0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters | Less Is More

Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals, 2006 to 2009: Moving Beyond Annual Testing FREE

Zahava Berkowitz, MSPH, MSc; Mona Saraiya, MD, MPH; George F. Sawaya, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (Ms Berkowitz and Dr Saraiya); and Departments of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Sawaya).


JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):922-924. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.368.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Clinical guidelines recommend that women 30 years and older with a negative test result for oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) and with a concurrent normal Papanicolaou test result (co-testing) not be tested again for at least 3 years.1 Previous studies, however, indicate that primary care providers continue to perform annual testing regardless of prior test results.2,3 Our objective was to examine clinicians' reported behaviors regarding cervical cancer screening intervals over a 4-year period after the endorsement of co-testing.

We used nationally representative sample of primary care providers from the 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Cervical Cancer Screening Supplement (CCSS) to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS).4 The overall response rates for the NAMCS and NHAMCS surveys were 61.1% and 84.7% in 2006; 33.6% and 73.0% in 2007; 61.8% and 73.3% in 2008; and 60.5% and 50.4% in 2009, respectively.

We combined NAMCS and NHAMCS providers to assess their recommendations for the next Papanicolaou test for women aged 30 to 60 years using 5 clinical vignettes. Primary care providers were asked “When would your practice recommend that a woman between 30 and 60 years of age return for her next Pap test?” Possible answers included the following: no follow-up needed, less than 6 months, 6 to less than 12 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years or more, or have no experience with this type of patient or test. Each vignette included Papanicolaou test results in the prior 5 years and current HPV and Papanicolaou test results. Using the screening recommendations applicable at the time of the surveys,1 we defined responses for timing of the next Papanicolaou test as consistent with guidelines; sooner than recommended; and later than recommended (Table 1 and Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Vignette Descriptions and Guideline Definitions for Timing of Next Papanicolaou Test for Women Aged 30 to 60 Years
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Timing of Next Papanicolaou Test Reported by Primary Care Providers Compared With Guidelines, by Vignette and Survey Year

The analysis included 2087 primary care providers after excluding practitioners who were not aware of the HPV DNA test in their practice, unknown, or missing (n = 84). Potential differences in guideline-consistent recommendations between years were compared with t test statistic. Data were analyzed with SUDAAN 10.1 (RTI International) to account for the sampling design and nonresponse.

During the study period, 26% of NAMCS and NHAMCS providers were obstetrician-gynecologists and the remainder practiced general medicine. Nearly 60% of NAMCS providers were male, 64% were 45 years and older, 84% worked in metropolitan areas, and 69% worked in practices with fewer than 6 practitioners. Guideline adherence was low overall, especially in vignettes portraying women with normal test results (vignettes 1, 2, and 3). After normal co-testing results (vignettes 2 and 3), most respondents (67.1% to 93.8%) recommended Papanicolaou tests sooner than recommended by guidelines. Adherence was particularly low for a woman without prior Papanicolaou tests and normal co-testing results (vignette 3), with more than 86% recommending the next Papanicolaou test sooner than recommended by guidelines. Adherence improved when the recommendation was to repeat screening in 1 year because of abnormal results (vignettes 4 and 5). In vignette 4, percentages increased from 36.7% in 2006 to 48.5% in 2008 (P < .05), but decreased slightly in 2009 (43.8%). However, without a known Papanicolaou test history (vignette 5), guideline adherence was low, ranging from 21.1% in 2006 to 32.7% in 2009 (P < .05).

From 2006 to 2009, primary care providers consistently reported that they would recommend Papanicolaou testing sooner than recommended by guidelines, especially after normal co-testing results. A novel benefit of co-testing is the ability to extend screening intervals immediately among women who have no prior screening or whose screening history is unavailable if both test results are normal, yet the lowest adherence to guidelines was for the vignette of a woman with unknown Papanicolaou test history and negative co-test results (3.1%, all years combined). The finding of exceedingly low adherence in this scenario is troubling because reports from a large US cohort5 demonstrate that more than 90% of women will have normal co-testing results. The highest adherence to guidelines occurred when the recommended interval was less than 3 years, suggesting that clinicians are willing to adhere to guidelines if more vigilant testing is recommended. The ability to obtain prior screening results and the use of electronic medical records or systems changes, such as office reminders or reimbursement packages, may help achieve adherence to recommended intervals.

