Search

This is the fourth American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)-sponsored consensus guidelines for management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities, after the original consensus conferences in 20011 and subsequent updates in 20062 and 2012.3 An interim guidance publication providing management recommendations for primary HPV screening was released in 2015.4 This document updates and replaces all previous guidance. The key difference between 2019 guidelines and previous versions is the change from primarily test results–based algorithms (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for patients with HPV-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL],” etc.) to primarily “risk-based” guidelines (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for any combination of history and current test results yielding a 4.0% or greater probability of finding CIN 3+,” etc.). See Box 1 for essential changes. Tables of risk estimates for possible combinations of current screening test results and screening history (including unknown history) have been generated from a prospective longitudinal cohort of more than 1.5 million patients followed for more than a decade at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). All KPNC estimates of risk underlying guideline decisions are detailed in the accompanying article by Egemen et al.5 The applicability of these risk estimates to other United States regions and populations has been confirmed in other data sets from screening programs and clinical trials.6 Many patients, especially those with minor abnormalities, can be managed by identifying their risk level using Tables 1A to 5B in Egemen et al5 and linking it to a recommended clinical action (return to routine screening, surveillance with repeat testing at 1- or 3-year intervals, colposcopy, or treatment). To facilitate use of these tables, the same information will be accessible via smartphone app (for purchase) and web (no cost) through http://www.asccp.org. Decision aids may facilitate use of the tables.7 Common abnormalities are managed using risk estimates outlined in Section E, and rare abnormalities are managed via the result-specific consensus recommendations outlined in Sections G-K. Box 1. Essential Changes From Prior Management Guidelines 1) Recommendations are based on risk, not results. Recommendations of colposcopy, treatment, or surveillance will be based on a patient's risk of CIN 3+ determined by a combination of current results and history (including unknown history). The same current test results may yield different management recommendations depending on the history of recent past test results. 2) Colposcopy can be deferred for certain patients. Repeat HPV testing or cotesting at 1 year is recommended for patients with minor screening abnormalities indicating HPV infection with low risk of underlying CIN 3+ (e.g., low-grade cytologic abnormalities after a documented negative screening HPV test or cotest). At the 1-year follow-up test, referral to colposcopy is recommended if results remain abnormal. 3) Guidance for expedited treatment is expanded (i.e., treatment without colposcopic biopsy). Expedited treatment was an option for patients with HSIL cytology in the 2012 guidelines; this guidance is now better defined. For nonpregnant patients 25 years or older, expedited treatment, defined as treatment without preceding colposcopic biopsy demonstrating CIN 2+, is preferred when the immediate risk of CIN 3+ is ≥60%, and is acceptable for those with risks between 25% and 60%. Expedited treatment is preferred for nonpregnant patients 25 years or older with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology and concurrent positive testing for HPV genotype 16 (HPV 16) (i.e., HPV 16–positive HSIL cytology) and never or rarely screened patients with HPV-positive HSIL regardless of HPV genotype. Shared decision-making should be used when considering expedited treatment, especially for patients with concerns about the potential impact of treatment on pregnancy outcomes. 4) Excisional treatment is preferred to ablative treatment for histologic HSIL (CIN 2 or CIN 3) in the United States. Excision is recommended for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). 5) Observation is preferred to treatment for CIN 1. Treatment remains acceptable for patients with repeat diagnoses of CIN 1 persisting 2 years or more. 6) Histopathology reports based on Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST)/World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for reporting histologic HSIL should include CIN 2 or CIN 3 qualifiers, i.e., HSIL(CIN 2) and HSIL (CIN 3). 7) All positive HPV tests, regardless of genotype, should have additional reflex triage testing performed from the same laboratory specimen (e.g., reflex cytology). Additional testing from the same laboratory specimen is recommended because the findings may inform colposcopy practice. For example, those with HSIL cytology and concurrent positive testing for HPV genotype 16 qualify for expedited treatment. HPV 16 or 18 infections have the highest risk for CIN 3 and occult cancer, so additional evaluation (e.g., colposcopy with biopsy) is necessary even when cytology results are negative. If HPV 16 and 18 testing is positive, and additional laboratory testing of the same sample is not feasible, the patient should proceed directly to colposcopy. 8) Continued surveillance with HPV testing or cotesting at 3-year intervals for at least 25 years is recommended after treatment of histologic HSIL, CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS. Continued surveillance at 3-year intervals beyond 25 years is acceptable for as long as the patient's life expectancy and ability to be screened are not significantly compromised by serious health issues. The 2012 guidelines recommended return to 5-year screening intervals and did not specify when screening should cease. New evidence indicates that risk remains elevated for at least 25 years, with no evidence that treated patients ever return to risk levels compatible with 5-year intervals. Surveillance with cytology alone is acceptable only if testing with HPV or cotesting is not feasible. Cytology is less sensitive than HPV testing for detection of precancer and is therefore recommended more often. Cytology is recommended at 6-month intervals when HPV testing or cotesting is recommended annually. Cytology is recommended annually when 3-year intervals are recommended for HPV or cotesting. 9) Human papilloma virus assays that are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for screening should be used for management according to their regulatory approval in the United States. (Note: all HPV testing in this document refers to testing for high-risk HPV types only). For all management indications, HPV mRNA and HPV DNA tests without FDA approval for primary screening alone should only be used as a cotest with cytology, unless sufficient, exceptionally rigorous data are available to support primary HPV testing in management. The minimum amount of data required to generate a recommendation will include the patient's age and current test results, as we recognize that previous screening history is often not known. Increased precision of management guidance will be possible if information is available on test results within the past 5 years and previous precancer treatment within the past 25 years.3 Current results and past history are designed to generate the patient's risk estimate from data tables.5 Risk estimates are available for the following clinical situations: abnormal screening test results with unknown history, abnormal screening test results with medical record documentation of a preceding negative HPV test or cotest, surveillance of previous abnormal screening test results that did not require immediate colposcopic referral (e.g., follow-up after an HPV-positive cytology negative result), colposcopy/biopsy results, and follow-up surveillance tests after colposcopy or after treatment for, or resolution of, high-grade abnormalities (e.g., CIN 2+). The recognition that persistent HPV infection is necessary for developing precancer and cancer (defined as CIN 3+, which includes diagnoses of CIN 3, AIS, and cancer) underlies the 2019 guideline update. Prospective longitudinal data indicate that when a new abnormal screening test result follows a negative HPV test or cotest within the past 5 years, the estimated risk of CIN 3+ is reduced by approximately 50%.8 A negative cytology result within 3 years of a new abnormal screening test, however, does not confer a similar reduction in risk.9 The 2019 guidelines also recognize that a colposcopic examination performed according to accepted standards (e.g., using the KPNC colposcopy protocol or the ASCCP Colposcopy Standards10) confirming low-grade or normal histology reduces a patient's estimated risk of having precancer/cancer in the next 2 years.11 This allows patients with an HPV-positive ASC-US or LSIL result at their 1-year follow-up visit after a colposcopy confirming normal- or low-grade histology to return for repeat HPV or cotesting in 1 more year, rather than immediately return to colposcopy. Thus, incorporating a patient's history of previous HPV tests and colposcopy/biopsy results will permit detection and treatment of CIN 3+ while avoiding unnecessary interventions for patients with new HPV infections who are at lower risk.12

