You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 168 No. 17, September 22, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Investigation
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Immunization
 •Women's Health
 •Women's Health, Other
 •Diagnosis
 •Screening
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Trade-offs in Cervical Cancer Prevention

Balancing Benefits and Risks

Natasha K. Stout, PhD; Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, PhD; Jesse D. Ortendahl, BS; Sue J. Goldie, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1881-1889.

Background  New screening and vaccination technologies will provide women with more options for cervical cancer prevention. Because the risk of cervical cancer diminishes with effective routine screening, women may wish to consider additional attributes, such as the likelihood of false-positive results and diagnostic procedures for mild abnormalities likely to resolve without intervention in their screening choices.

Methods  We used an empirically calibrated simulation model of cervical cancer in the United States to assess the benefits and potential risks associated with prevention strategies differing by primary screening test, triage test for abnormal results (cytologic testing, human papillomavirus [HPV] DNA test), and screening frequency. Outcomes included colposcopy referrals, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) types 1 and 2 or 3, lifetime cancer risk, and quality-adjusted life expectancy.

Results  Across strategies, colposcopy referrals and diagnostic workups varied 3-fold, although diagnostic rates of CIN 2 or 3 were similar and 95% of positive screening test results were for mild abnormalities likely to resolve on their own. For a representative group of a thousand 20-year-old women undergoing triennial screening for 10 years, we expect 1038 colposcopy referrals (7 CIN 2 or 3 diagnoses) from combined cytologic and HPV DNA testing and fewer than 200 referrals (6-7 CIN 2 or 3 diagnoses) for strategies that use triage testing. Similarly, for a thousand 40-year-old women, combined cytologic and HPV DNA testing led to 489 referrals (9 CIN 2 or 3), whereas alternative strategies resulted in fewer than 150 referrals (7-8 CIN 2 or 3). Using cytologic testing followed by triage testing in younger women minimizes both diagnostic workups and positive HPV test results, whereas in older women diagnostic workups are minimized with HPV DNA testing followed by cytologic triage testing.

Conclusions  Clinically relevant information highlighting trade-offs among cervical cancer prevention strategies allows for inclusion of personal preferences into women's decision making about screening and provides additional dimensions to the construction of clinical guidelines.


Author Affiliations: Program in Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.


RELATED ARTICLE

In This Issue of Archives of Internal Medicine
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1842.
FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.