Excess Cost of Cervical Cancer Screening Beyond Recommended Screening Ages or After Hysterectomy in a Single Institution

Factors Associated With Guideline-concordant and Excessive Cervical Cancer Screening: A Mixed Methods Study

INTRODUCTION

National guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening with Papanicolaou (Pap) testing at 3-year intervals or with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing alone or HPV/Pap cotesting at 5-year intervals for average-risk individuals aged 30-65 years.

METHODS

We explored factors associated with clinician-reported guideline-concordant screening, as well as facilitators and barriers to appropriate cervical cancer screening.

RESULTS

A national sample of clinicians (N = 1,251) completed surveys; a subset (n = 55) completed interviews. Most (94%) reported that they screened average-risk patients aged 30-65 years with cotesting. Nearly all clinicians who were categorized as nonadherent to national guidelines were overscreening (98%). Guideline concordant screening was reported by 47% and 82% of those using cotesting and HPV testing, respectively (5-year intervals), and by 62% of those using Pap testing only (3-year intervals). Concordant screening was reported more often by clinicians who were aged <40 years, non-Hispanic, and practicing in the West or Midwest, and less often by obstetrician-gynecologists and private practice physicians. Concordant screening was facilitated by beliefs that updated guidelines were evidence-based and reduced harms, health care system dissemination of guidelines, and electronic medical record prompts. Barriers to concordant screening included using outdated guidelines, relying on personal judgment, concern about missing cancers, inappropriate patient risk assessment, and lack of support for guideline adoption through health care systems or electronic medical records.

CONCLUSIONS

Most clinicians screened with Pap/HPV cotesting and approximately one-half endorsed a 5-year screening interval. Clinician knowledge gaps include understanding the evidence underlying 5-year intervals and appropriate risk assessment to determine which patients should be screened more frequently. Education and tracking systems can promote guideline-concordant screening.

Non-use and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening among a representative sample of women in the United States

Introduction

Women's adherence to the United States (U.S.) Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for cervical cancer screening was determined by examining predisposing, enabling, and needs factors from Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use conceptual framework.

Methods

The outcome was operationalized as cervical cancer screening use, non-use, and inadequate-use. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted on data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey of 7,331 eligible women aged 21-65.

Results

Compared with women who used cervical cancer screening services, women aged 30-65 were less likely to be Non-Users than those aged 21-29. Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) women were more likely to be Non-Users than White women. More educated women were less likely to be Non-Users. Foreign-born women <10 years in the U.S. were more likely to be Non-Users than U.S.-born women. Women with financial hardship were less likely to be Non-Users. Poorer women and uninsured women were more likely to be Non-Users. Women with children in their household were less likely to be Non-Users than those without children. Women who had a well-visit in the past year were less likely to be Non-Users. Women with a history of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination were less likely to be Non-Users. Compared with women who used cervical cancer screening services, women aged 30-65 were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. AIAN women were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women of other races were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Employed women were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Uninsured women were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women who had a well-visit within a year were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women with past HPV vaccination were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Smokers were less likely to be Inadequate-Users.

Discussion

Predisposing, enabling, and needs factors are differently associated with non-use and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening. Understanding factors associated with the use, non-use, and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening is crucial to avoid or curb unnecessary tests, increased costs to both society and individuals, and the ill-allocation of limited resources.

Canadian Guideline on the Management of a Positive Human Papillomavirus Test and Guidance for Specific Populations

The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence-based guidance on the management of a positive human papilloma virus (HPV) test and to provide guidance around screening and HPV testing for specific patient populations. The guideline was developed by a working group in collaboration with the Gynecologic Oncology Society of Canada (GOC), Society of Colposcopists of Canada (SCC), and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The literature informing these guidelines was obtained through a systematic review of relevant literature by a multi-step search process led by an information specialist. The literature was reviewed up to July 2021 with manual searches of relevant national guidelines and more recent publications. The quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The intended users of this guideline include primary care providers, gynecologists, colposcopists, screening programs, and healthcare facilities. The implementation of the recommendations will ensure an optimum implementation of HPV testing with a focus on the management of positive results. Recommendations for appropriate care for underserved and marginalized groups are made.

Underscreening, overscreening, and guideline-adherent cervical cancer screening in a national cohort

OBJECTIVE

To explore rates of under- and overscreening for cervical cancer among a national cohort.

METHODS

The MarketScan database, a national administrative database of employee-sponsored insurance, was queried for elements relevant to cervical cancer screening among women aged 21-65 with 6 years of continuous enrollment (2015-2019). Average-risk women were defined as those without high-risk medical conditions or abnormal screening histories, and without evidence of hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for benign indications. Average-risk women were considered adequately screened if they had Pap tests alone at 2.5-3.5 year intervals, or HPV tests or co-tests at 4.5-5.5 year intervals. Logistic regressions were used to predict the odds of receiving guideline-adherent screening, underscreening, and overscreening.

