NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Screening for Cervical Cancer

Screening for Cervical Cancer

Systematic Evidence Reviews, No. 25

, MD, PhD, , MS, , MD, MHS, , MD, and , MD.

Research Triangle Institute/University of North Carolina

Structured Abstract

Context:

Methods that improve detection of serious cervical lesions while minimizing excess screening are the key to advancing cervical cancer prevention.

Objective:

To examine the evidence about benefits and harms of screening among older women (ages 65 and older) and those who have had hysterectomies, and to examine the diagnostic performance of new technologies and human papilloma virus (HPV) testing for detecting cervical lesions.

Data Sources:

We identified English-language articles on cervical neoplasia, cervical dysplasia, and screening from a comprehensive search of the MEDLINE database from 1995 through June 2000. In addition, we used published systematic reviews, the second Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, and peer review to assure a complete update of specific topics.

Study Selection:

We included articles that reported on screening for squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix if they included the age distribution of the study population and presented analyses stratified by age or if they included hysterectomy status as a covariate. For diagnostic tools, we required that the test be used as part of a screening strategy, that the method be compared with a reference standard, and that all cells of a 2x2 table can be completed.

Data Extraction:

We extracted the following data from articles addressing screening among older women and those who have had a hysterectomy: study design, objectives, location and timeframe, source of the data (e.g., population-based registry), participants, screening program used, outcomes and measures, and results relevant to age and screening interval. For articles about diagnostic tests, we extracted study design, test methods, location, patient population, outcome measures (emphasizing documentation of the reference standard), prevalence of lesions, and test characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. We used scoring checklists to summarize strengths of the publications; we also evaluated the validity of each article and the overall quality of the evidence.

Data Synthesis:

The evidence about age and hysterectomy is observational, predominantly from population- or care-based data. The findings are consistent: risk of cervical cancer or abnormalities falls with age; high-grade and more severe lesions are detected in fewer than 1 per 1,000 Pap tests among women older than 60 who have had prior screening; and longer histories of prior normal Pap tests further reduces risk. After hysterectomy, high-grade vaginal lesions are rare, fewer than 2 to 4 per 10,000 tests. The literature about new diagnostic tools is limited by lack of histologically validated performance. Using tools such as liquid cytology, neural-net rescreening, and computer-based review algorithms improves sensitivity; however, this improvement is predominantly for detection of low-grade lesions. The impact on specificity is poorly documented. Sensitivity of HPV testing for screening detection of high-grade lesions is competitive with conventional cytology (roughly 82%); specificity is lower (78%); and negative predictive value is good (99%). For triage of women with abnormal Pap tests, sensitivity for detecting high-grade lesions is 85%, specificity is 60%, and negative predictive value is 97%.

Conclusion:

The yield of screening among older women who have been previously screened decreases with age; if recommendations are not modified, older women are disproportionately likely to have evaluations for false-positive findings. The prior recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force to discontinue Pap testing after hysterectomy for benign disease is supported. For making decisions about screening modality in US populations, evidence about these new technologies for cytology screening and HPV testing is currently limited. Controlled trials and prospective cost evaluation of new screening strategies in each of these areas are required. Important trials will be completed in 2001 that may clarify our conclusions.

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1 Contract No. 290-97-0011, Task Order No. 3. Technical Support of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Prepared by: Research Triangle Institute/University of North Carolina.2

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

AHRQ is the lead Federal agency charged with supporting research designed to improve the quality of health care, reduce its cost, address patient safety and medical errors, and broaden access to essential services. AHRQ sponsors and conducts research that provides evidence-based information on health care outcomes; quality; and cost, use, and access. The information helps health care decisionmakers -- patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers -- make more informed decisions and improve the quality of health care services.

The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of a particular drug, device, test, treatment, or other clinical service.

1

2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD 20852. www‚Äč.ahrq.gov

2

3040 Cornwallis Road, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

Bookshelf ID: NBK42831PMID: 20722121

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...