Screening for Cervical Cancer and Management of Its Precursor Lesions

  • Janice L. Johnson


Cervical cytology screening of women has quite successfully led to secondary prevention of cervical cancer, primarily due to identification and treatment of cervical cancer precursors (IARC. Handbooks of cancer prevention, Cervix cancer screening, vol. 10. IARC Press, Lyon, 2005). Recently, much interest has been generated to improve the efficiency of cervical cancer screening initiatives. One can presume with rising healthcare costs, liquid-based cytology availability, and a growing population, current costs are high. Another reason to change screening programs was the realization that over-screening was potentially causing psychological and physical harm.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) studies have demonstrated that virtually all cases of cervical cancer and its’ precursor lesions are associated with potentially carcinogenic genotypes of HPV. We also now know that the vast majority of sexually active people have been exposed to HPV. Studies have shown that in most cases of healthy women, the HPV infection is transient, and benign and clears within 8–24 months. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology have developed updated recommendations for screening for cervical cancer.


HR HPV ASCCP ACOG LEEP Pap Liquid-based cytology LAST Project Colposcopy HPV Cervical cancer screens 



American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology


Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance


Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia


High-risk human papilloma virus


High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion


Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology


Loop electrosurgical excision procedure


Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion


Positive predictive value


  1. 1.
    IARC. Handbooks of cancer prevention, Cervix cancer screening, vol. 10. Lyon: IARC Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:810–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuzick J, Clavel C, Perry KU, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:1095–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, et al. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. The 1992 National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA. 1994;271:1866–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:12–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schiffman MH, Bauer HM, Hoover RN, et al. Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:958–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright TC Jr, Schiffman M. Adding a test for human papillomavirus DNA to cervical-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:489–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mosiccki AB, Schiffman M, Kjaer S, Villa LL. Updating the natural history of HPV and anogenital cancer. Vaccine. 2006;24(suppl 3):S3/42–51.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castle PE. The potential utility of HPV genotyping in screening and clinical management. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2008;6(1):83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baseman JG, Koutsky LA. The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol. 2005;329(suppl (1)):S16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright TC Jr, Schiffman M, Solomon D, et al. Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no 109: cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1409–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silver MI, Rositch AF, Burke AE, Chang K, Viscidi R, Gravitt PE. Patient concerns about human papillomavirus testing and 5-year intervals in routine cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:317–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Cervical cancer screening and prevention. Practice bulletin no. 157. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:e1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    WK H, Ault KA, Chlemow D, Davey DD, Goulart RA, Garcia FA, et al. Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:330–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, Killackey M, Kulasingam SL, Cain J, 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. ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:147–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ries LA, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Stinchcomb DG, Howlader N, Horner MJ, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2006. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid, compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:167–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla Palma P, Naldoni C, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technology for cervical cancer screening: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335:28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sawaya GF, Kuppermann M. Identifying a “range of reasonable options” for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:308–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kinney W, Wright TC, Dinkelspiel HE, DeFrancesco M, Cox JT, Huh W. Increased cervical cancer risk associated with screening at longer intervals. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:311–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khan MJ, Smith-McCune K. Treatment of cervical precancers. Back to basics. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1339–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;367:489–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Evaluation and management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology in adolescents. ACOG Committee opinion no. 436. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1422–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D. 2006 guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. 2006 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology-sponsored Consensus Conference. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:346–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mamoon H, Taylor R, Morrell S, Wain G, Moore H. Cervical screening: population-based comparisons between self-reported survey and registry-derived Pap test rates. Aus NZ J Publ Health. 2001;25:505–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sawyer JA, Earp JA, Fletcher RH, Daye FF, Wynn TM. Accuracy of women’s self-report of their last pap smear. Am J Public Health. 1989;79:1036–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bevis KS, Biggio JR. Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nayar R, Wilbur DS, editors. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Waxman AG, Chelmow D, Darragh TM, et al. Revised terminology for cervical histopathology and its implications for management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1465–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Melnikow J, McGahan C, Sawaya GF, Ehlen T, Coldman A. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:721–8. 22. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, College of Medicine, Presence St. Francis HospitalSkokieUSA

Personalised recommendations