When should young women begin cervical cancer screening? Dr. Moscicki states that we should continue to initiate screening before the age of 25 years in the US. The reasons include a lower rate of HPV vaccination among the current generation of young adult women and increases in invasive cervical cancer cases in countries that have raised the screening age to 25 years. She further cites specific shortcomings of the US healthcare system that can contribute to underscreening among young women, including fragmented healthcare, lack of health insurance, and a rapidly declining rate of pelvic examinations for cervical cancer screening among this age group, despite current guidelines that continue to recommend screening. She posits that although cervical cancer is rare among women aged 21 to 24 years, promoting screening in this age group acts as a safety net to prevent cancers among women aged 25 to 29 years.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) Colposcopy Standards recommendations address the role of colposcopy and directed biopsy for cervical cancer prevention in the United States (US). The recommendations were developed by an expert working group appointed by ASCCP's Board of Directors. An extensive literature review was conducted and supplemented by a systematic review and meta-analysis of unpublished data. In addition, a survey of practicing colposcopists was conducted to assess current colposcopy practice in the US. Recommendations were approved by the working group members, and the final revisions were made based on comments received from the public. The recommendations cover terminology, risk-based colposcopy, colposcopy procedures, and colposcopy adjuncts. The ASCCP Colposcopy Standards recommendations are an important step toward raising the standard of colposcopy services delivered to women in the US. Because cervical cancer screening programs are currently undergoing important changes that may affect colposcopy performance, updates to some of the current recommendations may be necessary in the future.

