BACKGROUND: In 2012, updated cervical cancer screening recommendations were released with consensus on Papanicolaou (Pap) testing every 3 years for women age 21-65 years or Pap-human papillomavirus (HPV) cotesting at 5-year intervals for women age 30-65 years. Primary study aims: Assess current use of Pap-HPV cotesting and describe local population trends over time in Pap and Pap-HPV cotesting. Secondary aim: Assess sociodemographic factors correlating with screening. METHODS: We assessed Rochester Epidemiology Project data for Pap and Pap-HPV cotesting among women age 16 years and older living in Olmsted County, Minnesota, yearly from 2005 (study population n = 47,203) through 2016 (study population n = 49,510). We calculated 3-year (Pap) and 5-year (Pap-HPV) moving prevalence rates of screening as proportion of eligible population. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors potentially associated with screening. RESULTS: In 2016, 64.6% of 27,418 eligible 30- to 65-year-old women were up to date with cervical cancer screening; 60.8% had received Pap-HPV cotest screening. Significant declines in Pap completion rates over time were observed in all age groups, including an unexpected decline in 21- to 29-year-old women. Coincident with decreasing Pap screening rates, Pap-HPV cotesting significantly increased among women age 30-65 years, from 10.0% in 2007 to 60.8% in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests increasing adoption of 2012 screening recommendations in the 30- to 65-year-old population. However, decline in Pap screening among 21- to 29-year-old women is concerning. Disparities by race, ethnicity, smoking status, and comorbidity level were observed. Results suggest need for multilevel patient and clinician interventions to increase cervical cancer screening adherence.
BACKGROUND: In 2012, updated cervical cancer screening recommendations were released with consensus on Papanicolaou (Pap) testing every 3 years for women age 21-65 years or Pap-human papillomavirus (HPV) cotesting at 5-year intervals for women age 30-65 years. Primary study aims: Assess current use of Pap-HPV cotesting and describe local population trends over time in Pap and Pap-HPV cotesting. Secondary aim: Assess sociodemographic factors correlating with screening. METHODS: We assessed Rochester Epidemiology Project data for Pap and Pap-HPV cotesting among women age 16 years and older living in Olmsted County, Minnesota, yearly from 2005 (study population n = 47,203) through 2016 (study population n = 49,510). We calculated 3-year (Pap) and 5-year (Pap-HPV) moving prevalence rates of screening as proportion of eligible population. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors potentially associated with screening. RESULTS: In 2016, 64.6% of 27,418 eligible 30- to 65-year-old women were up to date with cervical cancer screening; 60.8% had received Pap-HPV cotest screening. Significant declines in Pap completion rates over time were observed in all age groups, including an unexpected decline in 21- to 29-year-old women. Coincident with decreasing Pap screening rates, Pap-HPV cotesting significantly increased among women age 30-65 years, from 10.0% in 2007 to 60.8% in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests increasing adoption of 2012 screening recommendations in the 30- to 65-year-old population. However, decline in Pap screening among 21- to 29-year-old women is concerning. Disparities by race, ethnicity, smoking status, and comorbidity level were observed. Results suggest need for multilevel patient and clinician interventions to increase cervical cancer screening adherence.
Entities:
Keywords:
adolescent health; gynecologic cancer; health disparities; sexually transmitted infections
Authors: Jacqueline W Miller; Janet Royalty; Jane Henley; Arica White; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-02-28 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna M 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; David Chelmow; Abbe Herzig; Jane J Kim; Walter Kinney; W Lawson Herschel; Jeffrey Waldman Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; David Cheng; Liyang Yu; Steven J Atlas; Cheryl Clark; Sarah Feldman; Michelle I Silver; Aruna Kamineni; Jessica Chubak; Gaia Pocobelli; Jasmin A Tiro; Sarah C Kobrin Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jennifer C Spencer; Noel T Brewer; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Justin G Trogdon; Morris Weinberger; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Ryan Suk; Meredith S Shiels; Haluk Damgacioglu; Yueh-Yun Lin; Elizabeth A Stier; Alan G Nyitray; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Gizem S Nemutlu; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Kathleen Schmeler; Keith Sigel; Kalyani Sonawane Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ruofei Du; Rachael Adcock; Walter Kinney; Nancy Joste; Ruth M McDonald; Kevin English; Salina M Torres; Debbie Saslow; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 5.304