An advocacy victory: final USPSTF cervical cancer screening recommendations revised to include cotesting option

Significant outcomes associated with high-risk human papillomavirus negative Papanicolaou tests

INTRODUCTION

The 2020 American Cancer Society guidelines preferred primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for cervical cancer prevention. Studies investigating the role of cytology in detection of cervical precancer/cancer have focused on high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) or worse interpretations. Here, we have examined the significance of all those cytology results that require histologic follow-up as per the current management guidelines, regardless of the HPV test result.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A database search (September 2010 to December 2019) retrieved cervical Papanicolaou tests with any of the following interpretations: ≥ atypical squamous cells - cannot exclude HSIL or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, HSIL cannot be excluded, and ≥ atypical glandular cells, not otherwise specified and its subcategories. Of these, those with concurrent negative HPV test result were included for further analysis. For this cohort, relevant clinical history and histologic follow-up (within 1 year) were recorded.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 763 patients. Of them, 586 (76.8%) patients had histologic follow-up: 53 (9.0%) had ≥ HSIL/adenocarcinoma in situ; of which, 43 (81.1%) had prior abnormal cytology/histology/not otherwise specified history and/or HPV positivity, and 66 (11.3%) had HPV-unassociated neoplasia; of which, 60 (90.9%) had a known diagnosis or clinical signs/symptoms of the disease.

CONCLUSION

With widespread adoption of risk-based approach to management, the role of cytology, by itself, will likely diminish in the detection of HPV-associated lesions. Additional data regarding the role of cytology in the screening of patients with no/unknown/limited history and in the detection/management of HPV-independent lesions may be helpful for designing future screening guidelines.

Should screening for cervical cancer go to primary human papillomavirus testing and eliminate cytology?

This review will systematically highlight the pros and cons of cervical cancer screening with HPV (human papillomavirus) testing and cytological methods (Papanicolaou (Pap) test). When comparing the screening modalities, various facets will be addressed, such as cost effectiveness, and harms and benefits across different demographics and age groups. It is important to note that due to the expansive variance in material costs, practices, and resource availability across different geographical regions, these comparisons are far from straight forward, and ultimately make it challenging to render definitive global recommendations. Thus, the intent of this review is to highlight some of the differences in difference cervical cancer screening modalities that can help one to choose an optimal screening method in their specific situation.

Precision Prevention: The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors

The approach to cervical cancer prevention has evolved significantly over the past two decades. HPV immunization has decreased the specificity of screening modalities and HPV-based testing has been replacing our previously successful morphology-only approach. Additionally, there is much more emphasis on providing precision prevention, rather than the previously used “one-fits-all” management strategies. A number of new biomarkers are entering clinical practice and being integrated into cervical cancer screening and management in order to enable a more personalized assessment of the risk for precancer/cancer for an individual patient. The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines expand on the concept of “equal management for equal risk”. They consider a patient’s history in addition to current test results to provide recommendations for increased surveillance/treatment in patients at higher risk for CIN3+ while minimizing interventions for lower-risk patients who have new versus persistent HPV infection. Clinical management decisions are based on immediate risk and 5-year risk estimates for CIN3+, which are determined by referencing an extensive risk table compiled by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The course of action for a given patient is recommended by comparison of the risk in the risk database, to the predetermined clinical action thresholds. These guidelines address the need for simplification and offer some stability for the provider while being conducive to the incorporation of anticipated continued technologic advances in methods for cervical cancer prevention. Their enduring nature will allow for changes needed based on risk reduction as HPV vaccination uptake increases and vaccinated women reach screening age. Similarly, the design allows for the addition of new tests into the risk assessment calculations after their approval by applicable regulatory agencies and review/consensus approval by the ASCCP new technology and enduring guidelines workgroups. As cytopathologists, we must be familiar with the scientific advancements in primary and secondary prevention, evolving screening and management guidelines, and participate actively in the multidisciplinary approach for the prevention of cervical cancer.

Moving forward-the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors and beyond: implications and suggestions for laboratories

The 2019 ASCCP Risk Based Management Consensus Guidelines for prevention of cervical cancer promote clinical management recommendations aligned with our increased understanding of HPV biology and cervical carcinogenesis. They employ HPV-based testing as the basis for risk estimation, allow for personalized risk-based management by incorporating knowledge of current results with prior results, and streamline incorporation of new test methods as they are validated. They continue to support the principles of "equal management for equal risk" and "balancing harms and benefits" adopted in the 2012 version of the guidelines. These updated guidelines will be able to adjust for decreasing CIN3+ risks as more patients who received HPV vaccination reach screening age. Pathology organizations were closely involved in the development of these guidelines. Herein the pathologists who served as representatives to the 2019 ASCCP guidelines steering committee and workgroups, summarize the changes that are relevant to laboratories, pathologists, and cytotechnologists. Prior relevant screening and reporting recommendations that have not been widely and/or inconsistently adopted by laboratories are also discussed and considerations for modification of laboratory practices offered.

The Management of Women's Health Care by Internists With a Focus on the Utility of Ultrasound

Adult women require routine care for the acute and chronic health problems found in both sexes, and they require specialized care for women's health problems, including disease prevention, disease screening, and disease management. Internists should direct primary care and participate in specialized care and to the extent possible follow guidelines published by various professional organizations. They should understand the use of ultrasound in breast cancer screening, the management of pregnancy, and other gynecologic problems, including vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain, and investigation for pelvic malignancy. Finally, all management decisions need discussions on the potential benefit or harm in each step of a woman's care with an emphasis on personal preferences.

The impact of primary HPV screening on the incidence of cervical cancer in New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to evaluate the impact on the incidence of cervical cancer in New Zealand of 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening compared with 3-yearly cytology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Unbiased estimates of the screening test sensitivity of HPV and cytology screening, and screening coverage, were used to calculate the reduction in cervical cancer incidence obtained by current cytology screening and the new HPV screening policy.

RESULTS

HPV screening in New Zealand is predicted to increase the incidence of cervical cancer in women being screened by 81.7% (95% CI: 38.9%-124.7%). The overall increase in the population incidence of cervical cancer in New Zealand was estimated to be 46.7% (95% CI 42.6%-50.8%), leading to about 57 more women developing cervical cancer each year.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that lengthening the screening interval concurrently with changing to HPV testing may reduce the protection from invasive cervical cancer for women. Women in New Zealand should continue to be screened by cytology every 3 years. Changes to screening policy should be carefully designed so that changes in screening effectiveness can be accurately measured.