Sheila Weinmann1, Andrew E Williams2, Aruna Kamineni3, Diana S M Buist3, Erin E Masterson1, Natasha K Stout4, Azadeh Stark5, Tyler R Ross3, Christopher L Owens6, Terry S Field6, Chyke A Doubeni7. 1. The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon. 2. Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, Maine. 3. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Geisinger Center for Health Research, Danville, Pennsylvania. 6. Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Fallon Community Health Plan, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening and follow-up guidelines have changed considerably in recent years, but to the authors' knowledge few published reports exist to estimate the impact of these changes in community-based settings. The authors examined the patterns and results of cervical cancer testing and follow-up over a decade in 4 geographically diverse US health care systems to inform the future evaluation of changes resulting from increased uptake of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: The authors studied women aged 21 to 65 years who were members of one of these health systems at any time between 1998 and 2007. Data were collected and standardized across sites, based on receipt of Papanicolaou (Pap) and HPV tests, HPV vaccination, cervical biopsies, and treatment of cervical dysplasia. Annual rates (per 1000 person-years) of Pap testing, HPV testing, and cervical biopsy and treatment procedures were calculated. Screening intervals and trends in the results of screening Pap tests and cervical biopsies also were examined. RESULTS: Pap testing rates decreased (from 483 per 1000 person-years in 2000 to 412 per 1000 person-years in 2007) and HPV testing rates increased over the study period. Screening frequency varied across health care systems, and many women continued to receive annual testing. All 4 sites moved to less frequent screening over the study period without marked changes in the overall use of cervical biopsy or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences over time and across health plans in rates of cervical cancer testing and follow-up cervical procedures, the authors found no notable differences in Pap test results, diagnostic or treatment procedure rates, or pathological outcomes. This finding suggests that the longer screening intervals did not lead to more procedures or more cancer diagnoses.
BACKGROUND:Cervical cancer screening and follow-up guidelines have changed considerably in recent years, but to the authors' knowledge few published reports exist to estimate the impact of these changes in community-based settings. The authors examined the patterns and results of cervical cancer testing and follow-up over a decade in 4 geographically diverse US health care systems to inform the future evaluation of changes resulting from increased uptake of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: The authors studied women aged 21 to 65 years who were members of one of these health systems at any time between 1998 and 2007. Data were collected and standardized across sites, based on receipt of Papanicolaou (Pap) and HPV tests, HPV vaccination, cervical biopsies, and treatment of cervical dysplasia. Annual rates (per 1000 person-years) of Pap testing, HPV testing, and cervical biopsy and treatment procedures were calculated. Screening intervals and trends in the results of screening Pap tests and cervical biopsies also were examined. RESULTS: Pap testing rates decreased (from 483 per 1000 person-years in 2000 to 412 per 1000 person-years in 2007) and HPV testing rates increased over the study period. Screening frequency varied across health care systems, and many women continued to receive annual testing. All 4 sites moved to less frequent screening over the study period without marked changes in the overall use of cervical biopsy or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences over time and across health plans in rates of cervical cancer testing and follow-up cervical procedures, the authors found no notable differences in Pap test results, diagnostic or treatment procedure rates, or pathological outcomes. This finding suggests that the longer screening intervals did not lead to more procedures or more cancer diagnoses.
Keywords:
Papanicolaou test; cervical cancer screening; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; health care delivery systems; human papillomavirus testing; implementation science; screening guideline
Authors: Denise Kruzikas; Jennifer S Smith; Carolyn Harley; Paul Buzinec Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Thomas C Wright; L Stewart Massad; Charles J Dunton; Mark Spitzer; Edward J Wilkinson; Diane Solomon Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Thomas C Wright; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; J Thomas Cox; Francisco Garcia; Sue Goldie; Kenneth Hatch; Kenneth L Noller; Nancy Roach; Carolyn Runowicz; Debbie Saslow Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mark E Sherman; Attila T Lorincz; David R Scott; Sholom Wacholder; Philip E Castle; Andrew G Glass; Iwona Mielzynska-Lohnas; Brenda B Rush; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 13.506
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
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
Authors: Michelle I Silver; Melissa L Anderson; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jennifer S Haas; Sarah Kobrin; Gaia Pocobelli; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jasmin A Tiro; Aruna Kamineni Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Sandi L Pruitt; Claudia L Werner; Eric K Borton; Joanne M Sanders; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Arti Barnes; Andrea C Betts; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Adana A M Llanos; Jennifer Tsui; David Rotter; Lindsey Toler; Antoinette M Stroup Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.809