasts to invitations for supplemental screening with magnetic resonance imaging reported reduced interval cancer risk (relative risk, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29-0.77]) and additional false-positive recalls and biopsy results with the intervention; no longer-term advanced breast cancer incidence or morbidity and mortality outcomes were available. One RCT and 1 nonrandomized study of supplemental ultrasound screening reported additional false-positives and no differences in interval cancers. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence comparing the effectiveness of different breast cancer screening strategies is inconclusive because key studies have not yet been completed and few studies have reported the stage shift or mortality outcomes necessary to assess relative benefits.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception.

BACKGROUND: The copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) is a highly effective method of contraception that can also be used for emergency contraception (EC). It is the most effective form of EC, and is more effective than other existing oral regimens also used for EC. The Cu-IUD provides the unique benefit of providing ongoing contraception after it is inserted for EC; however, uptake of this intervention has been limited. Progestin IUDs are a popular method of long-acting, reversible contraception. If these devices were also found to be effective for EC, they would provide a critical additional option for women. These IUDs could not only provide EC and ongoing contraception, but additional non-contraceptive benefits, including a reduction in menstrual bleeding, cancer prevention, and pain management. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety and effectiveness of progestin-containing IUDs for emergency contraception, compared with copper-containing IUDs, or compared with dedicated oral hormonal methods. SEARCH METHODS: We considered all randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions that compared outcomes for individuals seeking a levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) for EC to a Cu-IUD or dedicated oral EC method. We considered full-text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data. We considered studies irrespective of their publication status and language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing progestin IUDs with copper-containing IUDs, or oral EC methods for emergency contraception. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We systematically searched nine medical databases, two trials registries, and one gray literature site. We downloaded all titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching to a reference management database, and removed duplicates. Three review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text reports to determine studies eligible for inclusion. We followed standard Cochrane methodology to assess risk of bias, and analyze and interpret the data. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included only one relevant study (711 women); a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing LNG-IUDs to Cu-IUDs for EC, with a one-month follow-up. With one study, the evidence was very uncertain for the difference in pregnancy rates, failed insertion rates, expulsion rates, removal rates and the difference in the acceptability of the IUDs. There was also uncertain evidence suggesting the Cu-IUD may slightly increase rates of cramping and the LNG-IUD may slightly increase bleeding and spotting days.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is limited in its ability to provide definitive evidence regarding the LNG-IUD's equivalence, superiority, or inferiority to the Cu-IUD for EC. Only one study was identified in the review, which had possible risks of bias related to randomization and rare outcomes. Additional studies are needed to provide definitive evidence related to the effectiveness of the LNG-IUD for EC.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We therefore conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Health, and Scopus from inception to search update in March 2022. For the living systematic review, we monitored the literature monthly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third author helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index (BMI) under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. At a minimum, we noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Effectiveness and efficacy rates of progestin-only pills: A comprehensive literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize published literature on POP effectiveness and efficacy. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed Central, PubMed, and the Cochrane library through March 07, 2022. We included articles written in English reporting a Pearl Index or life table rate for pregnancy. We excluded articles only assessing formulations that: were never marketed globally, are only sold in combination with estrogen, are currently sold only for noncontraceptive purposes, or were not given to participants continuously. Four researchers independently extracted data and two analyzed data using Excel and R. RESULTS: We included 54 studies. Among studies at low or moderate risk of bias, the median Pearl Index rate (the failure rate during typical use) was 1.63 (range 0.00-14.20, IQR 4.03) and the median method failure Pearl Index rate (the failure rate during perfect use) was 0.97 (range 0.40-6.50, IQR 0.68). Excluding the newer formulations, Desogestrel and Drospirenone, which are closer to combined oral contraceptives in that they prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, the median Pearl Index rate is 2.00 (range 0.00-14.12, IQR 2.5) and the median method failure Pearl Index rate is 1.05 (range 0.00-10.90, IQR 1.38). CONCLUSIONS: Among studies at low or moderate risk of bias, the median Pearl Index rate during typical POP use was much lower than currently estimated (7.00), while the median perfect use rate was similar to current estimates. IMPLICATIONS: Future research should investigate the possibility that POPs may be much more effective during typical use than currently believed.

Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: It has been estimated that in 2018 nearly 20% of adults in the US were currently using a tobacco product. Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and electronic cigarettes for tobacco cessation among adults, including pregnant persons, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, PsycInfo, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment; surveillance through September 25, 2020. Study Selection: Systematic reviews of tobacco cessation interventions and randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or pharmacotherapy among pregnant persons. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; qualitative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health outcomes, tobacco cessation at 6 months or more, and adverse events. Results: Sixty-seven reviews addressing pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions were included as well as 9 trials (N = 3942) addressing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and 7 trials (N = 2285) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use in pregnancy. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.98]), NRT (RR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.49-1.61]), bupropion (RR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.52-1.77]), varenicline (RR, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.06-2.43]), and behavioral interventions such as advice from clinicians (RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58-1.96]) were all associated with increased quit rates compared with minimal support or placebo at 6 months or longer. None of the drugs were associated with serious adverse events. Five trials (n = 3117) reported inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months among smokers when compared with placebo or NRT, and none suggested higher rates of serious adverse events. Among pregnant persons, behavioral interventions were associated with greater smoking cessation during late pregnancy (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.23-1.48]), compared with no intervention. Rates of validated cessation among pregnant women allocated to NRT compared with placebo were not significantly different (pooled RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.79-1.56], n = 2033). Conclusions and Relevance: There is strong evidence that a range of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions, both individually and in combination, are effective in increasing smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults. In pregnancy, behavioral interventions are effective for smoking cessation, but data are limited on the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation among adults are also limited and results are inconsistent.

Telehealth Interventions to Improve Obstetric and Gynecologic Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for improving obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a comprehensive search for primary literature in ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Qualifying primary studies had a comparison group, were conducted in countries ranked very high on the United Nations Human Development Index, published in English, and evaluated obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes. Cochrane Collaboration's tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing risk of bias. Summary of evidence tables were created using the United States Preventive Services Task Force Summary of Evidence Table for Evidence Reviews. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, RESULTS: Of the 3,926 published abstracts identified, 47 met criteria for inclusion and included 31,967 participants. Telehealth interventions overall improved obstetric outcomes related to smoking cessation and breastfeeding. Telehealth interventions decreased the need for high-risk obstetric monitoring office visits while maintaining maternal and fetal outcomes. One study found reductions in diagnosed preeclampsia among women with gestational hypertension. Telehealth interventions were effective for continuation of oral and injectable contraception; one text-based study found increased oral contraception rates at 6 months. Telehealth provision of medication abortion services had similar clinical outcomes compared with in-person care and improved access to early abortion. Few studies suggested utility for telehealth to improve notification of sexually transmitted infection test results and app-based intervention to improve urinary incontinence symptoms. CONCLUSION: Telehealth interventions were associated with improvements in obstetric outcomes, perinatal smoking cessation, breastfeeding, early access to medical abortion services, and schedule optimization for high-risk obstetrics. Further well-designed studies are needed to examine these interventions and others to generate evidence that can inform decisions about implementation of newer telehealth technologies into obstetrics and gynecology practice.

Screening for Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria can identify patients for whom treatment might be beneficial for preventing symptomatic infection and other health outcomes. Objective: To systematically review benefits and harms of asymptomatic bacteriuria screening and treatment in adults, including during pregnancy, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher-supplied records), and Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials; surveillance through May 24, 2019. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies on benefits and harms of screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria; RCTs on benefits and harms of asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment. Eligible populations included unselected, asymptomatic individuals without known urinary tract conditions. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate benefits of the interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptomatic infection; function, morbidity, mortality; pregnancy complications and birth outcomes. Results: Nineteen studies (N = 8443) meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Two cohort studies (n = 5289) found fewer cases of pyelonephritis in the cohorts of screened pregnant women (0.5%) than within retrospective comparisons of unscreened cohorts (2.2% and 1.8%); the larger study estimated a statistically significant relative risk of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.15-0.60). No studies examined screening in nonpregnant populations. Among 12 trials of asymptomatic bacteriuria screening and treatment during pregnancy (n = 2377; 1 conducted within past 30 years), there were reduced rates of pyelonephritis (range, 0%-16.5% for the intervention group and 2.2%-36.4% for the control group; pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.24 [95% CI, 0.14-0.40]; 12 trials) and low birth weight (range, 2.5%-14.8% for the intervention group and 6.7%-21.4% for the control group; pooled RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.90]; 7 trials). There was no significant difference in infant mortality (pooled RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.29-3.26]; 6 trials). Five RCTs of asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment in nonpregnant adults (n = 777) did not report any significant differences in risk of infection, mobility, or mortality. Limited evidence on harms of screening or treatment was available, and no statistically significant differences were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening and treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria during pregnancy was associated with reduced rates of pyelonephritis and low birth weights, but the available evidence was not current, with only 1 study conducted in the past 30 years. Benefits of asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment in nonpregnant adult populations were not found. Trial evidence on harms of asymptomatic bacteriuria antibiotic treatment was limited.

