Literature DB >> 30140884

Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Susan J Curry1, Alex H Krist2,3, Douglas K Owens4,5, Michael J Barry6, Aaron B Caughey7, Karina W Davidson8, Chyke A Doubeni9, John W Epling10, Alex R Kemper11, Martha Kubik12, C Seth Landefeld13, Carol M Mangione14, Maureen G Phipps15, Michael Silverstein16, Melissa A Simon17, Chien-Wen Tseng18,19, John B Wong20.   

Abstract

Importance: The number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States has decreased substantially since the implementation of widespread cervical cancer screening and has declined from 2.8 to 2.3 deaths per 100 000 women from 2000 to 2015. Objective: To update the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 recommendation on screening for cervical cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for cervical cancer, with a focus on clinical trials and cohort studies that evaluated screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing alone or hrHPV and cytology together (cotesting) compared with cervical cytology alone. The USPSTF also commissioned a decision analysis model to evaluate the age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal interval for screening, the effectiveness of different screening strategies, and related benefits and harms of different screening strategies. Findings: Screening with cervical cytology alone, primary hrHPV testing alone, or cotesting can detect high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer. Screening women aged 21 to 65 years substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The harms of screening for cervical cancer in women aged 30 to 65 years are moderate. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years substantially outweigh the harms. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with both tests (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years outweigh the harms. Screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and women younger than 21 years does not provide significant benefit. Screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer provides no benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate to high certainty that screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer, screening women younger than 21 years, and screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer does not result in a positive net benefit. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cervical cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with hrHPV testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than 21 years. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer. (D recommendation).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30140884     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  224 in total

1.  Evaluating the Utility and Prevalence of HPV Biomarkers in Oral Rinses and Serology for HPV-related Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Authors:  Gypsyamber D'Souza; Gwendolyn Clemens; Tanya Troy; Rachel G Castillo; Linda Struijk; Tim Waterboer; Noemi Bender; Phillip M Pierorazio; Simon R Best; Howard Strickler; Dorothy J Wiley; Robert I Haddad; Marshall Posner; Carole Fakhry
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-08-16

Review 2.  Advances in technologies for cervical cancer detection in low-resource settings.

Authors:  Kathryn A Kundrod; Chelsey A Smith; Brady Hunt; Richard A Schwarz; Kathleen Schmeler; Rebecca Richards-Kortum
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 5.225

3.  PURL: USPSTF expands options for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Sonia Oyola; Emily White VanGompel
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 0.493

Review 4.  Addressing Disparities in Cancer Screening among U.S. Immigrants: Progress and Opportunities.

Authors:  Carolyn Y Fang; Camille C Ragin
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2020-03

5.  Changes in Coverage, Access, and Health Following Implementation of Healthy Behavior Incentive Medicaid Expansions vs. Traditional Medicaid Expansions.

Authors:  Daniel B Nelson; Benjamin D Sommers; Phillip M Singer; Emily K Arntson; Renuka Tipirneni
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana Sm Buist; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Kilian Kimbel; Hongyuan Gao; Chris Thayer; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Prevalence and determinants of cervical cancer screening with a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus testing.

Authors:  Joël Fokom Domgue; Sonia A Cunningham; Robert K Yu; Sanjay Shete
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.797

8.  Are uninsured women in a national screening program having longer intervals between cervical cancer screening tests?

Authors:  Shelton J Bartley; Vicki Benard; Eric Tai; Tanner Rockwell; Kristy Kenney; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Cervical Cancer Screening-Moving From the Value of Evidence to the Evidence of Value.

Authors:  George F Sawaya
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  A Primary Care Provider's Guide to Clinical Needs of Women With Spinal Cord Injury.

Authors:  Chloe Slocum; Molly Halloran; Cody Unser
Journal:  Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil       Date:  2020
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.