Cargando…

Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers

Purpose. In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 yea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Holt, Hunter K., Kulasingam, Shalini, Sanstead, Erinn C., Alarid-Escudero, Fernando, Smith-McCune, Karen, Gregorich, Steven E., Silverberg, Michael J., Huchko, Megan J., Kuppermann, Miriam, Sawaya, George F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7440733/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32885045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468320952409
_version_ 1783573179490369536
author Holt, Hunter K.
Kulasingam, Shalini
Sanstead, Erinn C.
Alarid-Escudero, Fernando
Smith-McCune, Karen
Gregorich, Steven E.
Silverberg, Michael J.
Huchko, Megan J.
Kuppermann, Miriam
Sawaya, George F.
author_facet Holt, Hunter K.
Kulasingam, Shalini
Sanstead, Erinn C.
Alarid-Escudero, Fernando
Smith-McCune, Karen
Gregorich, Steven E.
Silverberg, Michael J.
Huchko, Megan J.
Kuppermann, Miriam
Sawaya, George F.
author_sort Holt, Hunter K.
collection PubMed
description Purpose. In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 years. It further recommended that women discuss with health care providers which testing strategy is best for them. To inform such discussions, we used decision analysis to estimate outcomes of screening strategies recommended for women at age 30. Methods. We constructed a Markov decision model using estimates of the natural history of HPV and cervical neoplasia. We evaluated the three USPSTF-endorsed strategies, hrHPV testing every 3 years and no screening. Outcomes included colposcopies with biopsy, false-positive testing (a colposcopy in which no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse was found), treatments, cancers, and cancer mortality expressed per 10,000 women over a shorter-than-lifetime horizon (15-year). Results. All strategies resulted in substantially lower cancer and cancer death rates compared with no screening. Strategies with the lowest likelihood of cancer and cancer death generally had higher likelihood of colposcopy and false-positive testing. Conclusions. The screening strategies we evaluated involved tradeoffs in terms of benefits and harms. Because individual women may place different weights on these projected outcomes, the optimal choice for each woman may best be discerned through shared decision making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7440733
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74407332020-09-02 Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers Holt, Hunter K. Kulasingam, Shalini Sanstead, Erinn C. Alarid-Escudero, Fernando Smith-McCune, Karen Gregorich, Steven E. Silverberg, Michael J. Huchko, Megan J. Kuppermann, Miriam Sawaya, George F. MDM Policy Pract Article Purpose. In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 years. It further recommended that women discuss with health care providers which testing strategy is best for them. To inform such discussions, we used decision analysis to estimate outcomes of screening strategies recommended for women at age 30. Methods. We constructed a Markov decision model using estimates of the natural history of HPV and cervical neoplasia. We evaluated the three USPSTF-endorsed strategies, hrHPV testing every 3 years and no screening. Outcomes included colposcopies with biopsy, false-positive testing (a colposcopy in which no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse was found), treatments, cancers, and cancer mortality expressed per 10,000 women over a shorter-than-lifetime horizon (15-year). Results. All strategies resulted in substantially lower cancer and cancer death rates compared with no screening. Strategies with the lowest likelihood of cancer and cancer death generally had higher likelihood of colposcopy and false-positive testing. Conclusions. The screening strategies we evaluated involved tradeoffs in terms of benefits and harms. Because individual women may place different weights on these projected outcomes, the optimal choice for each woman may best be discerned through shared decision making. SAGE Publications 2020-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7440733/ /pubmed/32885045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468320952409 Text en © The Author(s), 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Holt, Hunter K.
Kulasingam, Shalini
Sanstead, Erinn C.
Alarid-Escudero, Fernando
Smith-McCune, Karen
Gregorich, Steven E.
Silverberg, Michael J.
Huchko, Megan J.
Kuppermann, Miriam
Sawaya, George F.
Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers
title Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers
title_full Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers
title_fullStr Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers
title_full_unstemmed Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers
title_short Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers
title_sort discussing cervical cancer screening options: outcomes to guide conversations between patients and providers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7440733/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32885045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468320952409
work_keys_str_mv AT holthunterk discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT kulasingamshalini discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT sansteaderinnc discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT alaridescuderofernando discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT smithmccunekaren discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT gregorichstevene discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT silverbergmichaelj discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT huchkomeganj discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT kuppermannmiriam discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders
AT sawayageorgef discussingcervicalcancerscreeningoptionsoutcomestoguideconversationsbetweenpatientsandproviders