The Impact of Adjusting for Hysterectomy Prevalence on Cervical Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends Among Women Aged 30 Years and Older - United States, 2001-2019.

Hysterectomy protects against cervical cancer when the cervix is removed. However, measures of cervical cancer incidence often fail to exclude women with a hysterectomy from the population at risk denominator, underestimating and distorting disease burden. In this study, we estimated hysterectomy prevalence from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys to remove the women who were not at risk of cervical cancer from the denominator and combined these estimates with the United States Cancer Statistics data. From these data, we calculated age-specific and age-standardized incidence rates for women aged >30 years from 2001-2019, adjusted for hysterectomy prevalence. We calculated the difference between unadjusted and adjusted incidence rates and examined trends by histology, age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region using Joinpoint regression. The hysterectomy-adjusted cervical cancer incidence rate from 2001-2019 was 16.7 per 100,000 women-34.6% higher than the unadjusted rate. After adjustment, incidence rates were higher by approximately 55% among Black women, 56% among those living in the East South Central division, and 90% among women aged 70-79 and >80 years. These findings underscore the importance of adjusting for hysterectomy prevalence to avoid underestimating cervical cancer incidence rates and masking disparities by age, race, and geographic region.

Tubal Sterilization and Cervical Cancer Underscreening in the United States.

Background: Tubal sterilization is more commonly utilized by racial/ethnic minority groups and has been implicated in underscreening for cervical cancer. The objective is to determine if prior tubal sterilization is a risk factor for cervical cancer underscreening. Methods: National Survey of Family Growth dataset from 2015 to 2019 used for analysis; data were weighted to represent the 72 million women in the U.S. population aged 22-49. Chi-square tests, Fisher exact tests, and logistic regression were used for analysis. The primary predictor variable was tubal sterilization which was categorized into no previous sterilization, sterilization completed <5 years ago, and sterilization completed ≥5 years ago. The outcome variable was underscreened versus not underscreened. Other predictor variables included age, household income as a percent of federal poverty level, previous live birth, primary care provider, and insurance status. Results: Prevalence of tubal sterilization completed 5 or more years ago was 12.5% and varied by most measured characteristics in univariate analyses. Approximately 8% of women were underscreened for cervical cancer. In multivariable analyses, women with a tubal sterilization 5 or more years ago had 2.64 times the odds (95% confidence interval = 1.75-4.00) of being underscreened for cervical cancer compared with women who did not have a tubal sterilization. Conclusions: Approximately 4.3 million women ages 22-49 in the United States are potentially underscreened for cervical cancer and women with previous tubal ligation ≥5 years ago are more likely to be underscreened. These results may inform the need for culturally sensitive public health messages informing people who have had these procedures about the need for continued screening.

Variation in cervical cancer screening test utilization and results in a United States-based program.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about cervical cancer screening strategy utilization (cytology alone, cytology plus high-risk human papillomavirus [HPV] testing [cotesting], primary HPV testing) and test results in the United States. METHODS: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program were analyzed for 199,578 persons aged 21-65 years screened from 2019 to 2020. Screening test utilization and results were stratified by demographic characteristics and geographic region. Age-standardized pooled HPV test positivity and genotyping test positivity were estimated within cytology result categories. RESULTS: Primary HPV testing was performed in 592 persons (0.3%). Among the remaining 176,290 persons aged 30-65 years, cotesting was utilized in 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.9-72.3%), and cytology alone was utilized in 27.9% (95% CI 27.7-28.1%). Utilization of cytology alone varied by geographic region, ranging from 18.3% (95% CI 17.4-19.1%) to 49.0% (95% CI 48.4-49.6%). HPV genotyping test utilization among those with positive pooled HPV test results was 33.9%. In persons aged ≥30 years, variations in age-adjusted test results by region were observed for pooled HPV-positive test results and for HPV genotyping-positive test results. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical cancer screening strategy utilization and test results vary substantially by geographic region within a national screening program. Variation in utilization may be due to regional differences in screening test availability or the preferences of healthcare systems, screened persons and/or clinicians. Test result variations may reflect differing risk factors for HPV infections by geographic region.