RESULTS

Among 1,872,809 eligible patients, 1,471,063 (78.5%) qualified for routine screening. Of these, only 18.1% received guideline-adherent screening, and 25.4% were unscreened during the 6-year period. Younger women (aged 21-39) were more likely to be overscreened [OR 1.46]. Older women (aged 50-64) were more likely to be underscreened or unscreened during the study period [OR 2.54]. Guideline-adherent screening was highest with HPV testing alone (80%) followed by co-testing (44%), and lowest with cytology alone (15%). A total of 329,062 women in this general population sample (18%) met high-risk criteria that required increased frequency of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

High rates of both underscreening and overscreening indicate a need for additional strategies to improve guideline-adherent care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

Test Performance of Cervical Cytology Among Adults With vs Without Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

Importance

Current US cervical cancer screening guidelines do not differ by human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status. However, as the positive predictive value (PPV) of a screening test decreases, the risk of a false-positive result increases.

Objective

To evaluate whether HPV vaccination is associated with decreased PPV for abnormal cervical cytology.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study conducted via electronic medical record review included eligible patients aged 21 to 35 years who had at least 1 cervical cytology result within a single health system between January 2015 and December 2018. The health system comprises a partnership between an academic health center and a private not-for-profit health center. Patients with abnormal screening cytology and no diagnostic test results were omitted from analysis. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to November 2021.

Exposures

HPV vaccination, defined as receiving at least 1 dose of HPV vaccine. Subgroup analyses were performed for those completing all vaccination doses per Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices guidelines and by age at vaccination initiation, dichotomized as younger than 21 years vs 21 years or older.

Main Outcomes and Measures

PPV of abnormal cervical cytology for risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or more severe diagnosis.

Results

A total of 46 988 patients (mean [SD] age, 28.7 [4.5] years; 3058 [6.5%] Asian; 4159 [8.9%] Black or African American; 35 446 [75.4%] White) were included; 15 494 (33.0%) were at least partially vaccinated, and 4289 (9.1%) had abnormal cytology results during the study period. Among the individuals with abnormal cytology, the PPV for CIN 2 or more severe diagnosis was lower among vaccinated individuals (17.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-18.4%) than unvaccinated individuals (21.3%; 95% CI, 20.4%-22.3%). Among vaccinated individuals, PPV was significantly lower among those completing vaccination (15.9%; 95% CI, 14.9%-17.0%) than those with incomplete vaccination (22.4%; 95% CI, 20.0%-25.0%), especially among those initiating vaccination when younger than 21 years (11.9%; 95% CI, 10.9%-12.9%) vs those initiating at age 21 years or older (30.7%; 95% CI, 27.3%-34.4%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among a population with relatively low HPV vaccine coverage, the PPV of cervical cytology for CIN 2 or more severe diagnosis was significantly lower among vaccinated individuals. PPV will likely further decrease in the future as a population with higher HPV vaccination coverage ages into screening. Confirmation of these results will call for changes in screening strategies, particularly for completely vaccinated individuals who initiated vaccination when younger than 21 years.

Unindicated cervical cancer screening in adolescent females within a large healthcare system in the United States

BACKGROUND

Current consensus recommendations are to not initiate cervical cancer screening for immunocompetent adolescent females before 21 years of age. This is in part because of the very low rate of 0.8 per 100,000 new cervical cancer cases diagnosed among women aged between 20 to 24 years. Timely human papillomavirus vaccination further decreases the incidence of cervical cancer to 4 cases per 100,000 persons by the age of 28 years. Screening before 21 years of age has demonstrated no clear benefit in cancer risk reduction or outcomes. In addition, unindicated screening among adolescents can lead to patient harm and increasing costs to the healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE

It is important to assess the rates of overutilization of cervical cancer screening and to identify areas where improvements have occurred and where further opportunities exist. This study aimed to assess the trends over time and the practice and provider factors associated with unindicated cervical cancer screening tests in adolescent females within the largest healthcare system in the state.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional data from patients aged 13 to 20 years who underwent cervical cancer screening between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018, across a large multihospital health system were reviewed. All cervical cancer screening results were included. The incidence rate of unindicated screening was analyzed over 6-month intervals using the Poisson regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study included data from 118 providers and 794 women. Among the 900 screening results, most (90%) were unindicated: 87% with unindicated cytology testing alone and 14% with unindicated human papillomavirus testing. Screening tests were collected from patients aged 13 to 20 years, many of whom had multiple unindicated cytology tests, with 25 patients having ≥3 tests before the age of 21 years. Most results of cytology testing were negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (77%). Moreover, 52 invasive diagnostic or therapeutic procedures (49 colposcopies and 3 conizations) were performed, of which 45 (87%) followed an unindicated screening test. Between 2012 and 2018, the incidence rate of unindicated cytology decreased by 33% (12.6 to 8.5 unindicated cytology per 1000 encounters). The incidence rate of unindicated screening was lower in the academic setting than in the community setting (incidence rate ratio, 0.43; P<.01). Even with decreases in the overall rates of unindicated screening throughout the study period, there were still 58 unindicated screening tests performed in the final year of this study.

