Overview of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Case Investigation of Cervical Cancer Study.

Vicki B Benard, April Greek, J Elizabeth Jackson, Virginia Senkomago, Mei-Chin Hsieh, Amanda Crosbie, Georgetta Alverson, Antoinette M Stroup, Lisa C Richardson, Cheryll C Thomas
Author Information
  1. Vicki B Benard: 1Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
  2. April Greek: 2Battelle, Seattle, Washington.
  3. J Elizabeth Jackson: 2Battelle, Seattle, Washington.
  4. Virginia Senkomago: 1Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
  5. Mei-Chin Hsieh: 3Louisiana Tumor Registry and Epidemiology Program, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  6. Amanda Crosbie: 4New Jersey Department of Health, Cancer Epidemiology Services, Trenton, New Jersey.
  7. Georgetta Alverson: 5Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program, Lansing, Michigan.
  8. Antoinette M Stroup: 6Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey.
  9. Lisa C Richardson: 1Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
  10. Cheryll C Thomas: 1Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Abstract

Despite advances in Cervical Cancer screening, a significant number of women in the United States have not received adequate screening. Studies have suggested that approximately half of the women who developed Cervical Cancer were not adequately screened. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Case Investigation of Cervical Cancer (CICC) Study took a unique approach to reconstruct the time before a woman's Cervical Cancer diagnosis and understand the facilitators and barriers to screening and care. This article provides an overview of the study. This study included all Cervical Cancer survivors diagnosed with invasive Cervical Cancer aged 21 years and older in three U.S. states from 2014-2016. The study design consisted of three different data collection methods, including comprehensive registry data, a mailed survey, and medical chart abstraction. This overview compares the characteristics of Cervical Cancer survivors in the three states by study participation and eligibility status. Registries identified 2,748 women diagnosed with invasive Cervical Cancer. Of these, 1,730 participants were eligible for participation, 28% ( = 481) enrolled in the study and 23% ( = 400) consented to the medical chart abstraction. The CICC Study is unique in that it addresses, with medical record verification, the medical history of woman 5 years before their Cervical Cancer diagnosis as well as provides information from the woman on her health care behaviors. This study provides data on a general population of Cervical Cancer survivors in three states that could be used to guide interventions to increase Cervical Cancer screening.

Keywords

References

  1. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Jul-Aug;17(6):955-63 [PMID: 18681816]
  2. Cancer Causes Control. 2005 May;16(4):463-74 [PMID: 15953989]
  3. Gynecol Oncol. 2005 May;97(2):310-7 [PMID: 15863123]
  4. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 May 4;97(9):675-83 [PMID: 15870438]
  5. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Feb;56(2):307-14 [PMID: 18070002]
  6. J Immigr Minor Health. 2019 Jun;21(3):606-658 [PMID: 30117005]
  7. Cancer Med. 2019 Jan;8(1):418-427 [PMID: 30600650]
  8. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Mar;100(3):479-86 [PMID: 16185753]
  9. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Jun;11(6):529-34 [PMID: 12050093]
  10. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Oct 14;63(55):1-4 [PMID: 27736828]
  11. Psychol Health. 2013 Jan;29(1):94-109 [PMID: 24006882]
  12. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Mar 03;66(8):201-206 [PMID: 28253225]
  13. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 May;23(5):765-73 [PMID: 24302677]
  14. Womens Health Issues. 2015 Mar-Apr;25(2):120-7 [PMID: 25747519]
  15. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Nov 7;63(44):1004-9 [PMID: 25375072]
  16. Cancer. 2000 May 15;88(10):2283-9 [PMID: 10820350]
  17. J Cancer Educ. 2019 Jun;34(3):608-613 [PMID: 29574539]
  18. Cancer. 2003 Jun 15;97(12 Suppl):3133-275 [PMID: 12784323]
  19. J Community Health. 2017 Aug;42(4):770-778 [PMID: 28155005]
  20. Curr Oncol. 2014 Dec;21(6):294-304 [PMID: 25489256]
  21. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jun 19;156(12):880-91, W312 [PMID: 22711081]
  22. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014 Mar;23(3):197-203 [PMID: 24380501]
  23. JAMA. 2018 Aug 21;320(7):674-686 [PMID: 30140884]
  24. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012 Oct;21(10):1031-7 [PMID: 22816437]
  25. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Oct;152(2):200-4 [PMID: 20667643]
  26. Br J Cancer. 2008 Apr 8;98(7):1292-4 [PMID: 18334971]

Grants

  1. HHSN261201300016C/NCI NIH HHS
  2. U58 DP003915/NCCDPHP CDC HHS
  3. HHSN261201300021C/NCI NIH HHS
  4. U58 DP003921/NCCDPHP CDC HHS
  5. HHSN261201300016I/NCI NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Humans
Mass Screening
Medical Records
Middle Aged
Registries
Research Design
Retrospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Survivors
United States
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cancercervicalstudyscreeningthreemedicalwomenStudyprovidessurvivorsstatesdataCentersDiseaseControlCaseInvestigationCervicalCancerCICCuniquediagnosiscareoverviewdiagnosedinvasiveyearsregistrychartabstractionparticipationwomanDespiteadvancessignificantnumberUnitedStatesreceivedadequateStudiessuggestedapproximatelyhalfdevelopedadequatelyscreenedPreventionCDCtookapproachreconstructtimewoman'sunderstandfacilitatorsbarriersarticleincludedaged21olderUS2014-2016designconsisteddifferentcollectionmethodsincludingcomprehensivemailedsurveycomparescharacteristicseligibilitystatusRegistriesidentified27481730participantseligible28% = 481enrolled23% = 400consentedaddressesrecordverificationhistory5wellinformationhealthbehaviorsgeneralpopulationusedguideinterventionsincreaseOverviewPrevention's

Similar Articles

Cited By