Literature DB >> 24302677

A population-based evaluation of cervical screening in the United States: 2008-2011.

Jack Cuzick1, Orrin Myers, William C Hunt, Michael Robertson, Nancy E Joste, Philip E Castle, Vicki B Benard, Cosette M Wheeler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical screening consumes substantial resources, but little is known about utilization in the United States or compliance with guideline recommendations.
METHODS: To describe population screening coverage, utilization, and outcomes and examine time trends from 2008 to 2011, cervical cytology reports from women residing in New Mexico (981,063 tests from 511,381 women) were evaluated.
RESULTS: From 2008 to 2011 cervical screening utilization decreased at all ages, but especially in younger women, with a two-third reduction at ages 15 to 20 years. Ninety-four percent of women ages 25 to 29 years were screened within 48 months but coverage decreased at older ages to 69% at 45 to 49 years and 55% at 60 to 64 years. Intervals between screening tests were significantly longer in 2011 compared with 2008 [HR = 1.23; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.22-1.24], although the commonest rescreening interval was 13 months. In 2011, 91.9% of screening tests for women ages 21 to 65 years were negative, 6.6% showed minor abnormalities, and 1.0% high-grade abnormalities. High-grade abnormality rates were relatively constant over time, but minor abnormalities and atypical cells cannot rule out high-grade (ASC-H) were increasing.
CONCLUSIONS: This population-based evaluation of cervical screening shows high coverage under the age of 40 years, but lower levels in older women. Screening under age 21 years is becoming less common and screening intervals are lengthening, reflecting updates in national screening guidelines. IMPACT: Assessment of cervical screening intervals and population outcomes is essential for accurately estimating the impact and effectiveness of changing recommendations and vaccination against human papilloma virus infections. ©2013 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24302677      PMCID: PMC4011954          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  38 in total

Review 1.  American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Carolyn D Runowicz; Diane Solomon; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Robert A Smith; Harmon J Eyre; Carmel Cohen
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Screening interval and risk of invasive squamous cell cervical cancer.

Authors:  Marie Grisham Miller; Hai-Yen Sung; George F Sawaya; Kathleen A Kearney; Walter Kinney; Robert A Hiatt
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  ACOG Practice Bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 45, August 2003. Cervical cytology screening (replaces committee opinion 152, March 1995).

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  The epidemiological basis for evaluating different screening policies.

Authors:  N E Day
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  1986

5.  Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes.

Authors:  E Lăără; N E Day; M Hakama
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1987-05-30       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Risk of cervical cancer subsequent to a positive screening cytology: follow-up study in Finland.

Authors:  M Viikki; E Pukkala; M Hakama
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.636

Review 7.  The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology.

Authors:  Diane Solomon; Diane Davey; Robert Kurman; Ann Moriarty; Dennis O'Connor; Marianne Prey; Stephen Raab; Mark Sherman; David Wilbur; Thomas Wright; Nancy Young
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-04-24       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Risk of cervical cancer associated with extending the interval between cervical-cancer screenings.

Authors:  George F Sawaya; K John McConnell; Shalini L Kulasingam; Herschel W Lawson; Karla Kerlikowske; Joy Melnikow; Nancy C Lee; Ginny Gildengorin; Evan R Myers; A Eugene Washington
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-10-16       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Cervical cancer screening practices among older women: results from the Maryland Cervical Cancer Case-Control Study.

Authors:  D D Celentano; A C Klassen; C S Weisman; N B Rosenshein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Factors associated with human papillomavirus vaccination among young adult women in the United States.

Authors:  Walter W Williams; Peng-Jun Lu; Mona Saraiya; David Yankey; Christina Dorell; Juan L Rodriguez; Deanna Kepka; Lauri E Markowitz
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 3.641

View more
  30 in total

1.  Human papillomavirus genotype-specific prevalence across the continuum of cervical neoplasia and cancer.

Authors:  Nancy E Joste; Brigitte M Ronnett; William C Hunt; Amanda Pearse; Erika Langsfeld; Thomas Leete; MaryAnn Jaramillo; Mark H Stoler; Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Risk Stratification Using Human Papillomavirus Testing among Women with Equivocally Abnormal Cytology: Results from a State-Wide Surveillance Program.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; William C Hunt; Mark Schiffman; Hormuzd A Katki; Li C Cheung; Jack Cuzick; Orrin Myers; Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Trends in cervical cancer incidence in younger US women from 2000 to 2013.

Authors:  Daniel C Beachler; Joseph E Tota; Michelle I Silver; Aimée R Kreimer; Allan Hildesheim; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman; Meredith S Shiels
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-11-26       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Uptake of HPV testing and extended cervical cancer screening intervals following cytology alone and Pap/HPV cotesting in women aged 30-65 years.

Authors:  Michelle I Silver; Anne F Rositch; Darcy F Phelan-Emrick; Patti E Gravitt
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Cervical Cancer Screening and Incidence by Age: Unmet Needs Near and After the Stopping Age for Screening.

Authors:  Mary C White; Meredith L Shoemaker; Vicki B Benard
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Health Service Accessibility and Risk in Cervical Cancer Prevention: Comparing Rural Versus Nonrural Residence in New Mexico.

Authors:  Yolanda J McDonald; Daniel W Goldberg; Isabel C Scarinci; Philip E Castle; Jack Cuzick; Michael Robertson; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  Human papillomavirus testing 2007-2012: co-testing and triage utilization and impact on subsequent clinical management.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Orrin Myers; William C Hunt; Debbie Saslow; Philip E Castle; Walter Kinney; Alan Waxman; Michael Robertson; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Sheila Weinmann; Marc Arbyn; Aruna Kamineni; Andrew E Williams; Inge M C M de Kok; Folkert van Kemenade; Terry S Field; Joost van Rosmalen; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jack Cuzick; Philip E Castle; William C Hunt; Alan Waxman; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Impact of Widespread Cervical Cancer Screening: Number of Cancers Prevented and Changes in Race-specific Incidence.

Authors:  Daniel X Yang; Pamela R Soulos; Brigette Davis; Cary P Gross; James B Yu
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.339

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.