Jin Qin1, Shahram Shahangian2, Mona Saraiya3, Hunter Holt4, Maribeth Gagnon2, George F Sawaya5. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, CDC, USA. Electronic address: jqin@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Laboratory Systems, CDC, USA. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, CDC, USA. 4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests during 2013-2019 among commercially insured women. METHODS: The study population included women of all ages with continuous enrollment each year in the IBM MarketScan commercial or Medicare supplemental databases and without known history of cervical cancer or precancer (range = 6.9-9.8 million women per year). Annual cervical cancer screening test use was examined by three modalities: cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing (cotesting), and HPV testing alone. Trends were assessed using 2-sided Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of cytology alone decreased from 34.2% in 2013 to 26.4% in 2019 among women aged 21-29 years (P < .0001). Among women aged 30-64 years, use of cytology alone decreased from 18.9% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2019 (P < .0001), whereas cotesting use increased from 14.9% in 2013 to 19.3% in 2019 (P < .0001). Annual test use for HPV testing alone was below 0.5% in all age groups throughout the study period. Annually, 8.7%-13.6% of women aged 18-20 years received cervical cancer screening. There were persistent differences in screening test use by metropolitan residence and census regions despite similar temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal changes in the use of cervical cancer screening tests among commercially insured women track changes in clinical guidelines. Screening test use among individuals younger than 21 years shows that many young women are inappropriately screened for cervical cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests during 2013-2019 among commercially insured women. METHODS: The study population included women of all ages with continuous enrollment each year in the IBM MarketScan commercial or Medicare supplemental databases and without known history of cervical cancer or precancer (range = 6.9-9.8 million women per year). Annual cervical cancer screening test use was examined by three modalities: cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing (cotesting), and HPV testing alone. Trends were assessed using 2-sided Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of cytology alone decreased from 34.2% in 2013 to 26.4% in 2019 among women aged 21-29 years (P < .0001). Among women aged 30-64 years, use of cytology alone decreased from 18.9% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2019 (P < .0001), whereas cotesting use increased from 14.9% in 2013 to 19.3% in 2019 (P < .0001). Annual test use for HPV testing alone was below 0.5% in all age groups throughout the study period. Annually, 8.7%-13.6% of women aged 18-20 years received cervical cancer screening. There were persistent differences in screening test use by metropolitan residence and census regions despite similar temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal changes in the use of cervical cancer screening tests among commercially insured women track changes in clinical guidelines. Screening test use among individuals younger than 21 years shows that many young women are inappropriately screened for cervical cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cervical cancer screening; Cytology; HPV test; Screening guidelines; Trends
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: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Michelle I Silver; Anne F Rositch; Anne E Burke; Katie Chang; Raphael Viscidi; Patti E Gravitt 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: Julia Warner Gargano; Ina U Park; Marie R Griffin; Linda M Niccolai; Melissa Powell; Nancy M Bennett; Michelle L Johnson Jones; Erin Whitney; Manideepthi Pemmaraju; Monica Brackney; Nasreen Abdullah; Mary Scahill; Rebecca M Dahl; Angela A Cleveland; Elizabeth R Unger; Lauri E Markowitz Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Chun Chao; Michael J Silverberg; Tracy A Becerra; Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Qiaoling Chen; Virginia P Quinn Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Michelle I Silver; Anne F Rositch; Darcy F Phelan-Emrick; Patti E Gravitt Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Kathy L MacLaughlin; Robert M Jacobson; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Patrick M Wilson; Debra J Jacobson; Chun Fan; Jennifer L St Sauver; Lila J Finney Rutten Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Rebecca B Perkins; Richard S Guido; Philip E Castle; David Chelmow; Mark H Einstein; Francisco Garcia; Warner K Huh; Jane J Kim; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Ritu Nayar; Mona Saraiya; George F Sawaya; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: S Jane Henley; Robert N Anderson; Cheryll C Thomas; Greta M Massetti; Brandy Peaker; Lisa C Richardson Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2017-07-07