Screening for Cervical Cancer With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Cervical cancer can be prevented with detection and treatment of precancerous cell changes caused primarily by high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV), the causative agents in more than 90% of cervical cancers. Objective: To systematically review benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening for hrHPV to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials from January 2011 through February 15, 2017; surveillance through May 25, 2018. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing primary hrHPV screening alone or hrHPV cotesting (both hrHPV testing and cytology) with cytology (Papanicolaou [Pap] test) screening alone. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and quality rated included studies; data were qualitatively synthesized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Invasive cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); false-positive, colposcopy, and biopsy rates; psychological harms. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 410 556), 5 cohort studies (n = 402 615), and 1 individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (n = 176 464) were included. Trials were heterogeneous for screening interval, number of rounds, and protocol. For primary hrHPV screening, evidence was consistent across 4 trials demonstrating increased detection of CIN 3 or worse (CIN 3+) in round 1 (relative risk [RR] range, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.09-2.37] to 7.46 [95% CI, 1.02-54.66]). Among 4 hrHPV cotesting trials, first-round CIN 3+ detection was not significantly different between screening groups; RRs for cumulative CIN 3+ detection over 2 screening rounds ranged from 0.91 to 1.13. In first-round screening, false-positive rates for primary hrHPV screening ranged from 6.6% to 7.4%, compared with 2.6% to 6.5% for cytology. For cotesting, false-positives ranged from 5.8% to 19.9% in the first round of screening, compared with 2.6% to 10.9% for cytology. First-round colposcopy rates were also higher, ranging 1.2% to 7.9% for primary hrHPV testing, compared with 1.1% to 3.1% for cytology alone; colposcopy rates for cotesting ranged from 6.8% to 10.9%, compared with 3.3% to 5.2% for cytology alone. The IPD meta-analysis of data from 4 cotesting trials and 1 primary hrHPV screening trial found lower risk of invasive cervical cancer with any hrHPV screening compared with cytology alone (pooled RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40-0.89]). Conclusions and Relevance: Primary hrHPV screening detected higher rates of CIN 3+ at first-round screening compared with cytology. Cotesting trials did not show initial increased CIN 3+ detection. Both hrHPV screening strategies had higher false-positive and colposcopy rates than cytology, which could lead to more treatments with potential harms.

