For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
11
views
22
references
 Top references
cited by
21
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      2,163
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Evidence-Based Consensus Recommendations for Colposcopy Practice for Cervical Cancer Prevention in the United States :

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) Colposcopy Standards recommendations address the role of colposcopy and directed biopsy for cervical cancer prevention in the United States (US). The recommendations were developed by an expert working group appointed by ASCCP's Board of Directors. An extensive literature review was conducted and supplemented by a systematic review and meta-analysis of unpublished data. In addition, a survey of practicing colposcopists was conducted to assess current colposcopy practice in the US. Recommendations were approved by the working group members, and the final revisions were made based on comments received from the public. The recommendations cover terminology, risk-based colposcopy, colposcopy procedures, and colposcopy adjuncts. The ASCCP Colposcopy Standards recommendations are an important step toward raising the standard of colposcopy services delivered to women in the US. Because cervical cancer screening programs are currently undergoing important changes that may affect colposcopy performance, updates to some of the current recommendations may be necessary in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

          L. Massad, Mark Einstein, Warner K. Huh … (2013)
          A group of 47 experts representing 23 professional societies, national and international health organizations, and federal agencies met in Bethesda, MD, September 14-15, 2012, to revise the 2006 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Consensus Guidelines. The group's goal was to provide revised evidence-based consensus guidelines for managing women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) following adoption of cervical cancer screening guidelines incorporating longer screening intervals and co-testing. In addition to literature review, data from almost 1.4 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Medical Care Plan provided evidence on risk after abnormal tests. Where data were available, guidelines prescribed similar management for women with similar risks for CIN 3, AIS, and cancer. Most prior guidelines were reaffirmed. Examples of updates include: Human papillomavirus-negative atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance results are followed with co-testing at 3 years before return to routine screening and are not sufficient for exiting women from screening at age 65 years; women aged 21-24 years need less invasive management, especially for minor abnormalities; postcolposcopy management strategies incorporate co-testing; endocervical sampling reported as CIN 1 should be managed as CIN 1; unsatisfactory cytology should be repeated in most circumstances, even when HPV results from co-testing are known, while most cases of negative cytology with absent or insufficient endocervical cells or transformation zone component can be managed without intensive follow-up.
          Article 0 comments Cited 176 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy.

            Myriam Perrotta, S Tatti, Jacob Bornstein … (2012)
            New colposcopy terminology was prepared by the Nomenclature Committee of the International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy after a critical review of previous terminologies, online discussions, and discussion with national colposcopy societies and individual colposcopists. This document has been expanded to include terminology of both the cervix and vagina. The popular terms "satisfactory colposcopy" and "unsatisfactory colposcopy" have been replaced. The colposcopic examination should be assessed for three variables: 1) adequate or inadequate, with the reason given; 2) squamocolumnar junction visibility; and 3) transformation zone type. Other additions were the localization of the lesion to either inside or outside the transformation zone and determinants of size as well as location of cervical lesions. Two new signs were included in the terminology-the "inner border sign" and "ridge sign." The following definitions have been added: congenital transformation zone, polyp (ectocervical or endocervical), stenosis, congenital anomaly, and posttreatment consequence. In addition, the terminology includes standardization of cervical excision treatment types and cervical excision specimen dimensions. The International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy recommends that the 2011 terminology replace all others and be implemented for diagnosis, treatment, and research.
            Article 0 comments Cited 118 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              National, Regional, State, and Selected Local Area Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years - United States, 2015.

              Sarah Reagan-Steiner, David Yankey, Jenny Jeyarajah … (2016)
              The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that adolescents aged 11-12 years routinely receive vaccines to prevent diseases, including human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers, pertussis, and meningococcal disease (1). To assess vaccination coverage among adolescents in the United States, CDC analyzed data collected regarding 21,875 adolescents through the 2015 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen).* During 2014-2015, coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years increased for each HPV vaccine dose among males, including ≥1 HPV vaccine dose (from 41.7% to 49.8%), and increased modestly for ≥1 HPV vaccine dose among females (from 60.0% to 62.8%) and ≥1 quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) dose (from 79.3% to 81.3%). Coverage with ≥1 HPV vaccine dose was higher among adolescents living in households below the poverty level, compared with adolescents in households at or above the poverty level.(†) HPV vaccination coverage (≥1, ≥2, or ≥3 doses) increased in 28 states/local areas among males and in seven states among females. Despite limited progress, HPV vaccination coverage remained lower than MenACWY and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) coverage, indicating continued missed opportunities for HPV-associated cancer prevention.
              Article 0 comments Cited 97 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
                Abbreviated Title: Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
                Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                ISSN (Print): 1089-2591
                Publication date Created: 2017
                Publication date (Print): October 2017
                Volume: 21
                Issue: 4
                Pages: 216-222
                Article
                DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000322
                PubMed ID: 28953109
                SO-VID: 7d0ecb34-7e6d-460d-a439-cb31ca9769bd
                Copyright © © 2017
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content2,163

                See all similar

                Cited by29

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors369

                See all reference authors