Background: Current U.S. cervical cancer screening and management guidelines do not consider previous screening history, because data on multiple-round human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology "co-testing" have been unavailable. Objective: To measure cervical cancer risk in routine practice after successive negative screening co-tests at 3-year intervals. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Integrated health care system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California). Patients: 990 013 women who had 1 or more co-tests from 2003 to 2014. Measurements: 3- and 5-year cumulative detection of (risk for) cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer (≥CIN3) in women with different numbers of negative co-tests, overall and within subgroups defined by previous co-test results or baseline age. Results: Five-year ≥CIN3 risks decreased after each successive negative co-test screening round (0.098%, 0.052%, and 0.035%). Five-year ≥CIN3 risks for an HPV-negative co-test, regardless of the cytology result, nearly matched the performance (reassurance) of a negative co-test for each successive round of screening (0.114%, 0.061%, and 0.041%). By comparison, ≥CIN3 risks for the cytology-negative co-test, regardless of the HPV result, also decreased with each successive round, but 3-year risks were as high as 5-year risks after an HPV-negative co-test (0.199%, 0.065%, and 0.043%). No interval cervical cancer cases were diagnosed after the second negative co-test. Independently, ≥CIN3 risks decreased with age. Length of previous screening interval did not influence future ≥CIN3 risks. Limitation: Interval-censored observational data. Conclusion: After 1 or more negative cervical co-tests (or HPV tests), longer screening intervals (every 5 years or more) might be feasible and safe. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program.
Background: Current U.S. cervical cancer screening and management guidelines do not consider previous screening history, because data on multiple-round human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology "co-testing" have been unavailable. Objective: To measure cervical cancer risk in routine practice after successive negative screening co-tests at 3-year intervals. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Integrated health care system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California). Patients: 990 013 women who had 1 or more co-tests from 2003 to 2014. Measurements: 3- and 5-year cumulative detection of (risk for) cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer (≥CIN3) in women with different numbers of negative co-tests, overall and within subgroups defined by previous co-test results or baseline age. Results: Five-year ≥CIN3 risks decreased after each successive negative co-test screening round (0.098%, 0.052%, and 0.035%). Five-year ≥CIN3 risks for an HPV-negative co-test, regardless of the cytology result, nearly matched the performance (reassurance) of a negative co-test for each successive round of screening (0.114%, 0.061%, and 0.041%). By comparison, ≥CIN3 risks for the cytology-negative co-test, regardless of the HPV result, also decreased with each successive round, but 3-year risks were as high as 5-year risks after an HPV-negative co-test (0.199%, 0.065%, and 0.043%). No interval cervical cancer cases were diagnosed after the second negative co-test. Independently, ≥CIN3 risks decreased with age. Length of previous screening interval did not influence future ≥CIN3 risks. Limitation: Interval-censored observational data. Conclusion: After 1 or more negative cervical co-tests (or HPV tests), longer screening intervals (every 5 years or more) might be feasible and safe. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program.
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
Authors: Julia C Gage; Tina Raine-Bennett; Mark Schiffman; Megan A Clarke; Li C Cheung; Nancy E Poitras; Nicole E Varnado; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle; Brian Befano; Malini Chandra; Greg Rydzak; Thomas Lorey; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Anna Gottschlich; Dirk van Niekerk; Laurie W Smith; Lovedeep Gondara; Joy Melnikow; Darrel A Cook; Marette Lee; Gavin Stuart; Ruth E Martin; Stuart Peacock; Eduardo L Franco; Andrew Coldman; Mel Krajden; Gina Ogilvie Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 4.254
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
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