Search

Introduction: Selective utilization of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping in cervical cancer screening can accelerate clinical management, leading to earlier identification and treatment of precancerous lesions and cancer. Specifically, immediate colposcopy (instead of 1-year return) is recommended in persons with normal cytology and HPV genotypes 16 and/or 18, and expedited treatment (instead of colposcopy) is recommended in persons with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology and HPV genotype 16. The effects of implementing HPV testing and genotyping into a screening program are largely unknown., Methods: Average-risk persons aged 30-65 years screened for cervical cancer in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program from 2019 to 2020 were included (N=104,991). Percentage HPV genotyping test positivity was estimated within cytology result categories. Analyses were performed in 2022., Results: The most common abnormality was positive high-risk HPV testing with normal cytology, representing 40.1% (7,155/17,832) of all abnormal test result categories; HSIL cytology represented 3.0% (530/17,832) of all abnormal test result categories. In high-risk HPV‒positive persons with normal or high-grade cytology, HPV genotyping could accelerate management (immediate colposcopy and expedited treatment) in 5.4% of all persons with abnormal screening test results; if HPV genotyping had been performed in all high-risk HPV‒positive persons with normal or HSIL cytology, approximately 13.1% could have accelerated management., Conclusions: HPV genotyping in human papillomavirus‒positive persons with normal or HSIL cytology could accelerate management in a sizable percentage of persons with abnormal test results and may be particularly useful in populations with challenges adhering to longitudinal follow-up., (Copyright © 2022 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This study sought to determine whether a provider mobile phone application, used with or without a patient educational tool accessed on a computer tablet, would promote adherence to guidelines for cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal cytology in young women., Methods: The study was conducted as a prospective cohort study in which 14 Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment provider clinics were randomized to 1 of 2 arms: (1) provider mobile phone application only or (2) provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool. The provider mobile phone application gave information to providers regarding cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal cytology. The patient educational tool accessed on a computer tablet was a patient-centered educational tool. Each arm was compared with clinic control groups (no intervention) in a 2:1 ratio (control:intervention). Claims data were used to calculate and compare 18-month cytology (Pap) and colposcopy rates before the intervention and during the 18 months using the Poisson mixed-effect regression model. A sensitivity analysis examined the differences in the rate of change between each arm and controls. The study took place between July 2015 and December 2016, and analysis was performed in 2019., Results: The clinics randomized to the provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool arm and their control group achieved similar 18-month Pap rates (0.52, 95% CI=0.37, 0.74 and 0.68, 95% CI=0.53, 0.86, respectively) as well as the provider mobile phone application arm and their control group (0.44, 95% CI=0.33, 0.58 and 0.41, 95% CI=0.34, 0.51; p-values >0.1). In the sensitivity analysis, the difference in the rate of change in Pap rates for the provider mobile phone application plus patient educational tool arm and their control group before and during the intervention was -0.22 and -0.09, respectively (p=0.02), but no differences were seen between the provider mobile phone application arm and their control group. No significant changes were observed for colposcopy rates., Conclusions: Providing clinicians and patients with information on guidelines had no demonstrable effect on 18-month Pap and colposcopy rates in the regression model; however, results from the sensitivity analysis for the patient educational tool were encouraging., Trial Registration: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02270021., (Copyright © 2021 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It is unknown whether the HPV vaccine is effective in immunocompromised women during catch-up ages. We performed a case-control study of 4,357 women with incident CIN2+ (cases) and 5:1 age-matched, incidence-density selected controls (N = 21,773) enrolled in an integrated health care system from 2006 to 2014. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated from multivariable conditional logistic regression models, with results stratified by immunosuppression history, defined as prior HIV infection, solid organ transplant history, or recently prescribed immunosuppressive medications. HPV vaccination resulted in a 19% reduction in CIN2+ rates for women without an immunosuppression history but a nonsignificant 4% reduction for women with an immunosuppression history. Further research is needed to evaluate whether catch-up HPV vaccine effectiveness varies by immunosuppression status, especially given the recent approval of the HPV vaccine for adults up to 45 years of age., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Current U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend a 3- or 5-year screening interval depending on age and screening modality. However, many women continue to be screened annually. The purpose of this study is to investigate U.S. women's self-reported frequency of cervical cancer screening, acceptance of an extended screening interval (once every 3-5 years), and preferred screening options., Methods: Data from a 2012 web-based survey of U.S. women aged ≥18 years who had not undergone a hysterectomy or been diagnosed with cervical cancer (N=1,380) were analyzed in 2014. Logistic regression models of extended screening interval use, acceptance, and preference were developed., Results: Annual Pap testing was the most widely used (48.5%), accepted (61.0%), and preferred (51.1%) screening option. More than one third of respondents (34.4%) indicated that an extended screening interval would be acceptable, but only 6.3% reported that they were currently screened on an extended interval. Women who preferred an extended screening interval (32.9% of those willing to accept regular screening) were more likely to report no primary care visits during the last 12 months (AOR=2.05, p<0.003), no history of abnormal Pap test results (AOR=1.71, p=0.013), and that their last Pap test was performed by an internist/family practitioner rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist (AOR=2.03, p<0.001)., Conclusions: U.S. women's acceptance of and preference for an extended cervical cancer screening interval appears to be more widespread than utilization. Strategies to educate women about the reasoning behind recommendations for less-than-annual testing and to foster informed preferences should be devised and evaluated., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)