Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of Follow-up Colposcopy Procedures After Abnormal Cervical Screening Result Across a Statewide Study in Mississippi.
Reaves, Sydney; Hall, Katherine C; Stewart, Mary W; Wentzensen, Nicolas; Ferrell, Christina; Risley, Carolann; Wells, Jimmie; Rives, Rhonda; Bobo, Fajada; Daniels, Jon; Farrington, Kathy; Morgan, Jody C; Clarke, Megan A.
Afiliación
  • Reaves S; University of Mississippi Medical Center, School of Nursing.
  • Hall KC; University of Mississippi Medical Center, School of Nursing.
  • Stewart MW; Mississippi State University, School of Nursing.
  • Wentzensen N; National Cancer Institute.
  • Ferrell C; University of Mississippi Medical Center, School of Nursing.
  • Risley C; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Cancer Research Institute.
  • Wells J; University of Mississippi Medical Center, School of Nursing.
  • Rives R; Mississippi Baptist Medical Center, Department of Pathology.
  • Bobo F; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Pathology.
  • Daniels J; Mississippi State Department of Health.
  • Farrington K; Mississippi State Department of Health.
  • Morgan JC; University of Mississippi Medical Center, School of Medicine.
  • Clarke MA; National Cancer Institute.
Res Sq ; 2024 Feb 13.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38410464
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

Cervical screening is used to detect and treat precancers to prevent invasive cancers. However, successful prevention also requires adequate follow-up and treatment of individuals with abnormal screening results. The aim was to investigate demographics, clinical characteristics, and follow-up status for individuals needing colposcopy after an abnormal screening result.

Methods:

The STRIDES (Studying Risk to Improve DisparitiES) cohort comprises individuals undergoing cervical cancer screening and management at a Mississippi Health Department or University of Mississippi clinic. Follow-up status, demographics, and clinical data were assessed from electronic health records and, if necessary, patient navigation on individuals identified as needing a colposcopy after an abnormal screening.

Results:

Of the 1,458 individuals requiring colposcopy, 43.0% had the procedure within 4 months, 16.4% had a delayed procedure, and 39.5% had no documented follow-up, with significant predictors of follow-up identified as age and cytology diagnosis. Based on age, individuals 30 + were more likely to follow up with a colposcopy compared to individuals < 30 years (49% and 38.7%, respectively; p < .001). Individuals with cytology diagnoses of LSIL (52.9%), ASC-H (51.4%), and HSIL (62.3%) had higher percentages of adherence to follow-up colposcopy guidelines (p < .001).

Conclusion:

Despite high cervical cancer screening rates among Mississippians, a substantial portion did not have adequate next-step intervention. However, it is encouraging that highest risk individuals were more likely to have a colposcopy. Regardless, continuing to understand the underlying causes for incomplete follow-up is crucial for timely secondary targeted interventions to reduce cervical cancer burden, promote awareness, and improve health outcomes.