Risk of cervical precancer and cancer among uninsured and underserved women from 2009 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: New guidelines for managing cervical precancer among women in the United States use risk directly to guide clinical actions for individuals who are being screened. These risk-based management guidelines have previously only been based on risks from a large integrated healthcare system. We present here data representative of women of low income without continuous insurance coverage to inform the 2019 guidelines and ensure applicability. OBJECTIVE: We examined the risks of high-grade precancer after human papillomavirus and cytology tests in underserved women and assessed the applicability of the 2019 guidelines to this population. STUDY DESIGN: We examined cervical cancer screening and follow-up data among 363,546 women enrolled in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program from 2009 to 2017. We estimated the immediate (prevalent) risks of cervical intraepithelial lesion grade 3 or cancer by using prevalence-incidence mixture models. Risks were estimated for each combination of human papillomavirus and cytology result and were stratified by screening history. We compared these risks with published estimates used in new risk-based management guidelines. RESULTS: Women who were up-to-date with their screening, defined as being screened with cytology within the past 5 years, had immediate risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher similar to that of women at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, whose data were used to develop the management guidelines. However, women in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program had greater immediate risks if they were never screened or not up-to-date with their screening. CONCLUSION: New cervical risk-based management guidelines are applicable for underinsured and uninsured women with a low income in the United States who are up-to-date with their screening. The increased risk observed here among women who received human papillomavirus-positive, high-grade cytology results, who were never screened, or who were not up-to-date with their cervical cancer screening, led to a recommendation in the management guidelines for immediate treatment among these 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.

Similar Risk Patterns After Cervical Screening in Two Large U.S. Populations: Implications for Clinical Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risks of histologic high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or worse after different cervical cancer screening test results between two of the largest U.S. clinical practice research data sets. METHODS: The New Mexico Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Pap Registry is a statewide registry representing a diverse population experiencing varied clinical practice delivery. Kaiser Permanente Northern California is a large integrated health care delivery system practicing routine HPV cotesting since 2003. In this retrospective cohort study, a logistic-Weibull survival model was used to estimate and compare the cumulative 3- and 5-year risks of histologic CIN 3 or worse among women aged 21-64 years screened in 2007-2011 in the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry and 2003-2013 in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Results were stratified by age and baseline screening result: negative cytology, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) (with or without HPV triage), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. RESULTS: There were 453,618 women in the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry and 1,307,528 women at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The 5-year CIN 3 or worse risks were similar within screening results across populations: cytology negative (0.52% and 0.30%, respectively, P<.001), HPV-negative and ASC-US (0.72% and 0.49%, respectively, P=.5), ASC-US (3.4% and 3.4%, respectively, P=.8), HPV-positive and ASC-US (7.7% and 7.1%, respectively, P=.3), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (6.5% and 5.4%, respectively, P=.009), and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (53.1% and 50.4%, respectively, P=.2). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse risks and 3-year risks had similar trends across populations. Age-stratified analyses showed more variability, especially among women aged younger than 30 years, but patterns of risk stratification were comparable. CONCLUSION: Current U.S. cervical screening and management recommendations are based on comparative risks of histologic high-grade CIN after screening test results. The similar results from these two large cohorts from different real-life clinical practice settings support risk-based management thresholds across U.S. clinical populations and practice settings.

An evaluation by midwives and gynecologists of treatability of cervical lesions by cryotherapy among human papillomavirus-positive women.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate efficacy of a visual triage of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women to either immediate cryotherapy or referral if not treatable (eg, invasive cancer, large precancers). METHODS: We evaluated visual triage in the HPV-positive women aged 25 to 55 years from the 10,000-woman Guanacaste Cohort Study (n = 552). Twelve Peruvian midwives and 5 international gynecologists assessed treatability by cryotherapy using digitized high-resolution cervical images taken at enrollment. The reference standard of treatability was determined by 2 lead gynecologists from the entire 7-year follow-up of the women. Women diagnosed with histologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse or 5-year persistence of carcinogenic HPV infection were defined as needing treatment. RESULTS: Midwives and gynecologists judged 30.8% and 41.2% of women not treatable by cryotherapy, respectively (P < 0.01). Among 149 women needing treatment, midwives and gynecologists correctly identified 57.5% and 63.8% (P = 0.07 for difference) of 71 women judged not treatable by the lead gynecologists and 77.6% and 59.7% (P < 0.01 for difference) of 78 women judged treatable by cryotherapy. The proportion of women judged not treatable by a reviewer varied widely and ranged from 18.6% to 61.1%. Interrater agreement was poor with mean pairwise overall agreement of 71.4% and 66.3% and kappa's of 0.33 and 0.30 for midwives and gynecologists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In future "screen-and-treat" cervical cancer prevention programs using HPV testing and cryotherapy, practitioners will visually triage HPV-positive women. The suboptimal performance of visual triage suggests that screen-and-treat programs using cryotherapy might be insufficient for treating precancerous lesions. Improved, low-technology triage methods and/or improved safe and low-technology treatment options are needed.

Predicting the effect of successful human papillomavirus vaccination on existing cervical cancer prevention programs in the United States.

The development of a prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that potentially may eliminate a majority of cervical cancers is a landmark in cancer prevention. Cervical screening, however, will continue to play an important role for the foreseeable future. Maintaining screening at the same intensity and simply adding on the expense of vaccination would result in redundancy of prevention efforts at enormously increased costs without necessarily further reducing cervical cancer mortality. Effectively integrating vaccination and screening efforts will be a critical and evolving challenge over the next decade; this will require understanding not only the impact of vaccination on reducing cervical abnormalities but also the influence of vaccination on screening test performance.