Literature DB >> 28606721

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

Philip E Castle1, Walter K Kinney2, Li C Cheung3, Julia C Gage3, Barbara Fetterman2, Nancy E Poitras2, Thomas S Lorey2, Nicolas Wentzensen3, Brian Befano4, John Schussler4, Hormuzd A Katki3, Mark Schiffman3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of cervical screening is to detect and treat precancers before some become cancer. We wanted to understand why, despite state-of-the-art methods, cervical cancers occured in relationship to programmatic performance at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), where >1,000,000 women aged ≥30years have undergone cervical cancer screening by triennial HPV and cytology cotesting since 2003.
METHODS: We reviewed clinical histories preceding cervical cancer diagnoses to assign "causes" of cancer. We calculated surrogate measures of programmatic effectiveness (precancers/(precancers and cancers)) and diagnostic yield (precancers and cancers per 1000 cotests), overall and by age at cotest (30-39, 40-49, and ≥50years).
RESULTS: Cancer was rare and found mainly in a localized (treatable) stage. Of 623 cervical cancers with at least one preceding or concurrent cotest, 360 (57.8%) were judged to be prevalent (diagnosed at a localized stage within one year or regional/distant stage within two years of the first cotest). Non-compliance with recommended screening and management preceded 9.0% of all cancers. False-negative cotests/sampling errors (HPV and cytology negative), false-negative histologic diagnoses, and treatment failures preceded 11.2%, 9.0%, and 4.3%, respectively, of all cancers. There was significant heterogeneity in the causes of cancer by histologic category (p<0.001 for all; p=0.002 excluding prevalent cases). Programmatic effectiveness (95.3%) and diagnostic yield were greater for squamous cell versus adenocarcinoma histology (p<0.0001) and both decreased with older ages (ptrend<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: A state-of-the-art intensive screening program results in very few cervical cancers, most of which are detected early by screening. Screening may become less efficient at older ages.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CIN3; Cervical cancer; Cotesting; Cytology; Human papillomavirus (HPV); Precancer

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28606721      PMCID: PMC5743197          DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.06.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  42 in total

Review 1.  Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer: biomarkers for improved prevention efforts.

Authors:  Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Patricia Luhn; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  Future Microbiol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.165

2.  Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations.

Authors:  Michelle Davis; Sarah Feldman
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2015-12

3.  Cervical Cancer Screening and Incidence by Age: Unmet Needs Near and After the Stopping Age for Screening.

Authors:  Mary C White; Meredith L Shoemaker; Vicki B Benard
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Human papillomavirus type 16 infections and 2-year absolute risk of cervical precancer in women with equivocal or mild cytologic abnormalities.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Diane Solomon; Mark Schiffman; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-07-20       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.

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

6.  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

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.

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

Review 9.  Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of benefits and harms of cryotherapy, LEEP, and cold knife conization to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  Nancy Santesso; Reem A Mustafa; Wojtek Wiercioch; Rohan Kehar; Shreyas Gandhi; Yaolong Chen; Adrienne Cheung; Jessica Hopkins; Rasha Khatib; Bin Ma; Ahmad A Mustafa; Nancy Lloyd; Darong Wu; Nathalie Broutet; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2015-11-28       Impact factor: 3.561

10.  The potential harms of primary human papillomavirus screening in over-screened women: a microsimulation study.

Authors:  Steffie K Naber; Inge M C M de Kok; Suzette M Matthijsse; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 2.506

View more
  15 in total

1.  Validation of a Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Cervical Screening Test That Provides Expanded HPV Typing.

Authors:  Maria Demarco; Olivia Carter-Pokras; Noorie Hyun; Philip E Castle; Xin He; Cher M Dallal; Jie Chen; Julia C Gage; Brian Befano; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Nancy Poitras; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Epidemiologic Evidence That Excess Body Weight Increases Risk of Cervical Cancer by Decreased Detection of Precancer.

Authors:  Megan A Clarke; Barbara Fetterman; Li C Cheung; Nicolas Wentzensen; Julia C Gage; Hormuzd A Katki; Brian Befano; Maria Demarco; John Schussler; Walter K Kinney; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Thomas S Lorey; Nancy E Poitras; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Screening for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Terresa J Eun; Rebecca B Perkins
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 5.456

4.  Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in California's Family Planning Program.

Authors:  Heike Thiel de Bocanegra; Sandy K Navarro; Narissa J Nonzee; Sitaram Vangala; Xinkai Zhou; Charlene Chang; Anna-Barbara Moscicki
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Summary of Current Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Test Results: 2016-2020.

Authors:  Rebecca B Perkins; Richard L Guido; Mona Saraiya; George F Sawaya; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman; Sarah Feldman
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Risks of CIN 2+, CIN 3+, and Cancer by Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Status: The Foundation of Risk-Based Cervical Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Maria Demarco; Thomas S Lorey; Barbara Fetterman; Li C Cheung; Richard S Guido; Nicolas Wentzensen; Walter K Kinney; Nancy E Poitras; Brian Befano; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  Contributions of Liquid-Based (Papanicolaou) Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cotesting for Detection of Cervical Cancer and Precancer in the United States.

Authors:  Harvey W Kaufman; Damian P Alagia; Zhen Chen; Agnieszka Onisko; R Marshall Austin
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 2.493

8.  Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin Tiro; William Barlow; Hongyuan Gao; John Lin; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Methods for Risk Estimation, Recommended Management, and Validation.

Authors:  Li C Cheung; Didem Egemen; Xiaojian Chen; Hormuzd A Katki; Maria Demarco; Amy L Wiser; Rebecca B Perkins; Richard S Guido; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.842

10.  Risk Estimates Supporting the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines.

Authors:  Didem Egemen; Li C Cheung; Xiaojian Chen; Maria Demarco; Rebecca B Perkins; Walter Kinney; Nancy Poitras; Brian Befano; Alexander Locke; Richard S Guido; Amy L Wiser; Julia C Gage; Hormuzd A Katki; Nicolas Wentzensen; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Thomas S Lorey
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.842

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.