Screening for Ovarian Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Ovarian cancer is relatively rare but the fifth-leading cause of cancer mortality among United States women. Objective: To systematically review evidence on benefits and harms of ovarian cancer screening among average-risk women to inform the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials; studies published in English from January 1, 2003, through January 31, 2017; ongoing surveillance in targeted publications through November 22, 2017. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of ovarian cancer screening in average-risk women that reported mortality or quality-of-life outcomes. Interventions included transvaginal ultrasound, cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) testing, or their combination. Comparators were usual care or no screening. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic pooling of results was not conducted because of the small number of studies and heterogeneity of interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ovarian cancer mortality, false-positive screening results and surgery, surgical complications, and psychological effects of screening. Results: Four trials (N = 293 587) were included; of these, 3 (n = 293 038) assessed ovarian cancer mortality, and 1 (n = 549) reported only on psychological outcomes. Evaluated screening interventions included transvaginal ultrasound alone, transvaginal ultrasound plus CA-125 testing, and CA-125 testing alone. Test positivity for CA-125 was defined by a fixed serum level cutpoint or by a proprietary risk algorithm based on CA-125 level, change in CA-125 level over time, and age (risk of ovarian cancer algorithm [ROCA]). No trial found a significant difference in ovarian cancer mortality with screening. In the 2 large screening trials (PLCO and UKCTOCS, n = 271 103), there was not a statistically significant difference in complete intention-to-screen analyses of ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer cases associated with screening (PLCO: rate ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.82-1.71]; UKCTOCS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.76-1.09] for transvaginal ultrasound and HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.08] for CA-125 ROCA). Within these 2 trials, screening led to surgery for suspected ovarian cancer in 1% of women without cancer for CA-125 ROCA and in 3% for transvaginal ultrasound with or without CA-125 screening, with major complications occurring among 3% to 15% of surgery. Evidence on psychological harms was limited but nonsignificant except in the case of repeat follow-up scans and tests, which increased the risk of psychological morbidity in a subsample of UKCTOCS participants based on the General Health Questionnaire 12 (score ≥4) (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.18-1.39]). Conclusions and Relevance: In randomized trials conducted among average-risk, asymptomatic women, ovarian cancer mortality did not significantly differ between screened women and those with no screening or in usual care. Screening harms included surgery (with major surgical complications) in women found to not have cancer. Further research is needed to identify effective approaches for reducing ovarian cancer incidence and mortality.

Preeclampsia Screening: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: Preeclampsia is a complex disease of pregnancy with sometimes serious effects on maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. It is defined by hypertension after 20 weeks' gestation and proteinuria or other evidence of multisystem involvement. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the benefits and harms of preeclampsia screening and risk assessment for the US Preventive Services Task Force. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1990 through September 1, 2015. Surveillance for new evidence in targeted publications was conducted through October 5, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and observational studies, including externally validated prediction models, of screening effectiveness, benefits, and harms from routine preeclampsia screening during pregnancy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Independent dual review of article abstracts and full texts against a priori inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not performed because of clinical and statistical heterogeneity of included studies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Maternal and infant health outcomes, including eclampsia, stroke, stillbirth, preterm birth, and low birth weight; screening and risk prediction test performance; harms of screening and risk assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (13 982 participants) were included. No studies directly compared the effectiveness of preeclampsia screening in a screened population vs an unscreened population; 1 US trial (n = 2764) found no difference in benefits or harms with fewer prenatal visits but was underpowered for rare, serious outcomes. For harms, a before-after comparison cohort noninferiority study of urine protein screening for specific indications compared with routine screening (n = 1952) did not identify harms with fewer urine screening tests. Four studies (n = 7123) reported external validation performance of 16 risk prediction models, 5 of which had good or better discrimination (c statistic >0.80) for prediction of preeclampsia, and positive predictive values of 4% in the largest, most applicable validation cohorts. Calibration was not reported despite being a key model performance measure. There were no studies of urine screening test performance conducted in asymptomatic primary care populations; 14 studies of protein urine test performance among women being evaluated for suspected preeclampsia (n = 1888) had wide-ranging test accuracy (sensitivity, 22%-100%; specificity, 36%-100%) and high statistical and clinical heterogeneity in tests used, eligibility criteria, and proteinuria prevalence (8.7%-93.8%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence to estimate benefits and harms of preeclampsia screening and the test performance of different screening approaches over the course of pregnancy was limited. Externally validated risk prediction models had limited applicability and lacked calibration and clinical implementation data needed to support routine use. Further research is needed to better inform risk-based screening approaches and improve screening strategies, given the complex pathophysiology and clinical unpredictability of preeclampsia.