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Updates Through 2023.

ABSTRACT: This Research Letter summarizes all updates to the 2019 Guidelines through September 2023, including: endorsement of the 2021 Opportunistic Infections guidelines for HIV+ or immunosuppressed patients; clarification of use of human papillomavirus testing alone for patients undergoing observation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2; revision of unsatisfactory cytology management; clarification that 2012 guidelines should be followed for patients aged 25 years and older screened with cytology only; management of patients for whom colposcopy was recommended but not completed; clarification that after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+, 3 negative human papillomavirus tests or cotests at 6, 18, and 30 months are recommended before the patient can return to a 3-year testing interval; and clarification of postcolposcopy management of minimally abnormal results.

A qualitative study of primary care clinician's approach to ending cervical cancer screening in older women in the United States.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that cervical cancer screening end in average-risk patients with a cervix at 65 years of age if adequate screening measures have been met, defined as having 1) at least three normal consecutive cytology (Pap) tests, or 2) two normal cytology tests and/or two negative high-risk human papillomavirus tests between ages 55-65; the last test should be performed within the prior 5 years. Up to 60 % of all women aged 65 years and older who are ending screening do not meet the criteria for adequate screening. The objective of this study was to understand the process and approach that healthcare clinicians use to determine eligibility to end cervical cancer screening. In 2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews in San Francisco, CA with twelve healthcare clinicians: two family medicine physicians, three general internal medicine physicians, two obstetrician/gynecologists and five nurse practitioners. Thematic analysis, using inductive and deductive coding, was utilized. Three major themes emerged: following guidelines, relying on self-reported data regarding prior screening, and considering sexual activity as a factor in the decision to end screening. All interviewees endorsed following the USPSTF guidelines and they utilized self-report to determine eligibility to end screening. Clinicians' approach was dependent in part on their judgement about the reliability of the patient to convey their screening history. Sexual activity of the patient was considered when making clinical recommendations. Shared decision-making was often utilized. Clinicians voiced a strong reliance on self-reported screening history to end cervical cancer screening.

Avoiding Low-Value Care and Patient Financial Harm in Cervical Cancer Screening.

The provision of low-value care remains a significant concern in healthcare. The negative impacts resulting from low-value cervical cancer screenings are extensive at the population level and can lead to harms and substantial out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Inattention to the financial implications of screening poses a serious threat to low-income populations that depend on affordable screening services, and it may exacerbate existing healthcare disparities and inequities. Identifying and implementing strategies that promote high-value care and reduce patient out-of-pocket expenses are important to ensure that all people, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have access to effective and affordable preventive care. See related article by Rockwell et al., p. 385.

The association between YouTube use and knowledge of human papillomavirus-related cancers.

Objective: To examine the association between YouTube usage and HPV-related cancer knowledge (cervical, anal, oral and penile). Study design: Cross-sectional study using data from the Health Information National Trends survey conducted between 2017 and 2020 (N = 16,092). Logistic regression was used to analyze the independent effect of YouTube use on cancer knowledge, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Respondents' knowledge of HPV-related cancers varied: 49.9% about cervical, 18% anal, 20.1% oral and 20.4% penile cancers. YouTube use was associated with increased knowledge for all cancers (cervical: OR 2.66, 95% CI 2.04, 3.46; anal: OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.32, 2.53; oral: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.37, 2.61; penile OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.44, 2.77) in models adjusted for all covariates. Other independent predictors of HPV-related cancer knowledge included female gender, younger age, a higher income, and higher education. Conclusions: YouTube could play an important role in educating people about HPV-related cancers and should also target other populations, such as males and those with less formal education. Innovation: The study provides novel insights into the potential of YouTube as an educational tool for promoting cancer knowledge with the goal of cancer prevention.

Accelerating Cervical Cancer Screening With Human Papillomavirus Genotyping.

