Michelle I Silver1, Mark Schiffman1, Barbara Fetterman2, Nancy E Poitras2, Julia C Gage1, Nicolas Wentzensen1, Thomas Lorey2, Walter K Kinney3, Philip E Castle4. 1. Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Regional Laboratory, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Berkeley, California. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of cervical screening is to detect and treat precancer to prevent cervical cancer mortality and morbidity while minimizing overtreatment of benign human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and related minor abnormalities. HPV/cytology cotesting at extended 5-year intervals currently is a recommended screening strategy in the United States, but the interval extension is controversial. In the current study, the authors examined the impact of a decade of an alternative, 3-year cotesting, on rates of precancer and cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The effect on screening efficiency, defined as numbers of cotests/colposcopy visits needed to detect a precancer, also was considered. METHODS: Two cohorts were defined. The "open cohort" included all women screened at least once during the study period; > 1 million cotests were performed. In a fixed "long-term screening cohort," the authors considered the cumulative impact of repeated screening at 3-year intervals by restricting the cohort to women first cotested in 2003 through 2004 (ie, no women entering screening later were added to this group). RESULTS: Detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3/adenocarcinoma in situ (CIN3/AIS) increased in the open cohort (2004-2006: 82.0/100,000 women screened; 2007-2009: 140.6/100,000 women screened; and 2010-2012: 126.0/100,000 women screened); cancer diagnoses were unchanged. In the long-term screening cohort, the detection of CIN3/AIS increased and then decreased to the original level (2004-2006: 80.5/100,000 women screened; 2007-2009: 118.6/100,000 women screened; and 2010-2012: 84.9./100,000 women screened). The number of cancer diagnoses was found to decrease. When viewed in terms of screening efficiency, the number of colposcopies performed to detect a single case of CIN3/AIS increased in the cohort with repeat screening. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated cotesting at a 3-year interval eventually lowers population rates of precancer and cancer. However, a greater number of colposcopies are required to detect a single precancer. Cancer 2016;122:3682-6.
BACKGROUND: The objective of cervical screening is to detect and treat precancer to prevent cervical cancer mortality and morbidity while minimizing overtreatment of benign human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and related minor abnormalities. HPV/cytology cotesting at extended 5-year intervals currently is a recommended screening strategy in the United States, but the interval extension is controversial. In the current study, the authors examined the impact of a decade of an alternative, 3-year cotesting, on rates of precancer and cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The effect on screening efficiency, defined as numbers of cotests/colposcopy visits needed to detect a precancer, also was considered. METHODS: Two cohorts were defined. The "open cohort" included all women screened at least once during the study period; > 1 million cotests were performed. In a fixed "long-term screening cohort," the authors considered the cumulative impact of repeated screening at 3-year intervals by restricting the cohort to women first cotested in 2003 through 2004 (ie, no women entering screening later were added to this group). RESULTS: Detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3/adenocarcinoma in situ (CIN3/AIS) increased in the open cohort (2004-2006: 82.0/100,000 women screened; 2007-2009: 140.6/100,000 women screened; and 2010-2012: 126.0/100,000 women screened); cancer diagnoses were unchanged. In the long-term screening cohort, the detection of CIN3/AIS increased and then decreased to the original level (2004-2006: 80.5/100,000 women screened; 2007-2009: 118.6/100,000 women screened; and 2010-2012: 84.9./100,000 women screened). The number of cancer diagnoses was found to decrease. When viewed in terms of screening efficiency, the number of colposcopies performed to detect a single case of CIN3/AIS increased in the cohort with repeat screening. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated cotesting at a 3-year interval eventually lowers population rates of precancer and cancer. However, a greater number of colposcopies are required to detect a single precancer. Cancer 2016;122:3682-6.
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.493
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: Julia C Gage; Mark Schiffman; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: N W J Bulkmans; J Berkhof; L Rozendaal; F J van Kemenade; A J P Boeke; S Bulk; F J Voorhorst; R H M Verheijen; K van Groningen; M E Boon; W Ruitinga; M van Ballegooijen; P J F Snijders; C J L M Meijer Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marie-Hélène Mayrand; Eliane Duarte-Franco; Isabel Rodrigues; Stephen D Walter; James Hanley; Alex Ferenczy; Sam Ratnam; François Coutlée; Eduardo L Franco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Guglielmo Ronco; Joakim Dillner; K Miriam Elfström; Sara Tunesi; Peter J F Snijders; Marc Arbyn; Henry Kitchener; Nereo Segnan; Clare Gilham; Paolo Giorgi-Rossi; Johannes Berkhof; Julian Peto; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-11-03 Impact factor: 79.321
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
Authors: Ming Guo; Abha Khanna; Jianping Wang; Marilyn A Dawlett; Teresa L Kologinczak; Genevieve R Lyons; Roland L Bassett; Nour Sneige; Yun Gong; Therese B Bevers Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 5.284
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
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Joan Walker; Katie Smith; Michael A Gold; Rosemary Zuna; L Stewart Massad; Angela Liu; Michelle I Silver; S Terence Dunn; Mark Schiffman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Angela A Cleveland; Julia W Gargano; Ina U Park; Marie R Griffin; Linda M Niccolai; Melissa Powell; Nancy M Bennett; Kayla Saadeh; Manideepthi Pemmaraju; Kyle Higgins; Sara Ehlers; Mary Scahill; Michelle L Johnson Jones; Troy Querec; Lauri E Markowitz; Elizabeth R Unger Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: David Robert Grimes; Edward M A Corry; Talía Malagón; Ciaran O'Riain; Eduardo L Franco; Donal J Brennan Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-06-01