Similar Risk Patterns After Cervical Screening in Two Large U.S. Populations: Implications for Clinical Guidelines.

Julia C Gage, William C Hunt, Mark Schiffman, Hormuzd A Katki, Li A Cheung, Orrin Myers, Jack Cuzick, Nicolas Wentzensen, Walter Kinney, Philip E Castle, Cosette M Wheeler, New Mexico HPV Pap Registry Steering Committee
Author Information
  1. Julia C Gage: Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland; the Departments of Pathology, Internal Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Information Management Services Inc., Calverton, Maryland; the Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom; the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, California; and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risks of histologic high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or worse after different cervical cancer screening test results between two of the largest U.S. clinical practice research data sets.
METHODS: The New Mexico Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Pap Registry is a statewide registry representing a diverse population experiencing varied clinical practice delivery. Kaiser Permanente Northern California is a large integrated health care delivery system practicing routine HPV cotesting since 2003. In this retrospective cohort study, a logistic-Weibull survival model was used to estimate and compare the cumulative 3- and 5-year risks of histologic CIN 3 or worse among women aged 21-64 years screened in 2007-2011 in the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry and 2003-2013 in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Results were stratified by age and baseline screening result: negative cytology, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) (with or without HPV triage), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.
RESULTS: There were 453,618 women in the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry and 1,307,528 women at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The 5-year CIN 3 or worse risks were similar within screening results across populations: cytology negative (0.52% and 0.30%, respectively, P<.001), HPV-negative and ASC-US (0.72% and 0.49%, respectively, P=.5), ASC-US (3.4% and 3.4%, respectively, P=.8), HPV-positive and ASC-US (7.7% and 7.1%, respectively, P=.3), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (6.5% and 5.4%, respectively, P=.009), and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (53.1% and 50.4%, respectively, P=.2). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse risks and 3-year risks had similar trends across populations. Age-stratified analyses showed more variability, especially among women aged younger than 30 years, but patterns of risk stratification were comparable.
CONCLUSION: Current U.S. cervical screening and management recommendations are based on comparative risks of histologic high-grade CIN after screening test results. The similar results from these two large cohorts from different real-life clinical practice settings support risk-based management thresholds across U.S. clinical populations and practice settings.

References

  1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jan;25(1):36-42 [PMID: 26518316]
  2. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):663-72 [PMID: 21684207]
  3. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 May;23(5):765-73 [PMID: 24302677]
  4. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Apr;22(4):580-8 [PMID: 23355601]
  5. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):829-846 [PMID: 23635684]
  6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1383-92 [PMID: 12824967]
  7. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013 Jan;17(1):38-47 [PMID: 22885643]
  8. Int J Cancer. 2015 Apr 1;136(7):1665-71 [PMID: 25136967]
  9. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011 Mar;135(3):468-75 [PMID: 21350104]
  10. Int J Cancer. 2014 Apr 15;134(8):1835-43 [PMID: 24122508]
  11. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013 Apr;17(5 Suppl 1):S28-35 [PMID: 23519302]
  12. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012 Apr;137(4):516-42 [PMID: 22431528]
  13. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014 Nov;122(11):842-50 [PMID: 25045058]
  14. Prev Med. 2013 Nov;57(5):419-25 [PMID: 23628517]
  15. Int J Cancer. 2013 Jan 1;132(1):198-207 [PMID: 22532127]
  16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1393-400 [PMID: 12824968]
  17. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013 Mar;139(3):330-5 [PMID: 23429369]
  18. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;125(2):330-337 [PMID: 25569009]
  19. Int J Cancer. 2015 Jun 15;136(12):2854-63 [PMID: 25447979]
  20. Int J Cancer. 2014 Aug 1;135(3):624-34 [PMID: 24226935]
  21. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120(5):1222-38 [PMID: 23090560]
  22. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jun 19;156(12):880-91, W312 [PMID: 22711081]
  23. J Clin Invest. 2011 Dec;121(12):4593-9 [PMID: 22133884]
  24. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013 Apr;17(5 Suppl 1):S36-42 [PMID: 23519303]
  25. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Aug;114(2):365-9 [PMID: 19464729]

Grants

  1. 16891/Cancer Research UK
  2. U54 CA164336/NCI NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Atypical Squamous Cells of the Cervix
California
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
New Mexico
Papanicolaou Test
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Vaginal Smears
Young Adult
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0risksintraepithelialrespectivelyscreeningHPV3squamousP=high-gradeCINworseresultsUSclinicalpracticewomenASC-USlesion04%histologiccervicalNewMexicoPapRegistryKaiserPermanenteNorthernCaliforniasimilaracrosscompareneoplasiadifferenttesttwodeliverylarge5-yearamongagedyearsnegativecytologylow-grade571%2CervicalpopulationsmanagementsettingsOBJECTIVE:cancerlargestresearchdatasetsMETHODS:HumanPapillomavirusstatewideregistryrepresentingdiversepopulationexperiencingvariedintegratedhealthcaresystempracticingroutinecotestingsince2003retrospectivecohortstudylogistic-Weibullsurvivalmodelusedestimatecumulative3-21-64screened2007-20112003-2013Resultsstratifiedagebaselineresult:atypicalcellsundeterminedsignificancewithouttriageRESULTS:4536181307528withinpopulations:52%30%P<001HPV-negative72%49%8HPV-positive7%65%0095350grade3-yeartrendsAge-stratifiedanalysesshowedvariabilityespeciallyyounger30patternsriskstratificationcomparableCONCLUSION:Currentrecommendationsbasedcomparativecohortsreal-lifesupportrisk-basedthresholdsSimilarRiskPatternsScreeningTwoLargePopulations:ImplicationsClinicalGuidelines

Similar Articles

Cited By