28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Screening for Cervical Cancer : US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

      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 number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States has decreased substantially since the implementation of widespread cervical cancer screening and has declined from 2.8 to 2.3 deaths per 100 000 women from 2000 to 2015.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India.

          In October 1999, we began to measure the effect of a single round of screening by testing for human papillomavirus (HPV), cytologic testing, or visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) on the incidence of cervical cancer and the associated rates of death in the Osmanabad district in India. In this cluster-randomized trial, 52 clusters of villages, with a total of 131,746 healthy women between the ages of 30 and 59 years, were randomly assigned to four groups of 13 clusters each. The groups were randomly assigned to undergo screening by HPV testing (34,126 women), cytologic testing (32,058), or VIA (34,074) or to receive standard care (31,488, control group). Women who had positive results on screening underwent colposcopy and directed biopsies, and those with cervical precancerous lesions or cancer received appropriate treatment. In the HPV-testing group, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 127 subjects (of whom 39 had stage II or higher), as compared with 118 subjects (of whom 82 had advanced disease) in the control group (hazard ratio for the detection of advanced cancer in the HPV-testing group, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.69). There were 34 deaths from cancer in the HPV-testing group, as compared with 64 in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.83). No significant reductions in the numbers of advanced cancers or deaths were observed in the cytologic-testing group or in the VIA group, as compared with the control group. Mild adverse events were reported in 0.1% of screened women. In a low-resource setting, a single round of HPV testing was associated with a significant reduction in the numbers of advanced cervical cancers and deaths from cervical cancer. 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

            Update of the 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for cervical cancer. The USPSTF reviewed new evidence on the comparative test performance of liquid-based cytology and the benefits and harms of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a stand-alone test or in combination with cytology. In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a decision analysis to help clarify the age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal interval for screening, and the relative benefits and harms of different strategies for screening (such as cytology and co-testing). This recommendation statement applies to women who have a cervix, regardless of sexual history. This recommendation statement does not apply to women who have received a diagnosis of a high-grade precancerous cervical lesion or cervical cancer, women with in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol, or women who are immunocompromised (such as those who are HIV positive).The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer in women aged 21 to 65 years with cytology (Papanicolaou smear) every 3 years or, for women aged 30 to 65 years who want to lengthen the screening interval, screening with a combination of cytology and HPV testing every 5 years. See the Clinical Considerations for discussion of cytology method, HPV testing, and screening interval (A recommendation).The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than age 21 years (D recommendation).The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than age 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer. See the Clinical Considerations for discussion of adequacy of prior screening and risk factors (D recommendation).The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and who do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer (D recommendation).The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer with HPV testing, alone or in combination with cytology, in women younger than age 30 years (D recommendation).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial.

              Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions than is cytology, but detection of HPV by DNA screening in two screening rounds 5 years apart has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to assess whether HPV DNA testing in the first screen decreases detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse, CIN grade 2 or worse, and cervical cancer in the second screening. In this randomised trial, women aged 29-56 years participating in the cervical screening programme in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to receive HPV DNA (GP5+/6+-PCR method) and cytology co-testing or cytology testing alone, from January, 1999, to September, 2002. Randomisation (in a 1:1 ratio) was done with computer-generated random numbers after the cervical specimen had been taken. At the second screening 5 years later, HPV DNA and cytology co-testing was done in both groups; researchers were masked to the patient's assignment. The primary endpoint was the number of CIN grade 3 or worse detected. Analysis was done by intention to screen. The trial is now finished and is registered, number ISRCTN20781131. 22,420 women were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 22 518 to the control group; 19 999 in the intervention group and 20,106 in the control group were eligible for analysis at the first screen. At the second screen, 19 579 women in the intervention group and 19,731 in the control group were eligible, of whom 16,750 and 16,743, respectively, attended the second screen. In the second round, CIN grade 3 or worse was less common in the intervention group than in the control group (88 of 19 579 in the intervention group vs 122 of 19,731 in the control group; relative risk 0·73, 95% CI 0·55-0·96; p=0·023). Cervical cancer was also less common in the intervention group than in the control group (four of 19 579 in the intervention group vs 14 of 19,731; 0·29, 0·10-0·87; p=0·031). In the baseline round, detection of CIN grade 3 or worse did not differ significantly between groups (171 of 19 999 vs 150 of 20,106; 1·15, 0·92-1·43; p=0·239) but was significantly more common in women with normal cytology (34 of 19,286 vs 12 of 19,373; 2·85, 1·47-5·49; p=0·001). Furthermore, significantly more cases of CIN grade 2 or worse were detected in the intervention group than in the control group (267 of 19 999 vs 215 of 20,106; 1·25, 1·05-1·50; p=0·015). In the second screen, fewer HPV16-positive CIN grade 3 or worse were detected in the intervention group than in the control group (17 of 9481 vs 35 of 9354; 0·48, 0·27-0·85; p=0·012); detection of non-HPV16-positive CIN grade 3 or worse did not differ between groups (25 of 9481 vs 25 of 9354; 0·99, 0·57-1·72; p=1·00). The cumulative detection of CIN grade 3 or worse and CIN grade 2 or worse did not differ significantly between study arms, neither for the whole study group (CIN grade 3 or worse: 259 of 19 999 vs 272 of 20,106; 0·96, 0·81-1·14, p=0·631; CIN grade 2 or worse: 427 of 19 999 vs 399 of 20,106; 1·08, 0·94-1·24; p=0·292), nor for subgroups of women invited for the first time (CIN grade 3 or worse in women aged 29-33 years: 102 of 3139 vs 105 of 3128; 0·97, 0·74-1·27; CIN grade 2 or worse in women aged 29-33 years: 153 of 3139 vs 151 of 3128; 1·01, 0·81-1·26; CIN grade 3 or worse in women aged 34-56 years: 157 of 16,860 vs 167 of 16 978; 0·95, 0·76-1·18; CIN grade 2 or worse in women aged 34-56 years: 274 of 16,860 vs 248 of 16 978; 1·11, 0·94-1·32). Implementation of HPV DNA testing in cervical screening leads to earlier detection of clinically relevant CIN grade 2 or worse, which when adequately treated, improves protection against CIN grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer. Early detection of high-grade cervical legions caused by HPV16 was a major component of this benefit. Our results lend support to the use of HPV DNA testing for all women aged 29 years and older. Zorg Onderzoek Nederland (Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development). Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                August 21 2018
                August 21 2018
                : 320
                : 7
                : 674
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Iowa, Iowa City
                [2 ]Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia
                [3 ]Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
                [4 ]Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
                [5 ]Stanford University, Stanford, California
                [6 ]Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [7 ]Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
                [8 ]Columbia University, New York, New York
                [9 ]University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [10 ]Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke
                [11 ]Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
                [12 ]Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [13 ]University of Alabama at Birmingham
                [14 ]University of California, Los Angeles
                [15 ]Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
                [16 ]Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
                [17 ]Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
                [18 ]University of Hawaii, Honolulu
                [19 ]Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii
                [20 ]Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2018.10897
                30140884
                8ed73dd4-99d9-4af3-8d30-2b9ab5326294
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article