Tips

From Other Journals

More Sensitive, Less Frequent Cervical Cancer Screening



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 2003 Feb 1;67(3):626-630.

Although cervical cancer screening has been available for more than 20 years, about 12,800 new cases were diagnosed and 4,500 related deaths occurred in the United States in the year 2000. Screening can reduce mortality rates by 46 percent, but advanced cases still occur because of false-negative screening test results. New screening techniques that involve liquid-based cytology (LBC) and testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) offer more sensitive screening that may allow for a longer interval between tests. Maxwell and colleagues analyzed the costs and outcomes of new screening methods for cervical cancer to determine the optimal type and interval of screening tests for use in large populations of healthy women.

They developed a Markov model, based on the natural history of HPV infection and the etiology of cervical cancer, and applied the model to a theoretic cohort of 100,000 healthy women beginning at 18 years of age and lasting until 85 years. In this cohort, the model was used to predict the cervical cancer mortality and costs associated with three methods of screening (i.e., conventional Papanicolaou [Pap] screening, LBC screening alone, and LBC plus HPV). For each technique, they estimated the implications of screening every year and compared this with screening at two- and three-year intervals.

With no available screening, an estimated 1,001 deaths attributable to cervical cancer would occur in the cohort population. Even the simplest option, conventional Pap screening every three years, reduced this rate to 189 deaths. Pap screening at two- and one-year intervals was estimated to result in 116 and 40 deaths, respectively (see the accompanying table).

The cost-effectiveness of the different strategies depended on the screening interval. As the test sensitivity rises, the specificity tends to decrease, resulting in more costs to manage false-positive results. Both conventional Pap smears and LBC become cost-effective when performed every three years. When all associated follow-up and treatment costs are taken into consideration, LBC plus HPV screening every three years costs less than $50,000 per year of life saved.

The authors conclude that the most sensitive cervical screening tests, LBC or LBC plus HPV testing, are cost-effective when performed at three-year intervals but not when performed annually.

Office Visits, Abnormal Pap Tests, and Cancer-Related Outcomes

Total Pap tests with given abnormality
Strategy Total visits for screening,diagnosis, and treatment of preinvasive disease Total abnormal Pap tests ASCUS LSILs HSILs+ Total cancer cases Percentage stage I Total cancer deaths

No screening

2,968

46.3

1,001

Conventional Pap test every three years

1,787,226

96,117

36,745

46,948

12,424

857

69.6

189

LBC + HPV every three years

1,810,541

186,330

80,471

85,443

20,416

393

84.7

73

LBC every three years

1,894,453

189,841

81,080

87,712

21,049

430

84.2

80

Conventional Pap test every two years

2,604,359

135,160

52,979

66,154

16,027

573

75.6

116

LBC + HPV every two years

2,631,705

261,139

115,831

118,522

26,786

213

90.5

37

LBC every two years

2,754,898

267,938

117,060

123,042

27,836

244

90.1

42

Conventional Pap test every year

5,232,754

247,978

102,840

119,386

25,752

219

85.1

40

LBC + HPV every year

5,264,348

481,959

225,914

210,330

45,715

39

96.0

6

LBC every year

5,513,415

501,279

229,581

223,618

48,080

51

95.7

8


Pap = Papanicolaou; ASCUS = atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; LSIL = low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; HSIL = high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; LBC + HPV = liquid-based cytology with reflex human papillomavirus testing using Hybrid Capture 2 for ASCUS results.

Adapted with permission from Maxwell GL, Carlson JW, Ochoa M, Krivak T, Rose GS, Myers ER. Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:745.

Office Visits, Abnormal Pap Tests, and Cancer-Related Outcomes

View Table

Office Visits, Abnormal Pap Tests, and Cancer-Related Outcomes

Total Pap tests with given abnormality
Strategy Total visits for screening,diagnosis, and treatment of preinvasive disease Total abnormal Pap tests ASCUS LSILs HSILs+ Total cancer cases Percentage stage I Total cancer deaths

No screening

2,968

46.3

1,001

Conventional Pap test every three years

1,787,226

96,117

36,745

46,948

12,424

857

69.6

189

LBC + HPV every three years

1,810,541

186,330

80,471

85,443

20,416

393

84.7

73

LBC every three years

1,894,453

189,841

81,080

87,712

21,049

430

84.2

80

Conventional Pap test every two years

2,604,359

135,160

52,979

66,154

16,027

573

75.6

116

LBC + HPV every two years

2,631,705

261,139

115,831

118,522

26,786

213

90.5

37

LBC every two years

2,754,898

267,938

117,060

123,042

27,836

244

90.1

42

Conventional Pap test every year

5,232,754

247,978

102,840

119,386

25,752

219

85.1

40

LBC + HPV every year

5,264,348

481,959

225,914

210,330

45,715

39

96.0

6

LBC every year

5,513,415

501,279

229,581

223,618

48,080

51

95.7

8


Pap = Papanicolaou; ASCUS = atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; LSIL = low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; HSIL = high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; LBC + HPV = liquid-based cytology with reflex human papillomavirus testing using Hybrid Capture 2 for ASCUS results.

Adapted with permission from Maxwell GL, Carlson JW, Ochoa M, Krivak T, Rose GS, Myers ER. Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:745.

Maxwell GL, et al. Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol. October 2002;100:740–8.

editor's note: If our understanding of the pathophysiology is correct, no woman should die of cervical cancer. The realities of human behavior mean we can never completely prevent sexually transmitted diseases, although we continue to advise patients about this and other lifestyle factors, such as smoking, that seem to play some role in vulnerability to invasive cervical cancer. Improved testing techniques can be effective only if we ensure their use. What are we doing to ensure that any screening is available to uninsured women and women in vulnerable groups who find current health services too difficult to access? What are we doing to remind all women to be screened regularly? Will switching to screening every three years be more difficult to remember, thus decreasing the effectiveness? Cervical cancer seems to lack the public and political clout of breast cancer, yet it offers great scope for reduction in case fatality. Perhaps it is time to mobilize the publicity machine as well as to pay attention to all aspects of our own practices that could contribute to minimizing the impact of this horrible disease.—A.D.W.

 

Copyright © 2003 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

Navigate this Article