Joël Fokom Domgue1, Sonia A Cunningham2, Robert K Yu3, Sanjay Shete4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Houston, TX; Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Science, Houston, TX; Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Houston, TX. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Houston, TX. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Houston, TX; Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Science, Houston, TX; Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: sshete@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the United States, recommended options for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or older include cytology alone or a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (co-testing). Although there is a body of evidence suggesting that co-testing may be the preferred screening option in this group of women, little is known about the characteristics of women who screen for cervical cancer with co-testing. METHODS: A multistage area probability design-based survey was administered to a representative sample of Texas residents. Of the 1348 female respondents, 572 women aged 30 years or older were included in this analysis. Population-weighted survey logistic regression was used to identify determinants of cervical screening with co-testing versus screening with cytology alone. RESULTS: Women vaccinated against HPV (aOR: 4.48, 95% CI: 1.25-15.97) or hepatitis B virus [aOR: 2.48 (1.52-4.02)], those with a personal cancer history [aOR: 2.96 (1.29-6.77)], and hormonal contraception users [aOR: 2.03 (1.03-3.97)] were more likely to be screened with co-testing than with cytology alone. Moreover, the likelihood of being screened with co-testing decreased with increasing age and decreasing annual household income. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits and indications of co-testing should be better explained to women and health care providers.
PURPOSE: In the United States, recommended options for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or older include cytology alone or a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (co-testing). Although there is a body of evidence suggesting that co-testing may be the preferred screening option in this group of women, little is known about the characteristics of women who screen for cervical cancer with co-testing. METHODS: A multistage area probability design-based survey was administered to a representative sample of Texas residents. Of the 1348 female respondents, 572 women aged 30 years or older were included in this analysis. Population-weighted survey logistic regression was used to identify determinants of cervical screening with co-testing versus screening with cytology alone. RESULTS:Women vaccinated against HPV (aOR: 4.48, 95% CI: 1.25-15.97) or hepatitis B virus [aOR: 2.48 (1.52-4.02)], those with a personal cancer history [aOR: 2.96 (1.29-6.77)], and hormonal contraception users [aOR: 2.03 (1.03-3.97)] were more likely to be screened with co-testing than with cytology alone. Moreover, the likelihood of being screened with co-testing decreased with increasing age and decreasing annual household income. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits and indications of co-testing should be better explained to women and health care providers.
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Timothy P Johnson; Young Ik Cho; Jennifer A Walk Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lauri E Markowitz; Eileen F Dunne; Mona Saraiya; Herschel W Lawson; Harrell Chesson; Elizabeth R Unger Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2007-03-23
Authors: Marc T Goodman; Yurii B Shvetsov; Katharine McDuffie; Lynne R Wilkens; Xuemei Zhu; Pamela J Thompson; Lily Ning; Jeffrey Killeen; Lori Kamemoto; Brenda Y Hernandez Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Eric E Mast; Cindy M Weinbaum; Anthony E Fiore; Miriam J Alter; Beth P Bell; Lyn Finelli; Lance E Rodewald; John M Douglas; Robert S Janssen; John W Ward Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-12-08