INTRODUCTION: Selective utilization of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping in cervical cancer screening can accelerate clinical management, leading to earlier identification and treatment of precancerous lesions and cancer. Specifically, immediate colposcopy (instead of 1-year return) is recommended in persons with normal cytology and HPV genotypes 16 and/or 18, and expedited treatment (instead of colposcopy) is recommended in persons with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology and HPV genotype 16. The effects of implementing HPV testing and genotyping into a screening program are largely unknown. METHODS: Average-risk persons aged 30-65 years screened for cervical cancer in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program from 2019 to 2020 were included (N=104,991). Percentage HPV genotyping test positivity was estimated within cytology result categories. Analyses were performed in 2022. RESULTS: The most common abnormality was positive high-risk HPV testing with normal cytology, representing 40.1% (7,155/17,832) of all abnormal test result categories; HSIL cytology represented 3.0% (530/17,832) of all abnormal test result categories. In high-risk HPV‒positive persons with normal or high-grade cytology, HPV genotyping could accelerate management (immediate colposcopy and expedited treatment) in 5.4% of all persons with abnormal screening test results; if HPV genotyping had been performed in all high-risk HPV‒positive persons with normal or HSIL cytology, approximately 13.1% could have accelerated management. CONCLUSIONS: HPV genotyping in human papillomavirus‒positive persons with normal or HSIL cytology could accelerate management in a sizable percentage of persons with abnormal test results and may be particularly useful in populations with challenges adhering to longitudinal follow-up.

Mediation of Racial and Ethnic Inequities in the Diagnosis of Advanced-Stage Cervical Cancer by Insurance Status.

Importance: Black and Hispanic or Latina women are more likely than White women to receive a diagnosis of and to die of cervical cancer. Health insurance coverage is associated with diagnosis at an earlier stage of cervical cancer. Objective: To evaluate the extent to which racial and ethnic differences in the diagnosis of advanced-stage cervical cancer are mediated by insurance status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, cross-sectional population-based study used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program on an analytic cohort of 23 942 women aged 21 to 64 years who received a diagnosis of cervical cancer between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2016. Statistical analysis was performed from February 24, 2022, to January 18, 2023. Exposures: Health inusurance status (private or Medicare insurance vs Medicaid or uninsured). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a diagnosis of advanced-stage cervical cancer (regional or distant stage). Mediation analyses were performed to assess the proportion of observed racial and ethnic differences in the stage at diagnosis that were mediated by health insurance status. Results: A total of 23 942 women (median age at diagnosis, 45 years [IQR, 37-54 years]; 12.9% were Black, 24.5% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.9% were White) were included in the study. A total of 59.4% of the cohort had private or Medicare insurance. Compared with White women, patients of all other racial and ethnic groups had a lower proportion with a diagnosis of early-stage cervical cancer (localized) (American Indian or Alaska Native, 48.7%; Asian or Pacific Islander, 49.9%; Black, 41.7%; Hispanic or Latina, 51.6%; and White, 53.3%). A larger proportion of women with private or Medicare insurance compared with women with Medicaid or uninsured received a diagnosis of an early-stage cancer (57.8% [8082 of 13 964] vs 41.1% [3916 of 9528]). In models adjusting for age, year of diagnosis, histologic type, area-level socioeconomic status, and insurance status, Black women had higher odds of receiving a diagnosis of advanced-stage cervical cancer compared with White women (odds ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.08-1.29]). Health insurance was associated with mediation of more than half (ranging from 51.3% [95% CI, 51.0%-51.6%] for Black women to 55.1% [95% CI, 53.9%-56.3%] for Hispanic or Latina women) the racial and ethnic inequities in the diagnosis of advanced-stage cervical cancer across all racial and ethnic minority groups compared with White women. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of SEER data suggests that insurance status was a substantial mediator of racial and ethnic inequities in advanced-stage cervical cancer diagnoses. Expanding access to care and improving the quality of services rendered for uninsured patients and those covered by Medicaid may mitigate the known inequities in cervical cancer diagnosis and related outcomes.

