Literature DB >> 26467929

Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations.

Michelle Davis1, Sarah Feldman2.   

Abstract

OPINION STATEMENT: Since the publication of the American Cancer Society (ACS)/American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)/American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) clinical guidelines in 2012, the majority of practice organizations have reached a consensus on screening recommendations for a low-risk population. These guidelines were based on a thorough review of the evidence with reproducible methods to obtain high-quality, generalizable guidelines. Despite the strength of the evidence based recommendations comprising these guidelines, limitations in physician understanding and compliance remain with respect to reaching an unscreened population and defining and caring for women who are at "high risk." "High-risk" patients are poorly characterized but should include women with a history of a prior abnormal screening, as data has shown a subsequent increased risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or greater, even after treatment. These women warrant more intense screening than the general population-though there are no evidence-based guidelines for optimized screening protocols in this population. Emerging data in cervical cancer screening this year includes the FDA approval of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. While the data is promising, its role in clinical practice, impact on rates of colposcopy in a non-study population, and long-term outcomes are not fully understood, and ongoing research is needed. Challenges remain in this shifting environment on the optimal interval and modality for cervical cancer screening to provide the greatest benefit in detection of precancerous lesions while minimizing the harm of overtreatment. While rapid advancements in research provide improved knowledge on how to treat and prevent this disease, it is often difficult for providers across multiple specialties to remain abreast of these changes and to educate their patients about the most current recommendations. Ultimately, provider and patient education is critical both for improving primary prevention with HPV vaccination, as well as for the uptake of evidence-based screening and management guidelines aimed at detecting and treating precancerous changes of the cervix.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Practice guidelines; Review; Screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26467929     DOI: 10.1007/s11864-015-0373-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol        ISSN: 1534-6277


  45 in total

1.  Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

Authors:  Warner K Huh; Kevin A Ault; David Chelmow; Diane D Davey; Robert A Goulart; Francisco A R Garcia; Walter K Kinney; L Stewart Massad; Edward J Mayeaux; Debbie Saslow; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson; Mark H Einstein
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 2.  The next generation of HPV vaccines: nonavalent vaccine V503 on the horizon.

Authors:  Archana Chatterjee
Journal:  Expert Rev Vaccines       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 5.217

3.  National human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years-National Immunization Survey--teen, United States, 2011.

Authors:  C Robinette Curtis; Christina Dorell; David Yankey; Jenny Jeyarajah; Harrell Chesson; Mona Saraiya; Rebecca Gold; Eileen F Dunne; Shannon Stokley
Journal:  MMWR Suppl       Date:  2014-09-12

Review 4.  The known unknowns of HPV natural history.

Authors:  Patti E Gravitt
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 14.808

5.  Long-term absolute risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse following human papillomavirus infection: role of persistence.

Authors:  Susanne K Kjær; Kirsten Frederiksen; Christian Munk; Thomas Iftner
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Cancer statistics, 1998.

Authors:  S H Landis; T Murray; S Bolden; P A Wingo
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-04-11       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cytology in women screened for cervical cancer in the United States, 2003-2005.

Authors:  S Deblina Datta; Laura A Koutsky; Sylvie Ratelle; Elizabeth R Unger; Judith Shlay; Tracie McClain; Beth Weaver; Peter Kerndt; Jonathan Zenilman; Michael Hagensee; Cristen J Suhr; Hillard Weinstock
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Five-year risk of recurrence after treatment of CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS: performance of HPV and Pap cotesting in posttreatment management.

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

10.  Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study.

Authors:  Joakim Dillner; Matejka Rebolj; Philippe Birembaut; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Anne Szarewski; Christian Munk; Silvia de Sanjose; Pontus Naucler; Belen Lloveras; Susanne Kjaer; Jack Cuzick; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Christine Clavel; Thomas Iftner
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-10-13
View more
  10 in total

1.  Relative Performance of HPV and Cytology Components of Cotesting in Cervical Screening.

Authors:  Mark Schiffman; Walter K Kinney; Li C Cheung; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas S Lorey; Nicolas Wentzensen; Brian Befano; John Schussler; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention in 78 Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinics-United States, 2014-2015.

Authors:  Emily McGinnis; Beth E Meyerson; Elissa Meites; Mona Saraiya; Rebecca Griesse; Emily Snoek; Laura Haderxhanaj; Lauri E Markowitz; William Smith
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.830

3.  Why does cervical cancer occur in a state-of-the-art screening program?

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Walter K Kinney; Li C Cheung; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas S Lorey; Nicolas Wentzensen; Brian Befano; John Schussler; Hormuzd A Katki; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-06-10       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Detection of 14 High-Risk Human Papillomaviruses Using Digital LAMP Assays on a Self-Digitization Chip.

Authors:  Jiasi Wang; Jeannette P Staheli; Andrew Wu; Jason E Kreutz; Qiongzheng Hu; Jingang Wang; Thomas Schneider; Bryant S Fujimoto; Yuling Qin; Gloria S Yen; Bob Weng; Kara Shibley; Halia Haynes; Rachel L Winer; Qinghua Feng; Daniel T Chiu
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 6.986

5.  Perceived cervical cancer risk among women treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: The importance of specific knowledge.

Authors:  Sonia Andersson; Karen Belkić; Selin Safer Demirbüker; Miriam Mints; Ellinor Östensson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Cervical cancer screening in a low-resource setting: a pilot study on an HPV-based screen-and-treat approach.

Authors:  Margot Kunckler; Fanny Schumacher; Bruno Kenfack; Rosa Catarino; Manuela Viviano; Eveline Tincho; Pierre-Marie Tebeu; Liliane Temogne; Pierre Vassilakos; Patrick Petignat
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2017-06-04       Impact factor: 4.452

7.  Piwil2 is reactivated by HPV oncoproteins and initiates cell reprogramming via epigenetic regulation during cervical cancer tumorigenesis.

Authors:  Dingqing Feng; Keqin Yan; Ying Zhou; Haiyan Liang; Jing Liang; Weidong Zhao; Zhongjun Dong; Bin Ling
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-10-04

8.  Is self-sampling to test for high-risk papillomavirus an acceptable option among women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia?

Authors:  Sonia Andersson; Karen Belkić; Miriam Mints; Ellinor Östensson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Sociodemographic characteristics, sexual behaviour and knowledge about cervical cancer prevention as risk factors for high-risk human papillomavirus infection in Arkhangelsk, North-West Russia.

Authors:  Elena Roik; Ekaterina Sharashova; Olga Kharkova; Evert Nieboer; Vitaly Postoev; Jon Ø Odland
Journal:  Int J Circumpolar Health       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.228

10.  Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Li Chen; Li-Ping Liu; Na Wen; Xiao Qiao; Yuan-Guang Meng
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2019-10-26       Impact factor: 1.337

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.