• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

What is the Most Efficient Method for Cervical Cancer Screening?

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND: 

  • As part of the evidence report for the new USPSTF recommendations for cervical cancer screening recently released (see ‘Related ObG Topics’ below), a decision analysis using a disease simulation model was constructed  
  • Kim et al. (JAMA, 2018) modeled the benefits and harms of various cervical cancer screening strategies 

METHODS: 

  • Microsimulation model of a hypothetical cohort of women initiating screening at age 21 years 
  • The models looked at 19 strategies for cervical cancer screening, including 2 previous guideline-based strategies   
    • Previous guideline strategy 1: Cytology alone every 3 years from ages 21 to 65 years  
    • Previous guideline strategy 2: Cytology alone every 3 years from ages 21 to 29 years, with a switch to cytology and hrHPV cotesting every 5 years from ages 30 to 65 years 
    • Primary HPV testing strategies    
  • Outcomes assessed risks and benefits 
    • Harms: Total number of cytology and hrHPV tests (including screening, triage, and surveillance) | Colposcopies | FP screening results  
    • Benefits: CIN 2 and CIN 3 detected | CIN 3 or worse (CIN 3+) detected (including CIN 3 and cervical cancers detected through screening) | Cervical cancer cases and deaths averted | Life-years gained 
  • Efficient strategies  
    • More benefit and less harm than another strategy or  
    • Lower harm to benefit ratio than a strategy with less harms 

RESULTS: 

  • Compared with no screening, all modeled cervical cancer screening strategies were estimated to result in substantial reductions in cancer cases and deaths and gains in life-years 
  • The effectiveness of screening across the different strategies was estimated to be similar 
    • Primary hrHPV-based and alternative cotesting strategies have slightly higher effectiveness and greater harms than current guidelines-based cytology testing 
  • In all analyses, primary hrHPV testing strategies occurring at 5-year intervals were efficient 
  • In contrast, strategies involving 3-year hrHPV testing was less efficient with much higher harm/benefit ratios, ranging from 2188 to 3822 colposcopies per life-year gained 
  • In most analyses, strategies involving cotesting were not efficient 

CONCLUSION: 

  • From modeling, it was estimated that primary hrHPV screening demonstrated a reasonable balance of harms and benefits when performed every 5 years 
  • The most efficient harm/benefit strategy was converting from cytology to hrHPV at age 30

Learn More- Primary Sources: 

Screening for Cervical Cancer in Primary Care A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines: The Role of Pap and HPV
ASCCP Releases New Colposcopy Guidance:  A Risk-Based Approach
Guidance Update: Professional Organizations Align on Cervical Cancer Screening

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site