Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations

  • Gynecologic Cancers (RJ Morgan, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Since the publication of the American Cancer Society (ACS)/American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)/American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) clinical guidelines in 2012, the majority of practice organizations have reached a consensus on screening recommendations for a low-risk population. These guidelines were based on a thorough review of the evidence with reproducible methods to obtain high-quality, generalizable guidelines. Despite the strength of the evidence based recommendations comprising these guidelines, limitations in physician understanding and compliance remain with respect to reaching an unscreened population and defining and caring for women who are at “high risk.” “High-risk” patients are poorly characterized but should include women with a history of a prior abnormal screening, as data has shown a subsequent increased risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or greater, even after treatment. These women warrant more intense screening than the general population—though there are no evidence-based guidelines for optimized screening protocols in this population. Emerging data in cervical cancer screening this year includes the FDA approval of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. While the data is promising, its role in clinical practice, impact on rates of colposcopy in a non-study population, and long-term outcomes are not fully understood, and ongoing research is needed. Challenges remain in this shifting environment on the optimal interval and modality for cervical cancer screening to provide the greatest benefit in detection of precancerous lesions while minimizing the harm of overtreatment. While rapid advancements in research provide improved knowledge on how to treat and prevent this disease, it is often difficult for providers across multiple specialties to remain abreast of these changes and to educate their patients about the most current recommendations. Ultimately, provider and patient education is critical both for improving primary prevention with HPV vaccination, as well as for the uptake of evidence-based screening and management guidelines aimed at detecting and treating precancerous changes of the cervix.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Devesa S et al. Cancer incidence and mortality trends among whites in the United States, 1947–84. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1987;79:701–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Landis S et al. Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48:6–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel R et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chronological history of ACS recommendations for the early detection of cancer in people without cancer symptoms. http://www.cancer.org/healthy/findcancerearly/cancerscreeningguidelines/chronological-history-of-acs-recommendations.

  5. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:1393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Teoh D et al. Adherence to the 2012 national cervical cancer screening guidelines: a pilot study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bosch F et al. The causal relationship between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55:244–65.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Walboomer J et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Saslow D et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 2012;16:1–29. This article has spawned new practice guidelines for screening which follow stringent and reproducible criteria and have been adapted universally by the majority of preventive organizations.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gravitt P. The known unknowns of HPV natural history. J Clin Invest. 2011;121:4593–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McCredie M et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:425–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Screening for cervical cancer. Clinical management guidelines for obstetricians-gynecologist. Pract Bull. 2012;131:1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Patridge E, et al. Cervical cancer screening. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2012. http://www.trikobe.org/nccn/guideline/gynecological/english/cervical_screening.pdf.

  14. Moyer V et al. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:880–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-55.971.HTM. 2015.

  16. Broutet N, et al. Comprehensive cervical cancer control: a guide to essential practice. World Health Organization. 2014; 1-378. www.who.int

  17. Sawaya G et al. Cervical cancer screening in average-risk women: best practice advice form the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:851–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Committee of Health Care for Underserved Women. Cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings. ACOG Committee Opinion. 2015; 624: 1-3.

  19. Huh W et al. Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136:178–82. This article addresses the FDA approval of high-risk HPV for primary screening, guidelines for use, and its potential role in clinical practice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitchener H et al. ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of HPV testing in primary cervical screening. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kulasingam S, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for healthcare research and quality. 2011; AHRQ Publication No 11-05157-EF-1.

  22. Stout N et al. Trade-offs in cervical cancer prevention: balancing benefits and risks. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1881–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Miller M et al. Screening interval and risk of invasive squamous cell cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dillner J et al. Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:1754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Katki H et al. Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:663–72.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rijkaart D et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:78–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ronco G et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;383:524–32. This data was part of the initial results suggesting improved sensitivity with HPV-based screening suggesting this as a potential primary screening modality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Naucler P et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. NEJM. 2007;357:1589–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goldie S et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:619–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kitchener H et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:864–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Costa S et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) test and PAP smear as predictors of outcome in conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(1):170–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Datta S et al. Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cytology in women screened for cervical cancer in the United States, 2003-2005. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:493–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Melnikow J et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:721–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sawaya G et al. Advancing age and cervical cancer screening and prognosis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:1499–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Stokes-Lampard H et al. Vaginal vault smears after hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy: a systematic review of the literature. BJOG. 2006;113:1354–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pearce K et al. Cytopathological findings on vaginal Papanicolaou smears after hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1559–62.

  37. Ferris D et al. Long-term study of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine. Pediatrics. 2014;134:657–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chatterjee A. The next generation of HPV vaccines: nonavalent vaccine V503 on the horizon. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2014;13:1279–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Drolet M et al. Population level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15:565–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Curtis C et al. National human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years—national immunization survey—teen, United States, 2011. MMWR. 2014;63:61–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Nguyen M, et al. Cervical cancer screening in immunocompromised women. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2013; 339-57.

  42. Asch W et al. Oncologic issues and kidney transplantation: a review of frequency, mortality, and screening. Adv Chron Kidney Dis. 2014;21:106–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Allegretti J et al. Are patients with inflammatory bowel disease on chronic immunosuppressive therapy at increased risk of cervical high-grade dysplasia/cancer? A meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21:1089–97.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim S et al. Risk of high-grade dysplasia and cervical cancer in women with systemic inflammatory diseases: a population-based cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:1360–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kjaer S et al. Long-term absolute risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse following human papillomavirus infection: role of persistence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1478–88.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Katki H, et al. Five-year risk of recurrence after treatment of CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS: performance of HPV and Pap cotesting in posttreatment management. ASCCP 2013; S78-84.

  47. Denny L et al. Human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer prevention: long term results of a randomized screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1557–67.

  48. Gage L et al. Reassurance against future risk of precancer and cancer conferred by a negative human papillomavirus test. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:1–4.

  49. Mayrand M et al. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening test for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1579–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wright T, et al. Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: end of study results from the ATHENA study using HPV as the first-line screening test. 2015; 136: 189-97. Publication of the ATHENA trial led to FDA approval of high risk HPV for primary screening and led to the revision of recommendations on the use of primary HPV by multiple organizations.

  51. Arbyn M et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Second edition—summary document. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:448–58.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Feldman S. Human papillomavirus testing for primary cervical cancer screening. Is it time to abandon Papanicolaou testing? JAMA. 2014;174:1539–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethical Standards

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Michelle Davis MD & Sarah Feldman MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Michelle Davis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Feldman MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Feldman MD, MPH.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gynecologic Cancers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, M., Feldman, S. Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 16, 55 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-015-0373-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-015-0373-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation