Nicolas Wentzensen1, Joan Walker2, Katie Smith2, Michael A Gold3, Rosemary Zuna2, L Stewart Massad4, Angela Liu5, Michelle I Silver5, S Terence Dunn2, Mark Schiffman5. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: wentzenn@mail.nih.gov. 2. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 3. Tulsa Cancer Institute and University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine, Tulsa, OK. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 5. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sensitivity for detection of precancers at colposcopy and reassurance provided by a negative colposcopy are in need of systematic study and improvement. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate whether selecting the appropriate women for multiple targeted cervical biopsies based on screening cytology, human papillomavirus testing, and colposcopic impression could improve accuracy and efficiency of cervical precancer detection. STUDY DESIGN: In all, 690 women aged 18-67 years referred to colposcopy subsequent to abnormal cervical cancer screening results were included in the study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00339989). Up to 4 cervical biopsies were taken during colposcopy to evaluate the incremental benefit of multiple biopsies. Cervical cytology, human papillomavirus genotyping, and colposcopy impression were used to establish up to 24 different risk strata. Outcomes for the primary analysis were cervical precancers, which included p16+ cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 and all cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 that were detected by colposcopy-guided biopsy during the colposcopy visit. Later outcomes in women without cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ at baseline were abstracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: The risk of detecting precancer ranged from 2-82% across 24 strata based on colposcopy impression, cytology, and human papillomavirus genotyping. The risk of precancer in the lowest stratum increased only marginally with multiple biopsies. Women in the highest-risk strata had risks of precancer consistent with immediate treatment. In other risk strata, multiple biopsies substantially improved detection of cervical precancer. Among 361 women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia <2 at baseline, 195 (54%) had follow-up cytology or histology data with a median follow-up time of 508 days. Lack of detection of precancer at initial colposcopy that included multiple biopsies predicted low risk of precancer during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Risk assessment at the colposcopy visit makes identification of cervical precancers more effective and efficient. Not finding precancer after a multiple-biopsy protocol provides high reassurance and allows releasing women back to regular screening. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Sensitivity for detection of precancers at colposcopy and reassurance provided by a negative colposcopy are in need of systematic study and improvement. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate whether selecting the appropriate women for multiple targeted cervical biopsies based on screening cytology, human papillomavirus testing, and colposcopic impression could improve accuracy and efficiency of cervical precancer detection. STUDY DESIGN: In all, 690 women aged 18-67 years referred to colposcopy subsequent to abnormal cervical cancer screening results were included in the study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00339989). Up to 4 cervical biopsies were taken during colposcopy to evaluate the incremental benefit of multiple biopsies. Cervical cytology, human papillomavirus genotyping, and colposcopy impression were used to establish up to 24 different risk strata. Outcomes for the primary analysis were cervical precancers, which included p16+ cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 and all cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 that were detected by colposcopy-guided biopsy during the colposcopy visit. Later outcomes in women without cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ at baseline were abstracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: The risk of detecting precancer ranged from 2-82% across 24 strata based on colposcopy impression, cytology, and human papillomavirus genotyping. The risk of precancer in the lowest stratum increased only marginally with multiple biopsies. Women in the highest-risk strata had risks of precancer consistent with immediate treatment. In other risk strata, multiple biopsies substantially improved detection of cervical precancer. Among 361 women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia <2 at baseline, 195 (54%) had follow-up cytology or histology data with a median follow-up time of 508 days. Lack of detection of precancer at initial colposcopy that included multiple biopsies predicted low risk of precancer during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Risk assessment at the colposcopy visit makes identification of cervical precancers more effective and efficient. Not finding precancer after a multiple-biopsy protocol provides high reassurance and allows releasing women back to regular screening. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
biopsy; cervical cancer screening; colposcopy; precancer; risk
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: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 7.661
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: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: L Stewart Massad; Mark H Einstein; Warner K Huh; Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; L Stewart Massad; Edward J Mayeaux; Michelle J Khan; Alan G Waxman; Mark H Einstein; Christine Conageski; Mark H Schiffman; Michael A Gold; Barbara S Apgar; David Chelmow; Kim K Choma; Teresa M Darragh; Julia C Gage; Francisco A R Garcia; Richard S Guido; Jose A Jeronimo; Angela Liu; Cara A Mathews; Martha M Mitchell; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Akiva P Novetsky; Theognosia Papasozomenos; Rebecca B Perkins; Michelle I Silver; Katie M Smith; Elizabeth A Stier; Candice A Tedeschi; Claudia L Werner; Warner K Huh Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Michelle J Khan; Philip E Castle; David Chelmow; Warner K Huh; Anna Barbara Moscicki; Colleen K Stockdale; Teresa M Darragh; Michelle Silver; Richard S Guido Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Joan L Walker; Michael A Gold; Katie M Smith; Rosemary E Zuna; Cara Mathews; S Terence Dunn; Roy Zhang; Katherine Moxley; Erin Bishop; Meaghan Tenney; Elizabeth Nugent; Barry I Graubard; Sholom Wacholder; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman; S Terence Dunn; Rosemary E Zuna; Joan Walker; Richard A Allen; Roy Zhang; Mark E Sherman; Sholom Wacholder; Jose Jeronimo; Michael A Gold; Sophia S Wang Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J van der Marel; R van Baars; A Rodriguez; W G V Quint; M M van de Sandt; J Berkhof; M Schiffman; A Torné; J Ordi; D Jenkins; R H M Verheijen; Th J M Helmerhorst; B Ter Harmsel; N Wentzensen; M Del Pino Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-09-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Michelle I Silver; Jeff Andrews; Charles K Cooper; Julia C Gage; Michael A Gold; Michelle J Khan; L Stewart Massad; Valentin Parvu; Rebecca B Perkins; Mark Schiffman; Katie M Smith; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.661