Literature DB >> 29981791

How confident can we be in the current guidelines for exiting cervical screening?

Patti E Gravitt1, Rebecca Landy2, Mark Schiffman3.   

Abstract

Current US guidelines recommend against cervical screening beyond age 65 in women who have had adequate negative screening. In anticipation of the next round of evidence review and guideline updates, we provide a critical review of the evidence supporting the exiting recommendation in the US, highlighting both practice changes and new insights into the epidemiology and natural history of HPV and cervical cancer. Current recommendations are based, by necessity, on cytology alone, and will be limited in generalizability to evolving screening strategies with co-testing and primary HPV testing. The lack of empirical data to define what constitutes 'adequate recent screening with negative results' is compounded by difficulties in predicting future risk without consideration of concepts of HPV latency and cohort effects of changing sexual behaviour in US women over time. We urge caution in extrapolating past risk experience in post-menopausal women to today's population, and suggest study designs to strengthen the evidence base in well-screened older women. We further recommend building the qualitative evidence base to better define the harms and benefits of screening among older women. Extending the lifetime of screening is a matter of finding the appropriate balance of benefits of cancer reduction and limitation of harms and costs of 'overscreening'. This will require moving beyond current emphasis on number of colposcopies as the metric of harm. Our commentary is meant to stimulate intellectual debate regarding the certainty of our existing knowledge base and set clear research priorities for the future.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Cervical screening; Exiting; Guidelines; HPV; Recommendations

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29981791     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.07.005

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


  6 in total

1.  Limitations of simulation models for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Anne Hammer; Rebecca Landy; Anne F Rositch; Patti E Gravitt
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 41.316

2.  Cervical Cancer Incidence Among Elderly Women in Massachusetts Compared With Younger Women.

Authors:  Sarah Feldman; Erin Cook; Michelle Davis; Susan T Gershman; Amresh Hanchate; Jennifer S Haas; Rebecca B Perkins
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  Frequency of high-grade squamous cervical lesions among women over age 65 years living with HIV.

Authors:  L Stewart Massad; Xianhong Xie; Howard L Minkoff; Katherine G Michel; Gypsyamber D'Souza; Chia-Ching Wang; Deborah Konkle-Parker; Igho Ofotokun; Margaret A Fischl; Lisa Rahangdale; Howard D Strickler
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 10.693

Review 4.  It's time to re-evaluate cervical Cancer screening after age 65.

Authors:  Sarah Dilley; Warner Huh; Batel Blechter; Anne F Rositch
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 5.304

5.  Triaging women with human papillomavirus infection and normal cytology or low-grade dyskaryosis: evidence from 10-year follow up of the ARTISTIC trial cohort.

Authors:  C Gilham; A Sargent; J Peto
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 6.531

6.  Expanding the upper age limit for cervical cancer screening: a protocol for a nationwide non-randomised intervention study.

Authors:  Mette Tranberg; Lone Kjeld Petersen; Klara Miriam Elfström; Anne Hammer; Jan Blaakær; Mary Holten Bennetsen; Jørgen Skov Jensen; Berit Andersen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.