The low response rate in 2007 (NAMCS) was a limitation of our study. However, estimates were weighted to physician population and accounted for survey nonresponse. Uncertain concordance of practitioner response to hypothetical vignette with actual practice might also be of concern. Vignettes, however, have been shown to be inexpensive and useful tools for measuring quality of care by physicians.6 Important strengths are the inclusion of the latest NAMCS and NHAMCS data available and the consistent methodology, which make the survey a useful tool to gauge changes in clinicians' recommendations over time. Future analyses will monitor adherence to newer guidelines that recommend extending screening intervals to 5 years among women with normal co-testing results, a strategy designed to achieve a reasonable balance between benefits and harms.79

Correspondence: Ms Berkowitz, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Mail Stop K-55, Atlanta, GA 30341 (Zab3@cdc.gov).

Published Online: April 8, 2013. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.368

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Berkowitz, Saraiya, and Sawaya. Acquisition of data: Berkowitz. Analysis and interpretation of data: Berkowitz, Saraiya, and Sawaya. Drafting of the manuscript: Berkowitz, Saraiya, and Sawaya. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Berkowitz, Saraiya, and Sawaya. Statistical analysis: Berkowitz. Obtained funding: Saraiya.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Disclaimer: The finding and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D,  et al; American Cancer Society.  American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(6):342-362
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saraiya M, Berkowitz Z, Yabroff KR, Wideroff L, Kobrin S, Benard V. Cervical cancer screening with both human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou testing vs Papanicolaou testing alone: what screening intervals are physicians recommending?  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(11):977-985
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berkowitz Z, Saraiya M, Benard VK, Yabroff KR. Common abnormal results of Pap and human papillomavirus contesting.  Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1332-1340
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  About the ambulatory health care surveys: NAMCS/NHAMCS. 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/about_ahcd.htm. Accessed December 12, 2012
Katki HA, Kinney W, Fetterman B,  et al.  Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice.  Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):663-672
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality.  JAMA. 2000;283(13):1715-1722
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW.American Cancer Society; American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology; American Society for Clinical Pathology.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology Screening Guidelines for the Prevention and Early Detection of Cervical Cancer.  Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137(4):516-542
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology.  ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 131: screening for cervical cancer.  Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1222-1238
PubMed
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm. March 2012. Accessed December 12, 2012

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Vignette Descriptions and Guideline Definitions for Timing of Next Papanicolaou Test for Women Aged 30 to 60 Years
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Timing of Next Papanicolaou Test Reported by Primary Care Providers Compared With Guidelines, by Vignette and Survey Year

References

Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D,  et al; American Cancer Society.  American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(6):342-362
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saraiya M, Berkowitz Z, Yabroff KR, Wideroff L, Kobrin S, Benard V. Cervical cancer screening with both human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou testing vs Papanicolaou testing alone: what screening intervals are physicians recommending?  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(11):977-985
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berkowitz Z, Saraiya M, Benard VK, Yabroff KR. Common abnormal results of Pap and human papillomavirus contesting.  Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1332-1340
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  About the ambulatory health care surveys: NAMCS/NHAMCS. 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/about_ahcd.htm. Accessed December 12, 2012
Katki HA, Kinney W, Fetterman B,  et al.  Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice.  Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):663-672
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality.  JAMA. 2000;283(13):1715-1722
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW.American Cancer Society; American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology; American Society for Clinical Pathology.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology Screening Guidelines for the Prevention and Early Detection of Cervical Cancer.  Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137(4):516-542
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology.  ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 131: screening for cervical cancer.  Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1222-1238
PubMed
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm. March 2012. Accessed December 12, 2012

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 6

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles