Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Reviews |15 November 2011

Risk Factors and Other Epidemiologic Considerations for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Free

Kimberly K. Vesco, MD, MPH; Evelyn P. Whitlock, MD, MPH; Michelle Eder, PhD; Brittany U. Burda, MPH; Caitlyn A. Senger, MPH; Kevin Lutz, MFA

Kimberly K. Vesco, MD, MPH

Evelyn P. Whitlock, MD, MPH

Michelle Eder, PhD

Brittany U. Burda, MPH

Caitlyn A. Senger, MPH

Kevin Lutz, MFA

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
Acknowledgment: The authors thank Rebecca Holmes, MD, MS; Jennifer S. Lin, MD, MCR; and Sarah Zuber, MSW, for individual and team contributions to the evidence report.
Grant Support: This review was conducted by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland (contract HHS-290-2007-10057-I, task order 3). Agency staff provided oversight for the project and assisted in external review of the companion draft evidence synthesis. The USPSTF liaisons helped to resolve issues around the scope of the evidence synthesis but were not involved in the conduct of the review.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M11-1383.
Requests for Single Reprints: Reprints are available from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site (www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov).
Current Author Addresses: Drs. Vesco, Whitlock, and Eder; Ms. Burda; Ms. Senger; and Mr. Lutz: Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 North Interstate Avenue, Portland, OR 97227.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: K.K. Vesco, E.P. Whitlock, M. Eder, K. Lutz.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: K.K. Vesco, E.P. Whitlock, M. Eder.
Drafting of the article: K.K. Vesco, M. Eder, E.P. Whitlock, K. Lutz.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: K.K. Vesco, E.P. Whitlock, M. Eder, B.U. Burda, C.A. Senger, K. Lutz.
Final approval of the article: K.K. Vesco, E.P. Whitlock, M. Eder, K. Lutz.
Obtaining of funding: E.P. Whitlock, K. Lutz.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: B.U. Burda, C.A. Senger.
Collection and assembly of data: K.K. Vesco, M. Eder, B.U. Burda, C.A. Senger.
  • From the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Abstract
    • Pathogenesis of Cervical Cancer
    • Etiology of Cervical Cancer
    • Infection With and Regression and Persistence of HPV
    • Risk Factors for HPV Acquisition and Cervical Cancer
    • Incidence of CIN and ICC
    • Effect of National Screening Programs on the Incidence of Cervical Cancer
    • Summary Considerations on the Age at Which to Start Screening
    • Summary Considerations on the Age at Which to Stop Screening
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link

Abstract

Despite the success of cervical cancer screening programs, questions remain about the appropriate time to begin and end screening. This review explores epidemiologic and contextual data on cervical cancer screening to inform decisions about when screening should begin and end.

Cervical cancer is rare among women younger than 20 years. Screening for cervical cancer in this age group is complicated by lower rates of detection and higher rates of false-positive results than in older women. Methods used to diagnose and treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia have important potential adverse effects. High-risk human papillomavirus infections and abnormalities on cytologic and histologic examination have relatively high rates of regression. Accordingly, cervical cancer screening in women younger than 20 years may be harmful.

The incidence of, and mortality rates from, cervical cancer and the proportion of U.S. women aged 65 years or older who have had a Papanicolaou smear within 3 years have decreased since 2000. Available evidence supports discontinuation of cervical cancer screening among women aged 65 years or older who have had adequate screening and are not otherwise at high risk. Further reductions in the burden of cervical cancer in older women are probably best achieved by focusing on screening those who have not been adequately screened.

Cervical cancer screening serves as a model for the success of a screening program: The age-adjusted incidence of and mortality rates from cervical cancer in the United States have decreased by more than 50% between 1975 and 2008 9,9. Nonetheless, U.S. data indicate that over 50% of women with cervical cancer were not screened within 3 to 5 years of diagnosis 9,9,9,9,9. Furthermore, the limited sensitivity of a single cytologic screening test, among other factors, has prompted exploration of new methods of cervical cancer screening.
To assist the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating its recommendation on cervical cancer screening, we performed a systematic review summarizing specific technological methods to improve screening test performance 9,9. This concurrent narrative review uses the USPSTF's methods for assessing contextual questions 9 to explore and critique various epidemiologic and contextual data on cervical cancer screening. The review aims to inform decisions about when cervical cancer screening should begin and end. A companion modeling study that compares various lifetime cervical cancer screening strategies is forthcoming 9.