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

Importance: Since 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against cervical cancer screening in average-risk women 65 years or older with adequate prior screening. Little is known about the use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in this age group. Objective: To examine annual use trends in cervical cancer screening-associated services, specifically cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests, colposcopy, and cervical procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cone biopsy, and ablation) in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2019, and estimate expenditures for services performed in 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, cross-sectional analysis included health service use data across 21 years for women aged 65 to 114 years with Medicare fee-for-service coverage (15-16 million women per year). Data analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of testing modalities (cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing [cotesting], HPV testing alone); annual use rate per 100 000 women of cytology and HPV testing, colposcopy, and cervical procedures from 1999 to 2019; Medicare expenditure for these services in 2019. Results: There were 15 323 635 women 65 years and older with Medicare fee-for-service coverage in 1999 and 15 298 656 in 2019. In 2019, the mean (SD) age of study population was 76.2 (8.1) years, 5.1% were Hispanic, 0.5% were non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.0% were non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 7.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and 82.0% were non-Hispanic White. From 1999 to 2019, the percentage of women who received at least 1 cytology or HPV test decreased from 18.9% (2.9 million women) in 1999 to 8.5% (1.3 million women) in 2019, a reduction of 55.3%; use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased 43.2% and 64.4%, respectively. Trend analyses showed a 4.6% average annual reduction in use of cytology or HPV testing during 1999 to 2019 (P < .001). Use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased before 2015 then plateaued during 2015 to 2019. The total Medicare expenditure for all services rendered in 2019 was about $83.5 million. About 3% of women older than 80 years received at least 1 service at a cost of $7.4 million in 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that while annual use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in the Medicare fee-for-service population older than 65 years has decreased during the last 2 decades, more than 1.3 million women received these services in 2019 at substantial costs.

Emergency department visits and emergency-to-inpatient admissions for abnormal uterine bleeding in the USA nationwide.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a common but understudied gynaecological problem, and data are lacking on emergency department (ED) visits and associated ED-to-inpatient admissions for AUB. This project aims to further understanding of the burden of AUB on patients and the healthcare system by establishing the number and characteristics of women with AUB in the ED and evaluating predictors of AUB-related inpatient hospitalisation in the USA. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of women presenting to the ED with non-malignant AUB in the 2016 US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). Clinical, demographic and hospital system factors were evaluated. χ2 and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the proportion of visits with each characteristic, resulting in inpatient admission versus discharge from the ED. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyse predictors of AUB in the ED and of AUB-related hospitalisations. RESULTS: There were 1.03 million AUB-related visits in the 2016 NEDS, of which 11.2% resulted in inpatient admission. Clinical as well as demographic and hospital system factors influenced ED disposition. Women with AUB tended to be of reproductive age, be underinsured, live in lower income and urban areas, and present to urban and public hospitals. However, older age, higher income, better insurance, presentation to private hospitals and rural residence predicted inpatient admission. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the ED as an essential place of care for women with AUB while also demonstrating the importance of access to outpatient gynaecology services as some AUB-related ED visits may be preventable with outpatient care. The significant demographic and hospital system differences, as well as expected clinical differences, between women with AUB admitted to inpatient and women discharged from the ED imply structural biases impacting AUB-related ED care and add to the deepening understanding of health disparities.

Changing Preferences for a Cervical Cancer Screening Strategy: Moving Away from Annual Testing.

Background: While annual cytology has not been recommended for many years, it remains many patients' preferred screening strategy for cervical cancer. Patient education and provider recommendations have been found effective in aligning professional society guidelines with patient preferences. We assessed whether an educational video with value elicitation exercises (utility assessments) changed screening strategy preferences among patients who had an initial preference for annual screening. Materials and Methods: We conducted an interventional study of English- or Spanish-speaking women 21-65 years of age, recruited from two women's health clinics in San Francisco, California (n = 262). Participants were asked about their preferred method of screening before viewing a 7-minute educational video and using a computerized tool that elicited values for 23 different health states related to cervical cancer screening. Directly afterward, they were again asked about their preferred screening strategy. Multivariable regression analysis was utilized to identify independent predictors of changing preferences. Results: Of 246 enrollees, 62.6% (154/246) had an initial preference for annual cytology; after viewing the video and completing the values elicitation exercises, about half (72/154, 47%) preferred a strategy other than annual screening. Having attended college and being screened every 3 to 5 years in the recent past were independent predictors of changing preferences away from annual screening. In sensitivity analyses, 53.2% of average-risk participants changed preferences away from annual cytology (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Viewing an educational video and conducting a series of value elicitation exercises were associated with a substantially decreased likelihood of preferring annual screening. These findings underscore the importance of patient-centered education to help support informed patient preferences.

Computable Guidelines and Clinical Decision Support for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management to Improve Outcomes and Health Equity.

Cervical cancer is highly preventable when precancerous lesions are detected early and appropriately managed. However, the complexity of and frequent updates to existing evidence-based clinical guidelines make it challenging for clinicians to stay abreast of the latest recommendations. In addition, limited availability and accessibility to information technology (IT) decision supports make it difficult for groups who are medically underserved to receive screening or receive the appropriate follow-up care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC), is leading a multiyear initiative to develop computer-interpretable ("computable") version of already existing evidence-based guidelines to support clinician awareness and adoption of the most up-to-date cervical cancer screening and management guidelines. DCPC is collaborating with the MITRE Corporation, leading scientists from the National Cancer Institute, and other CDC subject matter experts to translate existing narrative guidelines into computable format and develop clinical decision support tools for integration into health IT systems such as electronic health records with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes and decreasing disparities in cervical cancer outcomes among populations that are medically underserved. This initiative meets the challenges and opportunities highlighted by the President's Cancer Panel and the President's Cancer Moonshot 2.0 to nearly eliminate cervical cancer.

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

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests during 2013-2019 among commercially insured women. METHODS: The study population included women of all ages with continuous enrollment each year in the IBM MarketScan commercial or Medicare supplemental databases and without known history of cervical cancer or precancer (range = 6.9-9.8 million women per year). Annual cervical cancer screening test use was examined by three modalities: cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing (cotesting), and HPV testing alone. Trends were assessed using 2-sided Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of cytology alone decreased from 34.2% in 2013 to 26.4% in 2019 among women aged 21-29 years (P < .0001). Among women aged 30-64 years, use of cytology alone decreased from 18.9% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2019 (P < .0001), whereas cotesting use increased from 14.9% in 2013 to 19.3% in 2019 (P < .0001). Annual test use for HPV testing alone was below 0.5% in all age groups throughout the study period. Annually, 8.7%-13.6% of women aged 18-20 years received cervical cancer screening. There were persistent differences in screening test use by metropolitan residence and census regions despite similar temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal changes in the use of cervical cancer screening tests among commercially insured women track changes in clinical guidelines. Screening test use among individuals younger than 21 years shows that many young women are inappropriately screened for cervical cancer.

Prioritizing cervical cancer screening services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Response of an academic medical center and a public safety net hospital in California.

The expeditious diagnosis and treatment of high-grade cervical precancers are fundamental to cervical cancer prevention. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic healthcare systems have at times restricted in-person visits to those deemed urgent. Professional societies provided some guidance to clinicians regarding ways in which traditional cervical cancer screening might be modified, but many gaps remained. To address these gaps, leaders of screening programs at an academic medical center and an urban safety net hospital in California formed a rapid-action committee to provide guidance to its practitioners. Patients were divided into 6 categories corresponding to various stages in the screening process and ranked by risk of underlying high-grade cervical precancer and cancer. Tiers corresponding to the intensity of the local pandemic were constructed, and clinical delays were lengthened for the lowest-risk patients as tiers escalated. The final product was a management grid designed to escalate and de-escalate with changes in the local epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic. While this effort resulted in substantial delays in clinical screening services as mandated by the healthcare systems, the population effects of delaying on both cervical cancer outcomes as well as the beneficial effects related to decreasing transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 have yet to be elucidated.

