The ASCCP Cervical Cancer Screening Task Force Endorsement and Opinion on the American Cancer Society Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna Z. Marcus ◽  
Patty Cason ◽  
Levi S. Downs ◽  
Mark H. Einstein ◽  
Lisa Flowers
Author(s):  
Rahel Ghebre ◽  
J. Michael Berry-Lawhorn ◽  
Gypsyamber D’Souza

Oropharyngeal, cervical, vulvar, and anal cancers share a common risk factor of HPV infection. HPV vaccination is currently recommended at age 11 or 12 to prevent new HPV infections for all genders with catch-up vaccination recommened up to age 26. Despite the known effectiveness of HPV vaccination to prevent HPV-related cancer, there is continued low uptake in the United States; only 40% of eligible persons were vaccinated in 2018, though rates are 70% among teenagers. Current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening, but do not have specific recommendations for screening for other HPV-related cancers. Oropharyngeal cancer precursors have yet to be identified, and there are currently no routine screening tests for oropharyngeal cancer recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society recommend cervical cancer screening for women at average risk up to age 65, and screening guidelines do not currently differ by HPV vaccination status. Primary HPV DNA testing was first approved for cervical cancer screening in 2016 and was shown to be superior for cervical cancer prevention. Vulvar and anal cancer precursors have been identified, but optimal screening remains unclear. Examination of the anal canal and perianus is best performed by trained clinicians using high-resolution anoscopy, and effectiveness of using high-resolution anoscopy to detect and treat anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to prevent cancer is actively being researched. Current multistep approaches to control HPV-related malignancies include HPV vaccination coupled with cervical cancer screening or surveillance for oropharyngeal, vulvar, and anal cancers.


2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth T. H. Fontham ◽  
Andrew M. D. Wolf ◽  
Timothy R. Church ◽  
Ruth Etzioni ◽  
Christopher R. Flowers ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243113
Author(s):  
Kimbroe J. Carter ◽  
Frank Castro ◽  
Roy N. Morcos

The objective of this study is to describe how screen-preventable loss of life (screen-PLL) can be used to analyze the distribution of life savings with mammographic screening. The determination of screen-PLL with mammography is possible using a natural history model of breast cancer that simulates clinical and pathologic events of this disease. This investigation uses a Monte Carlo Markov model with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; American Cancer Society; and National Vital Statistics System. Populations of one million women per screening strategy are simulated over a lifetime with mammographic screening based on current guidelines of the American Cancer Society (ACS), United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), triennial screening from age 50–70, and no screening. Screen-PLL curves are generated and show guideline performance over a lifetime. The screen-PLL curve with no screening is determined by tumor discovery through clinical awareness and has the highest values of screen-PLL. The ACS and USPSTF strategies demonstrate screen-PLL curves favoring the elderly. The curve for triennial screening is more uniform than the ACS or USPSTF curves but could be improved by adding screen(s) at either end of the 50–70 age range. This study introduces the use of screen-PLL as a tool to improve the understanding of screening guidelines and allowing a more balanced allocation of life savings across an aging population. The method presented shows how screen-PLL can be used to analyze and potentially improve breast cancer screening guidelines.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot Levine ◽  
Norman Ginsberg ◽  
Carlos Fernandez

Recommendations for cervical cancer screening have had remarkable agreement from a number of medical societies, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Cervical Colposcopy and Pathology (ASCCP), and the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). Reference to the recommended age for screening may need to be re-examined, in light of current data regarding the comparative age-related incidence of cervical malignancy, especially when recognizing the past utility of screening with exfoliative cytology in reducing subsequent mortality.


Author(s):  
James C. Quon

Background: 2017 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for screening cervical cancer and pre-malignant lesions advise that screenings cease for women over age 65, with qualifications. Recent literature has identified significant discrepancies in rates of cervical cancer in older women – if hysterectomies in this patient population is accounted for, cervical cancer incidence does not decline with age as previously established. This adjusted incidence of cervical cancer necessitates a re-examination of current practice.Methods: This study seeks to demonstrate the utility of extending the cervical cancer screening age recommendations to age 70. Cost effectiveness will be estimated, from a payer perspective, of extending screening to age 70 for the United States women’s population in those who have not undergone hysterectomy or otherwise been treated for past cervical cancer or premalignancy. A Markov model was constructed to project outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women aged 65 to 70, with a time horizon of lifetime. A Probability Sensitivity Analysis determined the robustness of the result, and the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is charted.Results: The economic evaluation of screening compared to none in this population was determined to be cost effective, with an ICER demonstrating a cost benefit, and Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) benefit, to extended screening.Conclusions: The sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of this result. Implementing extended screening guidelines could potentially be a significant gain for both patients and society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document