Periodic Screening Pelvic Examination: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Recent changes in the periodicity of cervical cancer screening have led to questions about the role of screening pelvic examinations among asymptomatic women. Objective: To systematically review literature on health benefits, accuracy, and harms of the screening pelvic examination for gynecologic conditions for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant English-language studies published through January 13, 2016, with surveillance through August 3, 2016. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and studies. The search yielded 8678 unique citations; 316 full-text articles were reviewed, and 9 studies including 27 630 patients met inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers rated study quality using USPSTF criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: Morbidity; mortality; diagnostic accuracy for any gynecologic cancer or condition except cervical cancer, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, which are covered by other USPSTF screening recommendations; harms (false-positive rates, false-negative rates, surgery rates). Results: No trials examined the effectiveness of the pelvic examination in reducing all-cause mortality, reducing cancer- and disease-specific morbidity and mortality, or improving quality of life. Eight studies reported accuracy for the screening pelvic examination: ovarian cancer (4 studies; n = 26 432), bacterial vaginosis (2 studies; n = 930), trichomoniasis (1 study; n = 779), and genital herpes (1 study; n = 779). In the 4 ovarian cancer screening studies, low prevalence of ovarian cancer consistently resulted in low positive predictive values (PPVs) and false-positive rates, with a lack of precision in accuracy estimates (sensitivity range, 0%-100%; specificity range, 91%-99%; PPV range, 0%-3.6%; negative predictive value [NPV] range, ≥99%). Each diagnostic accuracy study for bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and genital herpes was performed in a high-prevalence population with substantial proportions of symptomatic patients and reported accuracy characteristics for individual physical examination findings (bacterial vaginosis, homogeneous discharge: sensitivity range, 69%-79%; specificity range, 54%-97%; PPV range, 52%-95%; NPV range, 79%-80%; herpes simplex virus, vulvar ulcerations: sensitivity, 20%; specificity, 98%; PPV, 88%; NPV, 57%; trichomoniasis, colpitis macularis: sensitivity, 2%; specificity, 100%; PPV, 100%; NPV, 85%). Surgery rates resulting from an abnormal screening pelvic examination for ovarian cancer ranged from 5% to 36% at 1 year, with the largest study reporting an 11% surgery rate and 1% complication rate within 1 year of a screening pelvic examination with abnormal findings. Conclusions and Relevance: No direct evidence was identified for overall benefits and harms of the pelvic examination as a 1-time or periodic screening test. Limited evidence was identified regarding the diagnostic accuracy and harms of routine screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic primary care populations.

Obstetrician-Gynecologist Practices and Beliefs Regarding External Genitalia Inspection and Speculum Examinations in Healthy Older Asymptomatic Women.

OBJECTIVES: To understand obstetrician-gynecologist perceptions of the value of external genitalia inspection and speculum examinations in older and younger healthy women across the life span. DESIGN: National survey from May 2010 to January 2011 asking obstetrician-gynecologists about the need for and importance of external inspection and speculum examination in four scenarios of asymptomatic healthy women aged 70, 55, 35, and 18 who present for routine health visits. Separate questions asked about the importance of various reasons for these examinations. SETTING: Mail-in survey of a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists. PARTICIPANTS: Probability sample of obstetrician-gynecologists from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile (N = 521). MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of obstetrician-gynecologists who would perform external inspection and speculum examinations and consider these examinations to be very important. RESULTS: The response rate was 62%. In a healthy 70-year-old woman, 98% of respondents would perform external inspection, and 86% would perform a speculum examination. Ninety percent would perform a speculum examination in a healthy 55-year-old woman after removal of her uterus, cervix, and ovaries. Respondents more often indicated that the external examination was very important in the 70-year-old (63%) than in younger women (46-53%). Reasons rated as very important included identifying cancers and benign lesions, reassuring women of their health, and adhering to standard of care. CONCLUSION: Obstetrician-gynecologists would commonly perform external and speculum examinations in asymptomatic women and believe the external examination to be particularly important in older women for cancer detection. Clinicians should discuss limitations of screening pelvic examination guidelines and elicit health goals from older women to provide more person-centered gynecological care.

Behavioral Counseling and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: A Review of Reviews for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. PURPOSE: To review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation. DATA SOURCES: 5 databases and 8 organizational Web sites were searched through 1 August 2014 for systematic reviews, and PubMed was searched through 1 March 2015 for trials on electronic nicotine delivery systems. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers examined 114 articles to identify English-language reviews that reported health, cessation, or adverse outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data from good- and fair-quality reviews, and a second checked for accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: 54 reviews were included. Behavioral interventions increased smoking cessation at 6 months or more (physician advice had a pooled risk ratio [RR] of 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58 to 1.96]). Nicotine replacement therapy (RR, 1.60 [CI, 1.53 to 1.68]), bupropion (RR, 1.62 [CI, 1.49 to 1.76]), and varenicline (RR, 2.27 [CI, 2.02 to 2.55]) were also effective for smoking cessation. Combined behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions increased cessation by 82% compared with minimal intervention or usual care (RR, 1.82 [CI, 1.66 to 2.00]). None of the drugs were associated with major cardiovascular adverse events. Only 2 trials addressed efficacy of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and found no benefit. Among pregnant women, behavioral interventions benefited cessation and perinatal health; effects of nicotine replacement therapy were not significant. LIMITATION: Evidence published after each review's last search date was not included. CONCLUSION: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions improve rates of smoking cessation among the general adult population, alone or in combination. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic nicotine delivery systems are limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

