Mona Saraiya1, Vicki B Benard2, April A Greek3, Martin Steinau4, Sonya Patel4, L Stewart Massad5, George F Sawaya6, Elizabeth R Unger4. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: msaraiya@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 3. Battelle, Health & Analytics, Seattle, WA. 4. Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Chronic Viral Diseases Branch, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 6. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary cervical cancer screening strategy for women over age 30 is high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing combined with Papanicolaou (Pap) testing (cotesting) every 5 years. This combination strategy is a preventive service that is required by the Affordable Care Act to be covered with no cost-sharing by most health insurance plans. The cotesting recommendation was made based entirely on prospective data from an insured population that may have a lower proportion of women with HPV positive and Pap negative results (ie, discordant results). The discordant group represents a very difficult group to manage. If the frequency of discordant results among underserved women is higher, health care providers may perceive the cotesting strategy to be a less favorable screening strategy than traditional Pap testing every 3 years. STUDY DESIGN: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Cervical Cancer Study was conducted at 15 clinics in 6 federally qualified health centers across Illinois. Providers at these clinics were given the option of cotesting for routine cervical cancer screening. Type-specific HPV detection was performed on residual extracts using linear array. RESULTS: Pap test results were abnormal in 6.0% and HPV was positive in 7.2% of the underserved women screened in this study (mean age, 45.1 years). HPV prevalence decreased with age, from 10.3% among 30- to 39-year-olds to 4.5% among 50- to 60-year-olds. About 5% of the women had a combination of a positive HPV test and normal Pap test results; HPV 16/18 was identified in 14% of discordant women. CONCLUSION: The rate of discordant results among underserved women was similar to those reported throughout the US in a variety of populations. Typing for HPV 16/18 appears to assist in the management in a small proportion of women with discordant results. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: The primary cervical cancer screening strategy for women over age 30 is high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing combined with Papanicolaou (Pap) testing (cotesting) every 5 years. This combination strategy is a preventive service that is required by the Affordable Care Act to be covered with no cost-sharing by most health insurance plans. The cotesting recommendation was made based entirely on prospective data from an insured population that may have a lower proportion of women with HPV positive and Pap negative results (ie, discordant results). The discordant group represents a very difficult group to manage. If the frequency of discordant results among underserved women is higher, health care providers may perceive the cotesting strategy to be a less favorable screening strategy than traditional Pap testing every 3 years. STUDY DESIGN: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Cervical Cancer Study was conducted at 15 clinics in 6 federally qualified health centers across Illinois. Providers at these clinics were given the option of cotesting for routine cervical cancer screening. Type-specific HPV detection was performed on residual extracts using linear array. RESULTS: Pap test results were abnormal in 6.0% and HPV was positive in 7.2% of the underserved women screened in this study (mean age, 45.1 years). HPV prevalence decreased with age, from 10.3% among 30- to 39-year-olds to 4.5% among 50- to 60-year-olds. About 5% of the women had a combination of a positive HPV test and normal Pap test results; HPV 16/18 was identified in 14% of discordant women. CONCLUSION: The rate of discordant results among underserved women was similar to those reported throughout the US in a variety of populations. Typing for HPV 16/18 appears to assist in the management in a small proportion of women with discordant results. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
HPV testing; Pap test; cotesting; genotying; underserved populations
Authors: Vicki B Benard; Mona Saraiya; April Greek; Nikki A Hawkins; Katherine B Roland; Diane Manninen; Donatus U Ekwueme; Jacqueline W Miller; Elizabeth R Unger Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Nancy E Poitras; Li Cheung; Franklin Demuth; Mark Schiffman; Sholom Wacholder; Philip E Castle Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 41.316
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
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Mona Saraiya; Helen I Meissner; David A Haggstrom; Louise Wideroff; Gigi Yuan; Zahava Berkowitz; William W Davis; Vicki B Benard; Steven S Coughlin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas C Wright; L Stewart Massad; Charles J Dunton; Mark Spitzer; Edward J Wilkinson; Diane Solomon Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Ruth Shaber; Walter Kinney Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Lavinia Lin; Vicki B Benard; April Greek; Nikki A Hawkins; Katherine B Roland; Mona Saraiya Journal: Prev Med Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: N J Murphy; L R Bulkow; M Steinau; E F Dunne; E Meites; L E Markowitz; E R Unger; T W Hennessy Journal: Infect Agent Cancer Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 2.965