Article

Counterpoint: Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines-Approaching the Golden Age

American journal of epidemiology (Impact Factor: 4.98). 08/2013; 178(7). DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt171
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Changes in screening guidelines that imply suppression of procedures once recommended are always controversial because of the perception that benefits are being curtailed. Prior to 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines issued by US-based expert bodies differed in several decision areas, making clinicians essentially cherry-pick among recommendations. To some extent, this approach to screening practices also served to shield clinicians from litigation. It implied starting screening earlier, doing it more frequently, and stopping later in life than necessary. This state of affairs changed in 2012, when the most influential professional groups updated their cervical screening guidelines, and recommendations became essentially unified. All groups recommended that women older than 65 years of age discontinue cervical cancer screening on the basis of evidence that screening benefits in this age group were minor and far outweighed by harms. The guidelines are very specific about the exceptions, which ensure acceptable safety. It is expected that the new guidelines will permit less wasteful cervical screening, while fostering the opportunity to direct resources towards ensuring adequate coverage of high-risk women.

1 Follower
 · 
60 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To review the literature concerning the role of cervical screening in women 60 years and older Methods Literature review was conducted using Pubmed and the search terms cervical neoplasm, cancer, middle aged, elderly, aged, postmenopausal, cervical cytology and screening. To be included in the review the article must have been in the English language. The search focused on publications from 2000 forward. Results The case control and modeling studies that addressed the role of cervical cytology screening in women 60 and older were reviewed. The outcomes of interest included: 1) the benefits of screening in terms of decrease rate of cervical cancer incidence (6 studies) and mortality (3 studies); 2) the duration of protection of the last screening test (4 studies); and 3) the harms of screening older women including false positive test results and cost. Conclusions Cervical cytology screening is beneficial for women over 60 years in terms of preventing the occurrence and death from cervical cancer. A negative cytology test appears to have 5 years of protection in this age group. Age of last screen with in an organized screening program may differ compared to the goals and wishes of individual women.
    Maturitas 12/2014; 79(4). DOI:10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.09.012 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anne Rositch and colleagues discuss the study by Peter Sasieni and colleagues on cervical cancer screening in older women and describe the further information needed to help inform decisions about whether to extend screening programs beyond 65 years for women with adequate negative screening. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
    PLoS Medicine 01/2014; 11(1):e1001586. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001586 · 14.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is little consensus, and minimal evidence, regarding the age at which to stop cervical screening. We studied the association between screening at age 50-64 y and cervical cancer at age 65-83 y. Cases were women (n = 1,341) diagnosed with cervical cancer at age 65-83 y between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2012 in England and Wales; age-matched controls (n = 2,646) were randomly selected from population registers. Screening details from 1988 onwards were extracted from national databases. We calculated the odds ratios (OR) for different screening histories and subsequent cervical cancer. Women with adequate negative screening at age 65 y (288 cases, 1,395 controls) were at lowest risk of cervical cancer (20-y risk: 8 cancers per 10,000 women) compared with those (532 cases, 429 controls) not screened at age 50-64 y (20-y risk: 49 cancers per 10,000 women, with OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.13-0.19). ORs depended on the age mix of women because of the weakening association with time since last screen: OR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.08-0.14 at 2.5 to 7.5 y since last screen; OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.20-0.36 at 12.5 to 17.5 y since last screen. Screening at least every 5.5 y between the ages 50 and 64 y was associated with a 75% lower risk of cervical cancer between the ages 65 and 79 y (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.21-0.30), and the attributable risk was such that in the absence of screening, cervical cancer rates in women aged 65+ would have been 2.4 (95% CI 2.1-2.7) times higher. In women aged 80-83 y the association was weaker (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.83) than in those aged 65-69 y (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.09-0.17). This study was limited by an absence of data on confounding factors; additionally, findings based on cytology may not generalise to human papillomavirus testing. Women with adequate negative screening at age 50-64 y had one-sixth of the risk of cervical cancer at age 65-83 y compared with women who were not screened. Stopping screening between ages 60 and 69 y in women with adequate negative screening seems sensible, but further screening may be justifiable as life expectancy increases. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
    PLoS Medicine 01/2014; 11(1):e1001585. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001585 · 14.00 Impact Factor