U.S. clinicians' perspectives on less frequent routine gynecologic examinations.

OBJECTIVE: With newer recommendations for less frequent cervical cancer screening, longer intervals between routine gynecologic examinations might also be considered. METHODS: A nationally representative mailed survey of U.S. obstetrician-gynecologists (n=521, response rate 62%) was conducted in 2010-11. Clinicians were asked their views on annual gynecologic examinations and on the consequences of extending the interval from annually to every 3 years for asymptomatic patients. RESULTS: Over two-thirds considered annual gynecologic examination very important for women in their reproductive years (69%); fewer consider it very important for women in menopause (55%). Most anticipated that shifting examinations to every 3 years would result in lower patient satisfaction (78%), contraceptive provision (74%), and patient health and well-being (74%). Decreases in clinic volume (93%) and financial reimbursement (78%) were also expected. Anticipated effects of longer intervals varied by provider characteristics, geography, and practice setting. CONCLUSION: Obstetrician-gynecologists in the U.S. believed that longer intervals between routine examinations would have negative repercussions for patients and medical practice, but there were differences by region, practice, and personal characteristics. Redefining annual gynecologic visits as contraceptive counseling and health maintenance visits could address financial and patient volume concerns, and perspectives from patients and other providers might reveal possible benefits of less frequent gynecologic examinations.

Changes to cervical cancer prevention guidelines: effects on screening among U.S. women ages 15-29.

OBJECTIVE: A shift toward later initiation of cervical cancer screening for women began in 2002. We generated national estimates of screening prevalence rates and guideline-consistent screening among U.S. women ages 15-29 before and after the first evidence-based recommendations for reduced cervical cancer screening. METHOD: We used National Survey of Family Growth data to compare self-reported cervical cancer screening in 2002 and 2006-2008, stratified by age (15-17, 18-20, 21-29) and sexual activity. We also assessed receipt of guideline-consistent screening by selected demographic variables. RESULTS: Among females ages 15-17, the proportion screened decreased from 23% to 12%, and screening was significantly more likely to be guideline-consistent. Among females ages 18-20, 24% were screened too early in 2006-2008, but among those not yet sexually active, screening declined to 8%, appropriately reflecting new guidelines. In multivariable analysis, private health insurance, pregnancy, and hormonal contraceptive use were associated with guideline-consistent screening among sexually-active women. CONCLUSION: Fewer adolescents were being screened before sexual initiation, representing newer guidelines. However, sexually-active young adult women also should have later screening initiation. Factors related to health care access contribute to receipt of screening. Monitoring and provider education are needed to improve guideline-consistent screening, as newer guidelines call for less screening.

Routine bimanual pelvic examinations: practices and beliefs of US obstetrician-gynecologists.

OBJECTIVE: Less-than-annual cervical cancer screening is now recommended for most US women, raising questions about the need for routine annual bimanual pelvic examinations. Little is known about clinicians' bimanual pelvic examination practices, their beliefs about its importance, or the reasoning underlying its performance in asymptomatic women. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a nationwide survey of US obstetrician-gynecologists. Respondents (n = 521) reported their examination practices and beliefs based on vignettes for asymptomatic women across the lifespan. RESULTS: Nearly all obstetrician-gynecologists perform bimanual pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women across the lifespan, although it is viewed as less important for a newly sexually active 18-year-old. Reasons cited as very important included adherence to standard medical practices (45%), patient reassurance (49%), detection of ovarian cancer (47%), and identification of benign uterine (59%) and ovarian (54%) conditions. CONCLUSION: Obstetrician-gynecologists perform bimanual pelvic examinations in the vast majority of asymptomatic women, but the importance placed on the examinations and reasons for conducting them vary.