Trade-offs in Cervical Cancer Prevention: Balancing Benefits and Risks | Cancer Screening, Prevention, Control | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Ries  LAGMelbert  DKrapcho  M  et al.  SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2004, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/. Accessed June 2006
2.
American College of Obstetricians-Gynecologists, ACOG Practice Bulletin: Cervical Cytology Screening, Number 45, August 2003.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;83 (2) 237- 247PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Wright  TCJSchiffman  MSolomon  D  et al.  Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening.  Obstet Gynecol 2004;103 (2) 304- 309PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Smith  RACokkinides  VEyre  HJ Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects.  CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57 (2) 90- 104PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
 Screening for cervical cancer, topic page.January 2003. US Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Rockville, MDhttp://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspscerv.htm. Accessed June 2006
6.
Cuzick  JMayrand  MHRonco  GSnijders  PWardle  J Chapter 10: new dimensions in cervical cancer screening.  Vaccine 2006;24 ((suppl 3)) S90- S97PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
FUTURE II Study Group, Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions.  N Engl J Med 2007;356 (19) 1915- 1927PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Harper  DMFranco  ELWheeler  CM  et al.  Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16 and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial.  Lancet 2006;367 (9518) 1247- 1255PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Saslow  DCastle  PECox  JT  et al.  American Cancer Society guideline for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine use to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors.  CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57 (1) 7- 28PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56 (1) 1- 24PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Insinga  RPGlass  AGMyers  ERRush  BB Abnormal outcomes following cervical cancer screening: event duration and health utility loss.  Med Decis Making 2007;27 (4) 414- 422PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Maissi  EMarteau  TMHankins  MMoss  SMLegood  RGray  A The psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: 6-month follow-up.  Br J Cancer 2005;92 (6) 990- 994PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
McCaffery  KWaller  JNazroo  JWardle  J Social and psychological impact of HPV testing in cervical screening: a qualitative study.  Sex Transm Infect 2006;82 (2) 169- 174PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Goldie  SJKim  JJMyers  ER Chapter 19: cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening.  Vaccine 2006;24 ((suppl 3)) S164- S170PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Goldhaber-Fiebert  JDStout  NKOrtendahl  JKuntz  KMGoldie  SJSalomon  JA Modeling human papillomavirus and cervical cancer in the United States for analyses of screening and vaccination.  Popul Health Metr 2007;511PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Wright  TCMassad  LSDunton  CJ  et al.  2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.  Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197 (4) 340- 345PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wright  TCMassad  LSDunton  CJ  et al.  2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests.  Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197 (4) 346- 355PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Sirovich  BEWelch  HG The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States.  J Gen Intern Med 2004;19 (3) 243- 250PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Nanda  K McCrory  DCMyers  ER  et al.  Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review.  Ann Intern Med 2000;132 (10) 810- 819PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Arbyn  MSasieni  PMeijer  CJLMClavel  CKoliopoulos  GDillner  J Chapter 9: clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses.  Vaccine 2006;24 ((suppl 3)) S78- S89PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Arbyn  MBergeron  CKlinkhamer  PMartin-Hirsch  PSiebers  AGBulten  J Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Obstet Gynecol 2008;111 (1) 167- 177PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Ronco  GCuzick  JPierotti  P  et al.  Accuracy of liquid-based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial.  BMJ 2007;335 (7609) 28- 34PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Wright  JCWeinstein  MC Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions: standardizing data on outcomes.  N Engl J Med 1998;339 (6) 380- 386PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Irwin  KMontaño  DKasprzyk  D  et al.  Cervical cancer screening, abnormal cytology management, and counseling practices in the United States.  Obstet Gynecol 2006;108 (2) 397- 409PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Goldhaber-Fiebert  JDStout  NKSalomon  JAKuntz  KMGoldie  SJ Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination.  J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100 (5) 308- 320PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Sherlaw-Johnson  CPhillips  Z An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.  Br J Cancer 2004;91 (1) 84- 91PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Solomon  DBreen  N McNeel  T Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States and the potential impact of screening guidelines.  CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57 (2) 105- 111PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Franco  ELCuzick  JHildesheim  ADe Sanjose  S Chapter 20: issues in planning cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV vaccination.  Vaccine 2006;24 ((suppl 3)) S171- S177PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Anhang  RStryker  JEWright  TCJGoldie  SJ News media coverage of human papillomavirus.  Cancer 2004;100 (2) 308- 314PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
September 22, 2008

Trade-offs in Cervical Cancer Prevention: Balancing Benefits and Risks

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Program in Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1881-1889. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.17.1881
Abstract

Background  New screening and vaccination technologies will provide women with more options for cervical cancer prevention. Because the risk of cervical cancer diminishes with effective routine screening, women may wish to consider additional attributes, such as the likelihood of false-positive results and diagnostic procedures for mild abnormalities likely to resolve without intervention in their screening choices.

Methods  We used an empirically calibrated simulation model of cervical cancer in the United States to assess the benefits and potential risks associated with prevention strategies differing by primary screening test, triage test for abnormal results (cytologic testing, human papillomavirus [HPV] DNA test), and screening frequency. Outcomes included colposcopy referrals, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) types 1 and 2 or 3, lifetime cancer risk, and quality-adjusted life expectancy.

Results  Across strategies, colposcopy referrals and diagnostic workups varied 3-fold, although diagnostic rates of CIN 2 or 3 were similar and 95% of positive screening test results were for mild abnormalities likely to resolve on their own. For a representative group of a thousand 20-year-old women undergoing triennial screening for 10 years, we expect 1038 colposcopy referrals (7 CIN 2 or 3 diagnoses) from combined cytologic and HPV DNA testing and fewer than 200 referrals (6-7 CIN 2 or 3 diagnoses) for strategies that use triage testing. Similarly, for a thousand 40-year-old women, combined cytologic and HPV DNA testing led to 489 referrals (9 CIN 2 or 3), whereas alternative strategies resulted in fewer than 150 referrals (7-8 CIN 2 or 3). Using cytologic testing followed by triage testing in younger women minimizes both diagnostic workups and positive HPV test results, whereas in older women diagnostic workups are minimized with HPV DNA testing followed by cytologic triage testing.

Conclusions  Clinically relevant information highlighting trade-offs among cervical cancer prevention strategies allows for inclusion of personal preferences into women's decision making about screening and provides additional dimensions to the construction of clinical guidelines.

×