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

@article{Moyer2012ScreeningFC,
  title={Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement},
  author={V. Moyer},
  journal={Annals of Internal Medicine},
  year={2012},
  volume={156},
  pages={880 - 891}
}
  • V. Moyer
  • Published 2012
  • Medicine
  • Annals of Internal Medicine
DESCRIPTION Update of the 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for cervical cancer. METHODS The USPSTF reviewed new evidence on the comparative test performance of liquid-based cytology and the benefits and harms of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a stand-alone test or in combination with cytology. In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a decision analysis to help clarify the age at which to begin and end… Expand
Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
TLDR
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 and screening women younger than 21 years does not provide significant benefit. Expand
Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
This modeling study supports current US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for cervical cancer screening and finds that screening women beginning in the early 20s provides a reasonable balance of the harms and benefits of screening. Expand
Screening for Cervical Cancer in Primary Care: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
It was estimated that primary hrHPV screening may represent a reasonable balance of harms and benefits when performed every 5 years, and switching from cytology to HRHPV testing at age 30 years yielded the most efficient harm to benefit ratio. Expand
NEW CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING GUIDELINES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC
TLDR
This paper compares the recommendations concerning the cervical cancer screening tools proposed by the most influential agencies and scientific societies in the last 3 years and concludes that HPV tests can be used as the primary screening test in patients starting from 30 years of age. Expand
The Korean guideline for cervical cancer screening
TLDR
The committee for cervical cancer screening in Korea updated the recommendation statement established in 2002, and the new version of the guideline was developed by the committee using evidence-based methods. Expand
Updated Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening
Abstract Cervical screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) has contributed substantially to the reduction in incidence and mortality of cervical cancer. Screening recommendations proposed by severalExpand
Screening for Cervical Cancer With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
Both hrHPV screening strategies had higher false-positive and colposcopy rates than cytology, which could lead to more treatments with potential harms, and the IPD meta-analysis found lower risk of invasive cervical cancer with any hr HPV screening compared with cytology alone. Expand
Effect of Several Negative Rounds of Human Papillomavirus and Cytology Co-testing on Safety Against Cervical Cancer
TLDR
Strong evidence suggests that the 3-year risk for CIN3 or invasive cervical cancer after negative HPV and cytology tests (that is, a negative co-test) is only slightly more reassuring than the 3 year risk forCIN3 after a negative HPV test, and analysis of co-testing results may be used to infer the safety of HPV testing every 3 years. Expand
Prevalence and determinants of cervical cancer screening with a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus testing.
TLDR
Benefits of co-testing should be better explained to women and health care providers and the likelihood of being screened with co- testing decreased with increasing age and decreasing annual household income. Expand
Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals Preferred by U.S. Women.
TLDR
Women's preference for longer cervical cancer screening intervals has increased rapidly and outpaced utilization, and expanding appropriate screening may require increasing women's and providers' comfort with screening recommendations. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 74 REFERENCES
Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
An analysis of the age at which to begin screening shows that screening with cytology in the teens is associated with a high number of false-positive test results and few detected cases of cancer, and analyses using the metric of colposcopies per life-year suggest that screening less frequently than annually beginning in the twenties might provide a reasonable trade-off between the burden and benefits of screening. Expand
Liquid-Based Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing to Screen for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
Evidence supports the use of LBC or conventional cytology for cervical cancer screening, but more complete evidence is needed before HPV-enhanced primary screening is widely adopted for women aged 30 years or older. Expand
Risk Factors and Other Epidemiologic Considerations for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
Based on available evidence, available evidence supports discontinuation of cervical cancer screening among women aged 65 years or older who have had adequate screening and are not otherwise at high risk of cancer. Expand
Screening for cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale.
TLDR
The USPSTF concludes that the benefits of screening substantially outweigh potential harms and the optimal starting and stopping age and interval for screening is limited. Expand
Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer.
TLDR
The addition of an HPV test to the Pap test to screen women in their mid-30s for cervical cancer reduces the incidence of grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer detected by subsequent screening examinations. Expand
Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cytology in women screened for cervical cancer in the United States, 2003-2005.
TLDR
High-risk HPV was widespread among women receiving cervical screening in the United States and many women 30 years of age or older with normal Pap tests would need follow-up if Hybrid Capture 2 testing is added to cytology screening. Expand
Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice.
TLDR
For women aged 30 years and older in routine clinical practice who are negative by co-testing (both HPV and cytology), 3-year screening intervals were safe because a single negative test for HPV was sufficient to reassure against cervical cancer over 5 years. Expand
Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral.
TLDR
Testing for HPV has higher sensitivity but lower specificity than thin-layer Pap screening, and screening for HPV DNA may be a reasonable alternative to cytology-based screening of reproductive-age women in some settings. Expand
Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer.
TLDR
HPV testing has greater sensitivity for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than Pap testing, and Triage procedures for Pap or HPV testing resulted in fewer referrals for colposcopy than did either test alone but were less sensitive. Expand
Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes.
  • Medicine
  • British medical journal
  • 1986
TLDR
Centrally organised screening programmes were more effective than uncoordinated screening and should be aimed principally at women aged 35-60 but should start some years before the age of 35, and the intervals between screening should be three years or less. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...