Literature DB >> 28279259

Protection against cervical cancer versus decreasing harms from screening - What would U.S. patients and clinicians prefer, and do their preferences matter?

Walter K Kinney1, Warner K Huh2.   

Abstract

The primary goal for many providers in the United States has been to deliver the level of protection against cervical cancer afforded by annual cervical cytology while improving screening test performance. Adoption of recent screening recommendations has been inconsistent and has created considerable consternation and confusion. This editorial addresses the perspective of U.S. patients and providers and how their preferences may run counter to current screening recommendations.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Cervix; HPV; Screening

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28279259      PMCID: PMC5536951          DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  ACOG committee opinion. Recommendations on frequency of Pap test screening. Number 152--March 1995. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.561

3.  Increased cervical cancer risk associated with screening at longer intervals.

Authors:  Walter Kinney; Thomas C Wright; Helen E Dinkelspiel; Mark DeFrancesco; J Thomas Cox; Warner Huh
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 131: Screening for cervical cancer.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Introduction of molecular HPV testing as the primary technology in cervical cancer screening: Acting on evidence to change the current paradigm.

Authors:  Joseph E Tota; James Bentley; Jennifer Blake; François Coutlée; Máire A Duggan; Alex Ferenczy; Eduardo L Franco; Michael Fung-Kee-Fung; Walter Gotlieb; Marie-Hélène Mayrand; Meg McLachlin; Joan Murphy; Gina Ogilvie; Sam Ratnam
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 6.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna M 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; David Chelmow; Abbe Herzig; Jane J Kim; Walter Kinney; W Lawson Herschel; Jeffrey Waldman
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  The population impact of human papillomavirus/cytology cervical cotesting at 3-year intervals: Reduced cervical cancer risk and decreased yield of precancer per screen.

Authors:  Michelle I Silver; Mark Schiffman; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Julia C Gage; Nicolas Wentzensen; Thomas Lorey; Walter K Kinney; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Reassurance against future risk of precancer and cancer conferred by a negative human papillomavirus test.

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

Review 9.  Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening.

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

10.  Quality of life after complete lymphadenectomy for vulvar cancer: do women prefer sentinel lymph node biopsy?

Authors:  Rhonda Farrell; Val Gebski; Neville F Hacker
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.437

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Role of Screening History in Clinical Meaning and Optimal Management of Positive Cervical Screening Results.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Walter K Kinney; Xiaonan Xue; Li C Cheung; Julia C Gage; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas S Lorey; Hormuzd A Katki; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Cervical cancer screening: Epidemiology as the necessary but not sufficient basis of public health practice.

Authors:  Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  HPV-based cervical cancer screening- facts, fiction, and misperceptions.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Marc Arbyn
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  The Next Generation of Cervical Cancer Screening: Should Guidelines Focus on Best Practices for the Future or Current Screening Capacity?

Authors:  Phil Castle; Sarah Feldman; Rebecca B Perkins
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.925

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.