Effect of 2 Interventions on Cervical Cancer Screening Guideline Adherence.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to determine whether a provider mobile phone application, used with or without a patient educational tool accessed on a computer tablet, would promote adherence to guidelines for cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal cytology in young women. METHODS: The study was conducted as a prospective cohort study in which 14 Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment provider clinics were randomized to 1 of 2 arms: (1) provider mobile phone application only or (2) provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool. The provider mobile phone application gave information to providers regarding cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal cytology. The patient educational tool accessed on a computer tablet was a patient-centered educational tool. Each arm was compared with clinic control groups (no intervention) in a 2:1 ratio (control:intervention). Claims data were used to calculate and compare 18-month cytology (Pap) and colposcopy rates before the intervention and during the 18 months using the Poisson mixed-effect regression model. A sensitivity analysis examined the differences in the rate of change between each arm and controls. The study took place between July 2015 and December 2016, and analysis was performed in 2019. RESULTS: The clinics randomized to the provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool arm and their control group achieved similar 18-month Pap rates (0.52, 95% CI=0.37, 0.74 and 0.68, 95% CI=0.53, 0.86, respectively) as well as the provider mobile phone application arm and their control group (0.44, 95% CI=0.33, 0.58 and 0.41, 95% CI=0.34, 0.51; p-values >0.1). In the sensitivity analysis, the difference in the rate of change in Pap rates for the provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool arm and their control group before and during the intervention was -0.22 and -0.09, respectively (p=0.02), but no differences were seen between the provider mobile phone application arm and their control group. No significant changes were observed for colposcopy rates. CONCLUSIONS: Providing clinicians and patients with information on guidelines had no demonstrable effect on 18-month Pap and colposcopy rates in the regression model; however, results from the sensitivity analysis for the patient educational tool were encouraging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02270021.

Summary of Current Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Test Results: 2016-2020.

Cervical cancer can be prevented through routine screening and follow-up of abnormal results. Several guidelines have been published in the last 4 years from various medical societies and organizations. These guidelines aim to personalize screening and management, reducing unnecessary testing in low-risk patients and managing high-risk patients with more intensive follow-up. However, the resulting complexity can lead to confusion among providers. The CDC, NCI, and obstetrician-gynecologists involved in guideline development summarized current screening and management guidelines. For screening, guidelines for average-risk and high-risk populations are summarized and presented. For management, differences between the 2012 and 2019 consensus guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors are summarized. Current screening guidelines for average-risk individuals have minor differences, but are evolving toward an HPV-based strategy. For management, HPV testing is preferred to cytology because it is a more sensitive test for cancer precursor detection and also allows for precise risk stratification. Current risk-based screening and management strategies can improve care by reducing unnecessary tests and procedures in low-risk patients and focusing resources on high-risk patients. Knowledge of screening and management guidelines is important to improve adherence and avoid both over- and under-use of screening and colposcopy.

Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.

Purpose. In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 years. It further recommended that women discuss with health care providers which testing strategy is best for them. To inform such discussions, we used decision analysis to estimate outcomes of screening strategies recommended for women at age 30. Methods. We constructed a Markov decision model using estimates of the natural history of HPV and cervical neoplasia. We evaluated the three USPSTF-endorsed strategies, hrHPV testing every 3 years and no screening. Outcomes included colposcopies with biopsy, false-positive testing (a colposcopy in which no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse was found), treatments, cancers, and cancer mortality expressed per 10,000 women over a shorter-than-lifetime horizon (15-year). Results. All strategies resulted in substantially lower cancer and cancer death rates compared with no screening. Strategies with the lowest likelihood of cancer and cancer death generally had higher likelihood of colposcopy and false-positive testing. Conclusions. The screening strategies we evaluated involved tradeoffs in terms of benefits and harms. Because individual women may place different weights on these projected outcomes, the optimal choice for each woman may best be discerned through shared decision making.