The risk of cervical cancer (CC) among women immunosuppressed for a variety of reasons is well documented in the literature. Although there is improved organ function, quality of life and life expectancy gained through use of immunosuppressant therapy, there may be increased long-term risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer and the need for more intense screening, surveillance, and management. Although guidance for CC screening among HIV-infected women (see Table 1) has been supported by evidence from retrospective and prospective studies, recommendations for CC screening among non-HIV immunosuppressed women remains limited because quality evidence is lacking. Moreover, CC screening guidelines for HIV-infected women have changed because better treatments evolved and resulted in longer life expectancy.The objective of this report was to summarize current knowledge of CC, squamous intraepithelial lesions, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in non-HIV immunocompromised women to determine best practices for CC surveillance in this population and provide recommendations for screening. We evaluated those with solid organ transplant, hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and a number of autoimmune diseases.A panel of health care professionals involved in CC research and care was assembled to review and discuss existing literature on the subject and come to conclusions about screening based on available evidence and expert opinion. Literature searches were performed using key words such as CC, cervical dysplasia/squamous intraepithelial lesion, HPV, and type of immunosuppression resulting in an initial group of 346 articles. Additional publications were identified from review of citations in these articles. All generated abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant articles. Articles published within 10 years were considered priority for review. Reviews of the literature were summarized with relevant statistical comparisons. Recommendations for screening generated from each group were largely based on expert opinion. Adherence to screening, health benefits and risks, and available clinical expertise were all considered in formulating the recommendations to the degree that information was available.Solid Organ Transplant: Evidence specific for renal, heart/lung, liver, and pancreas transplants show a consistent increase in risk of cervical neoplasia and invasive CC, demonstrating the importance of long-term surveillance and treatment. Reports demonstrate continued risk long after transplantation, emphasizing the need for screening throughout a woman's lifetime.Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: Although there is some evidence for an increase in CC in large cohort studies of these patients, conflicting results may reflect that many patients did not survive long enough to evaluate the incidence of slow-growing or delayed-onset cancers. Furthermore, history of cervical screening or previous hysterectomy was not included in registry study analysis, possibly leading to underestimation of CC incidence rates.Genital or chronic graft versus host disease is associated with an increase in high-grade cervical neoplasia and posttransplant HPV positivity.Inflammatory Bowel Disease: There is no strong evidence to support that inflammatory bowel disease alone increases cervical neoplasia or cancer risk. In contrast, immunosuppressant therapy does seem to increase the risk, although results of observational studies are conflicting regarding which type of immunosuppressant medication increases risk. Moreover, misclassification of cases may underestimate CC risk in this population. Recently published preventive care guidelines for women with inflammatory bowel disease taking immunosuppressive therapy recommend a need for continued long-term CC screening.Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis: The risk of cervical high-grade neoplasia and cancer was higher among women with systemic lupus erythematosus than those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), although studies were limited by size, inclusion of women with low-grade neoplasia in main outcomes, and variability of disease severity or exposure to immunosuppressants. In studies designed to look specifically at immunosuppressant use, however, there did seem to be an increase in risk, identified mostly in women with RA. Although the strength of the evidence is limited, the increase in risk is consistent across studies.Type 1 DM: There is a paucity of evidence-based reports associating type 1 DM with an increased risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer.The panel proposed that CC screening guidelines for non-HIV immunocompromised women follow either the (1) guidelines for the general population or (2) current center for disease control guidelines for HIV-infected women. The following are the summaries for each group reviewed, and more details are noted in accompanying table:Solid Organ Transplant: The transplant population reflects a greater risk of CC than the general population and guidelines for HIV-infected women are a reasonable approach for screening and surveillance.Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: These women have a greater risk of CC than the general population and guidelines for HIV-infected women are a reasonable approach for screening. A new diagnosis of genital or chronic graft versus host disease in a woman post-stem cell transplant results in a greater risk of CC than in the general population and should result in more intensive screening and surveillance.Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Women with inflammatory bowel disease being treated with immunosuppressive drugs are at greater risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer than the general population and guidelines for HIV-infected women are a reasonable approach for screening and surveillance. Those women with inflammatory bowel disease not on immunosuppressive therapy are not at an increased risk and should follow screening guidelines for the general population.Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis: All women with systemic lupus erythematosus, whether on immunosuppressant therapy or not and those women with RA on immunosuppressant therapy have a greater risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer than the general population and should follow CC screening guidelines for HIV-infected women. Women with RA not on immunosuppressant therapy should follow CC screening guidelines for the general population.Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Because of a lack of evidence of increased risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer among women with type 1 DM, these women should follow the screening guidelines for the general population.

Guidelines recommend 3-year cervical cancer screening intervals to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures; however, regular testing remains critical. We evaluated trends in cervical cancer screening among low-income women receiving family planning-related services and their association with patient and provider characteristics.Using claims and enrollment data from California's publicly funded family planning program, we identified 540,026 women with a clinician visit at 216 sites between 2011 and 2015. We calculated guideline adherent cervical cancer testing rates for 6-month periods among women aged 21 to 24, 25 to 29, and 30 to 64 years. We also calculated guideline adherent chlamydia testing for women aged 21 to 24 years.Having a 3-year cervical cancer screening test declined for all age groups. The odds of cervical cancer screening declined for women aged 21 to 24 years by an estimated 11% every 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.90), a significantly greater decline than for the other age groups. Among women aged 21 to 29 years, the decrease was significantly larger for Latina (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) and Spanish-speaking (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) women compared with non-Latina and non-Spanish-speaking women. A smaller decline was seen for chlamydia screening.Changes in screening interval guidelines are associated with overall decreased screening. This trend was strongest among women aged 21 to 24 years, even as they continued to be screened appropriately for chlamydia, suggesting many missed opportunities. Efforts to reduce unnecessary cervical cancer screening should be monitored to maintain appropriate screening rates to avoid advanced-stage diagnoses and higher health care costs.

