OBJECTIVE: After excisional treatment, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) can recur. It is not clear how many negative posttreatment Pap or cotest results are needed to ensure adequate safety against CIN 2+ before returning to extended retesting intervals. METHODS: We observed 5-year risks of CIN 2+ for 3 follow-up management strategies after treatment (Pap-alone, human papillomavirus [HPV]-alone, and HPV/Pap cotesting) for 3,273 women aged 25 years and older who were treated for CIN 2, CIN 3, or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) between 2003 and 2010 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. RESULTS: Five-year risks of recurrent CIN 2+ after treatment varied both by antecedent screening test result and the histology of the treated lesion. The risk ranged from 5% for CIN 2 preceded by HPV-positive/atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion to 16% for CIN 3/AIS preceded by atypical glandular cells (AGC)/atypical squamous cells cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H)/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+) (p < .0001). However, after posttreatment negative tests, risks were lowered and similar regardless of antecedent screening test and histology of treated disease. The 5-year recurrent CIN 2+ risk after a negative posttreatment cotest (2.4%) was lower than that following a negative HPV test (3.7%, p = .3) or negative Pap result (4.2%, p = .1). Two negative posttreatment tests of each kind conferred slightly lower 5-year CIN 2+ risk than one (2 negative Pap tests vs. 1, 2.7% vs 4.2%, p = .2; 2 negative HPV tests vs. 1, 2.7% vs 3.7%, p = .7; 2 negative cotests vs. 1, 1.5% vs 2.4%, p = .8). The 5-year CIN 2+ risk after 2 negative cotests of 1.5% (95% confidence interval = 0.3%-7.2%) approached the 0.68% risk after a negative Pap test during routine screening. CONCLUSIONS: Women with antecedent AGC/ASC-H/HSIL+ Pap results or those treated for CIN 3/AIS had a substantial risk of developing CIN 2+ posttreatment. On the basis of the principle of "equal management of equal risks," after negative test results posttreatment, no subgroup of women achieved risk sufficiently low to return to 5-year routine screening. However, negative cotests after treatment provided more reassurance against recurrent CIN 2+ than either negative Pap tests or HPV tests alone.
OBJECTIVE: After excisional treatment, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) can recur. It is not clear how many negative posttreatment Pap or cotest results are needed to ensure adequate safety against CIN 2+ before returning to extended retesting intervals. METHODS: We observed 5-year risks of CIN 2+ for 3 follow-up management strategies after treatment (Pap-alone, human papillomavirus [HPV]-alone, and HPV/Pap cotesting) for 3,273 women aged 25 years and older who were treated for CIN 2, CIN 3, or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) between 2003 and 2010 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. RESULTS: Five-year risks of recurrent CIN 2+ after treatment varied both by antecedent screening test result and the histology of the treated lesion. The risk ranged from 5% for CIN 2 preceded by HPV-positive/atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion to 16% for CIN 3/AIS preceded by atypical glandular cells (AGC)/atypical squamous cells cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H)/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+) (p < .0001). However, after posttreatment negative tests, risks were lowered and similar regardless of antecedent screening test and histology of treated disease. The 5-year recurrent CIN 2+ risk after a negative posttreatment cotest (2.4%) was lower than that following a negative HPV test (3.7%, p = .3) or negative Pap result (4.2%, p = .1). Two negative posttreatment tests of each kind conferred slightly lower 5-year CIN 2+ risk than one (2 negative Pap tests vs. 1, 2.7% vs 4.2%, p = .2; 2 negative HPV tests vs. 1, 2.7% vs 3.7%, p = .7; 2 negative cotests vs. 1, 1.5% vs 2.4%, p = .8). The 5-year CIN 2+ risk after 2 negative cotests of 1.5% (95% confidence interval = 0.3%-7.2%) approached the 0.68% risk after a negative Pap test during routine screening. CONCLUSIONS:Women with antecedent AGC/ASC-H/HSIL+ Pap results or those treated for CIN 3/AIS had a substantial risk of developing CIN 2+ posttreatment. On the basis of the principle of "equal management of equal risks," after negative test results posttreatment, no subgroup of women achieved risk sufficiently low to return to 5-year routine screening. However, negative cotests after treatment provided more reassurance against recurrent CIN 2+ than either negative Pap tests or HPV tests alone.
Authors: Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Marc Arbyn; Alexandros Sotiriadis; Emmanuel Diakomanolis; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; George Koliopoulos; George Makrydimas; Jovan Tofoski; Dimitrios H Roukos Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Hormuzd A Katki; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Tina Raine-Bennett; Julia C Gage; Walter K Kinney Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: W P Soutter; A de Barros Lopes; A Fletcher; J M Monaghan; I D Duncan; E Paraskevaidis; H C Kitchener Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-04-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Aimée R Kreimer; Mark Schiffman; Rolando Herrero; Allan Hildesheim; Paula González; Robert D Burk; Carolina Porras; Mark E Sherman; Franklin Demuth; Li Cheung; Concepción Bratti; Ana Cecilia Rodríguez Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: G Valasoulis; G Koliopoulos; C Founta; M Kyrgiou; I Tsoumpou; O Valari; P Martin-Hirsch; A Daponte; P Karakitsos; E Paraskevaidis Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Aimée R Kreimer; Richard S Guido; Diane Solomon; Mark Schiffman; Sholom Wacholder; José Jeronimo; Cosette M Wheeler; Philip E Castle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Murat Gök; Veerle M H Coupé; Johannes Berkhof; René H M Verheijen; Theo J M Helmerhorst; Cornelis J A Hogewoning; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Aagje G Bais; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Mateja Rebolj; Peter J F Snijders; René H M Verheijen; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Chris J L M Meijer; Theo J M Helmerhorst Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M A Nobbenhuis; C J Meijer; A J van den Brule; L Rozendaal; F J Voorhorst; E K Risse; R H Verheijen; T J Helmerhorst Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2001-03-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Priscilla Brebi; Leonel Maldonado; Maartje G Noordhuis; Carmen Ili; Pamela Leal; Patricia Garcia; Mariana Brait; Judit Ribas; Christina Michailidi; Jimena Perez; Ethan Soudry; Oscar Tapia; Pablo Guzman; Sergio Muñoz; Leander Van Neste; Wim Van Criekinge; Rafael Irizarry; David Sidransky; Juan C Roa; Rafael Guerrero-Preston Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Fabio Bottari; Anna D Iacobone; Rita Passerini; Eleonora P Preti; Maria T Sandri; Clementina E Cocuzza; Devin S Gary; Jeffrey C Andrews Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ruofei Du; Rachael Adcock; Walter Kinney; Nancy Joste; Ruth M McDonald; Kevin English; Salina M Torres; Debbie Saslow; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 5.304