Pathogenesis of Cervical Cancer

One reason why cytologic screening for cervical cancer has been so successful is that cervical cancer does not develop suddenly. Rather, it is preceded by precancerous changes of the cervix that are known as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 9. Cervical cytology results are not diagnostic of CIN or cancer; biopsy and histologic confirmation are required for diagnosis. The terminology for reporting the spectrum of cervical cytologic abnormalities is derived from the 2001 Bethesda System 9. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is categorized as increasing levels of severity: CIN1, CIN2, and CIN3. Newer data suggest that CIN1 does not predict any meaningful risk for CIN3 9,9. In addition, diagnoses of CIN1 and CIN2 are poorly reproduced 9,9,9,9. Progression of CIN to invasive cervical cancer (ICC) is slow, and the likelihood of CIN regression is high: Up to 43% of CIN2 lesions 9,9 and 32% of CIN3 lesions may regress 9. A study of women in New Zealand with CIN3 found that 31% of those whose lesions were untreated or inadequately treated developed ICC within 30 years, compared with 0.7% in those who received adequate treatment 9.

Etiology of Cervical Cancer

Infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types is a necessary, although not sufficient, cause of almost all cases of cervical cancer 9. The progression from HPV infection to cervical cancer occurs over a series of 4 steps: HPV transmission, acute HPV infection, persistent HPV infection leading to precancerous changes, and ICC 9. More than 40 HPV types can infect the cervix, and researchers continue to refine the importance of various high-risk HPV types 9. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of cervical cancer cases 9,9. As a result, tests have been developed to detect HPV in the clinical setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved multiple HPV tests for specific uses in cervical cancer screening or follow-up, and additional tests are awaiting approval 9.

Infection With and Regression and Persistence of HPV

An important consideration for HPV testing in the clinical setting is that the prevalence of infection is highest among teens and women in their early 20s and decreases as age increases 9,9,9. In a study of 9657 U.S. women, the prevalence of high-risk HPV decreased from 35% among women aged 14 to 19 years to 6% among women aged 50 to 65 years (9) 9. Although the prevalence of high-risk HPV peaked among teens, a study of 49 655 women in the United Kingdom demonstrated that prevalent cases of CIN3 or worse peaked among women aged 35 to 39 years, and incident cases of CIN3 or worse peaked among women aged 25 to 29 years (9) 9. The incidence of CIN3 or worse in women aged 65 to 69 years was similar to that in women aged 15 to 19 years 9. No prevalent cases of cancer were identified among women younger than 20 years. The prevalence of positivity for high-risk HPV was lower for women with normal smears than for those with abnormal smears 9. Among women aged 15 to 19 years, 17% with normal smears and 74% with abnormal smears tested positive for high-risk HPV; among women aged 50 to 54, the respective proportions were about 2% and 41% 9.
Figure 1.
Prevalence of high-risk HPV and incident cases of cervical cancer in the United States, 2003–2005.

Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data for incident cases among females aged 15 to 19 years and 50 to 64 years. Data are from references 9 and 9. HPV = human papillomavirus.

Figure 2.
Prevalence of high-risk HPV and incidence of CIN3 or worse.

High-risk HPV types are 16, 18, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68. Data are from reference 9. Reproduced with permission from Macmillan Publishers, British Journal of Cancer, copyright 2004. CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; HPV = human papillomavirus.

