 |
|
Trade-offs in Cervical Cancer PreventionBalancing 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.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
In This Issue of Archives of Internal Medicine
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1842.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Model-Based Analyses to Compare Health and Economic Outcomes of Cancer Control: Inclusion of Disparities
Goldie and Daniels
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1373-1386.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patient Safety and the Next Generation of HPV DNA Tests
Lee et al.
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;135:481-481.
FULL TEXT
Cervical Cancer Screening With Both Human Papillomavirus and Papanicolaou Testing vs Papanicolaou Testing Alone: What Screening Intervals Are Physicians Recommending?
Saraiya et al.
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:977-986.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Signature sequence validation of human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16) in clinical specimens
Lee et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2010;63:235-239.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Specialty Differences in Primary Care Physician Reports of Papanicolaou Test Screening Practices: A National Survey, 2006 to 2007
Yabroff et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2009;151:602-611.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