ObjectivesThe American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Colposcopy Standards address the role of and approach to colposcopy and biopsy for cervical cancer prevention in the United States. Working Group 1 was tasked with defining the role of colposcopy, describing benefits and potential harms, and developing an official terminology.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed. A national survey of American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology members provided input on current terminology use. The 2011 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy terminology was used as a template and modified to fit colposcopic practice in the United States. For areas without data, expert consensus guided the recommendation. Draft recommendations were posted online for public comment and presented at an open session of the 2017 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy World Congress for further comment. All comments were considered for the final version.ResultsColposcopy is used in the evaluation of abnormal or inconclusive cervical cancer screening tests. Colposcopy aids the identification of cervical precancers that can be treated, and it allows for conservative management of abnormalities unlikely to progress. The potential harms of colposcopy include pain, psychological distress, and adverse effects of the procedure. A comprehensive colposcopy examination should include documentation of cervix visibility, squamocolumnar junction visibility, presence of acetowhitening, presence of a lesion(s), lesion(s) visibility, size and location of lesions, vascular changes, other features of lesion(s), and colposcopic impression. Minimum criteria for reporting include squamocolumnar junction visibility, presence of acetowhitening, presence of a lesion(s), and colposcopic impression.ConclusionsA recommended terminology for use in US colposcopic practice was developed, with comprehensive and minimal criteria for reporting.

An update to the American Cancer Society (ACS) guideline regarding screening for the early detection of cervical precancerous lesions and cancer is presented. The guidelines are based on a systematic evidence review, contributions from 6 working groups, and a recent symposium cosponsored by the ACS, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, which was attended by 25 organizations. The new screening recommendations address age-appropriate screening strategies, including the use of cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, follow-up (eg, the management of screen positives and screening intervals for screen negatives) of women after screening, the age at which to exit screening, future considerations regarding HPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, and screening strategies for women vaccinated against HPV16 and HPV18 infections. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:147-172. V C

HPV 6 and 11 cause greater than 90% of genital warts in males and females. Data show that approximately 3–4 million cases of genital warts in men occur each year with a peak rate of 500 per 100,000 in the 25–29 year old group. (1) The majority of these genital warts are diagnosed in men under the age of 30 years. In addition to genital warts, men are at risk for several HPV-related morbidities including penile, anal and oral cancers.

An update to the American Cancer Society (ACS) guideline regarding screening for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer, based on recommendations from a formal review and recent workshop, is presented. The new screening recommendations address when to begin screening, when screening may be discontinued, whether to screen women who have had a hysterectomy, appropriate screening intervals, and new screening technologies, including liquid-based cytology and HPV DNA testing.

Objective. Little is known about effects of vaginal lubricants with barrier contraceptives on detection of sexually transmissible infections. We hypothesized that Replens gel used with a diaphragm would neither inhibit human papillomavirus (HPV) detection in cervical samples and chlamydia (CT) and gonorrhea (GC) detection in urine samples, nor affect cervical cytology quality. Materials and Methods. After a clinician-collected cervical sample and a self-collected vaginal sample for HPV detection ("pregel" specimens), women placed a diaphragm containing Replens gel into the vagina. Participants (n = 77) removed the diaphragm after 6 hours and performed vaginal HPV self-sampling at several time points thereafter. Clinicians performed cervical cytology sampling and HPV testing ("postgel" specimens) 24 hours after diaphragm removal. Pregel and postgel specimens were analyzed with and without added SiHa cells (source of defined numbers of HPV16 genomes). HPV was detected by polymerase chain reaction using MY09/11 primers. Urine samples were obtained for CT and GC testing. Proportions of samples testing positive were compared using relative risk (RR) regression models. Results. Proportions with detectable HPV in the clinician-collected cervical pregel and postgel samples were not statistically different for samples with added SiHa cells (88.3% vs 93.2%, RR = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.96-1.14) or for native HPV infection (32.9% vs 28.2%, RR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.06). In self-collected vaginal postgel samples, there was no trend for decreased HPV detection after gel exposure. Gel affected neither urine tests for CT and GC nor cytological quality. Conclusions. Recent Replens gel use with a diaphragm does not inhibit cervical HPV testing, urine testing for CT and GC, or cervical cytology quality.