CONCLUSION

Despite substantial reductions in unindicated screening for women aged <21 years, there remained areas for improvement. Our data reflected practices of guideline nonadherence up to 7 years after the 2012 guideline. Now, with a new series of changes to the guidelines, which may be even more challenging for patients and providers, it is more important than ever to utilize evidence-based strategies to improve guideline dissemination and adherence.

National Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in Adolescents

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To characterize patterns of cervical cancer screening among adolescents ages 14-20 years before and after the 2009 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommendations.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2005-2016 data.

PARTICIPANTS

Female adolescents and young women ages 14-26 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Multivariable logistic regression models identified independent predictors of unindicated cervical cancer screening at office-based visits among adolescents ages 14-20 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cervical cancer screening in women ages 14-20 and 21-26 years in 2 time periods: 2005-2008 and 2009-2016.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2016, 11,768 office visits were among adolescents ages 14-20 years. Overall, the cervical cancer screening rate for young women ages 14-20 years was 4.0%, which decreased from 4.5% to 0.4% (P = .008) during the study period. Adolescents who received cervical cancer screening during an office visit were older (18-20 years: 24.1% vs 14-17 years: 8.2%; P < .001), had a preventive care visit (preventive care: 79.7% vs other visit types: 20.3%; P < .001), and saw an obstetrician/gynecologist (obstetrician/gynecologist: 74.81% vs other specialties: 25.1%; P < .001). After adjusting for age, year, period, insurance status, region, and provider type, screening for cervical cancer was associated with living in the Southern region of the United States (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.25; P = .02) and public insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47, 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.64; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations, cervical cancer screening continued to occur in the adolescent population-especially older adolescents-creating unnecessary costs and potential harms. These findings show a slow uptake of guidelines nationally and the need for initiatives that encourage implementation of performance measures for providers, including ongoing provider and patient education.

Prevalence of Cervical Cancer Overscreening: Review of a Wellness Registry

Appropriately matching preventive health services and screenings with patient risk is an important quality indicator. Adherence by both providers and patients to cervical cancer screening guidelines has been inconsistent, resulting in overscreening and increased costs. This study examined the prevalence of cervical cancer overscreening following changes in screening guidelines in a wellness registry database. Cervical cancer overscreening after guideline implementation decreased for 18- to 20-year-old patients from 26.8% to 24.8% (P < .001) and increased for those aged 65 years and older from 11.1% to 12.5% (P = .0005). Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid insurance, and the presence of a personal health record were associated with overscreening. Reliability and accuracy of data are a concern when data intended for one purpose, such as clinical care, are used for research. Correctly identifying screening tests in the electronic health record is important so that appropriate screening can be reliably assessed. In this study on the prevalence of cervical cancer overscreening, we used a focused chart review to identify whether screening Pap tests were accurately identified in the electronic medical record. Pap tests were correctly identified as screening in 85% of those aged 18 to 20, and in 74% of those aged 65 and older.

MiR-34b regulates cervical cancer cell proliferation and apoptosis

Objectives: MiR-34b is a tumour suppressor in different kinds of carcinomas. This study investigated the role of miR-34b in proliferation and apoptosis of cervical cancer. Materials and methods: The expression of miR-34b in 60 cervical cancer patients were quantified by RT-PCR and correlated with their clinicopathological parameters. Besides, there is a significant reverse relationship between miR-43b and TGF-β1 expression in tumour tissues. Cell proliferation and apoptosis was detected by CCK-8 assays and flow cytometry in cell lines transfected with miR-34b mimics. Western blotting, quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and luciferase assays were conducted to analyze the regulation of TGF-β1 by miR-34b in cell lines. Results: Here, we found expression of miR-34b to be downregulated in cervical cancer in comparison with the adjacent normal tissues. Expression levels of miR-34b were associated with enhanced malignant potential, such as tumour stage and stromal invasion. The overexpression of miR-34b potently suppressed cell proliferation and induced the apoptosis of cell lines. Conclusions: MiR-34b and TGF-β1 contribute to cervical cancer cell proliferation and apoptosis and are potential targets for cervical cancer therapeutics.

Can nudge-interventions address health service overuse and underuse? Protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Nudge-interventions aimed at health professionals are proposed to reduce the overuse and underuse of health services. However, little is known about their effectiveness at changing health professionals' behaviours in relation to overuse or underuse of tests or treatments.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to systematically identify and synthesise the studies that have assessed the effect of nudge-interventions aimed at health professionals on the overuse or underuse of health services.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic review. All study designs that include a control comparison will be included. Any qualified health professional, across any specialty or setting, will be included. Only nudge-interventions aimed at altering the behaviour of health professionals will be included. We will examine the effect of choice architecture nudges (default options, active choice, framing effects, order effects) and social nudges (accountable justification and pre-commitment or publicly declared pledge/contract). Studies with outcomes relevant to overuse or underuse of health services will be included. Relevant studies will be identified by a computer-aided search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases. Two independent reviewers will screen studies for eligibility, extract data and perform the risk of bias assessment using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We will report our results in a structured synthesis format, as recommended by the Cochrane EPOC group.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required for this study. Results will be presented at relevant scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed literature.