Infection with HPV is very likely to regress among women with both normal and abnormal cytology results, and among women with the HPV subtypes most likely to be associated with CIN3 or cancer (types 16 and 18) 9,9,9. A 4-year prospective study of 1203 women aged 16 to 23 years with no history of abnormal cytology found that about 93% of incident infections with HPV 16 and 18 had cleared by 36 months 9. In a prospective study of 4504 women aged 18 years or older with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, 91% of prevalent HPV infections detected at enrollment cleared within 24 months 9. Cytologic abnormalities in young women are also likely to regress. A cohort of 1075 women in the United Kingdom aged 15 to 19 years with normal cytology and negative high-risk HPV tests at baseline was followed prospectively with serial smears and HPV tests 9. During a median follow-up of 29 months, 26% of women became positive for 6 high-risk HPV types. The median duration of the first HPV-positive episode was 13.7 months for any HPV type, 10.3 months for HPV 16, and 7.8 months for HPV 18. The cumulative 3-year risk for any cytologic abnormality was 28% (95% CI, 25% to 32%). The median duration of the first episode of cytologic abnormality was 8.7 months. In this cohort, 28 women (2.6%) developed CIN2 (1.3%) or CIN3 (1.3%) during a median of 36 months of follow-up.
One rationale for using HPV testing in older women is that the prevalence of HPV decreases with age, but the risk for HPV persistence increases 9. Therefore, HPV testing among women aged 30 years or older may identify more clinically significant persistent infections 9. Among 4504 women aged 18 years or older with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion who were followed prospectively for 24 months, the odds of persistent high-risk HPV infections were highest among women aged 50 years or older, compared with those aged 20 years or younger (odds ratio, 1.47 [CI, 1.11 to 1.94]) 9. The probability of persistent infection increased with duration of infection, so that about two thirds of infections that persisted at 18 months were still present at 24 months 9.

Risk Factors for HPV Acquisition and Cervical Cancer

Infection with, and persistence of, HPV are not only associated with age. The risk for HPV acquisition markedly increases with the number of lifetime sexual partners 9,9. Co-infection with other sexually transmitted agents, such as Chlamydia trachomatis and herpes simplex virus, may be associated with risk for HPV infection 9,9,9,9. Co-infection with HIV may impair the ability of the immune system to control HPV infections 9. Additional risk factors for cervical cancer include history of smoking, younger age at first intercourse and at first pregnancy, high parity, and long-term use of oral contraceptives 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9. Women previously treated for any CIN 9 or for CIN3 9 have a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for future cervical cancer, but may not have an increased risk for death from cervical cancer 9.

Incidence of CIN and ICC

Whereas HPV infection and cytologic abnormalities are common among women younger than 20 years, ICC is rare. Between 2000 and 2008, the age-adjusted incidence rate of cervical cancer among women younger than 20 years in the United States was 0.05 case per 100 000 women (9) 9. By comparison, breast cancer in U.S. men of all ages was more than twice as common: The annual age-adjusted incidence rate was 1.2 cases per 100 000 men 9. Although the incidence of CIN3 or worse may be similar among women younger than 20 years and those older than 65 years, younger women have few incident cases of cancer (that is, more cases of CIN3 and less invasive disease) than do older women. According to U.S. cancer statistics, only 0.2% of incident cervical cancer cases occur in women younger than 20 years, whereas 19.5% occur in women aged 65 years or older 9.
Figure 3.
Age-adjusted incidence of and deaths from invasive cervical cancer in the United States, 2000–2008.

Mortality rates are from 2000–2007 data. Data are from reference 9.

While incident cases of cervical cancer in the United States seem to peak among women in their 40s (9), with approximately one half of incident cancer cases occurring in women 35 to 55 years of age 9, CIN3 peaks among women in their late 20s. In a cohort study conducted among 150 052 women aged 15 years or older, the highest incidence of CIN3 (6 cases per 1000 routine smears) occurred among those aged 25 to 29 years—a rate 3 times that of women aged 15 to 19 years and 6 times that of those aged 60 to 79 years 9. The study showed a sharp decrease in the yield of CIN2 and CIN3 with screening in women older than 30 years, with only 2 cases of high-grade CIN identified in 5488 routine smears in women aged 60 years or older 9. Whereas the likelihood of detecting CIN3 was lower in women younger than 25 years, the risk for a false-positive smear was higher than in women aged 25 to 29 years (ranging from 3.1% to 3.5% of smears among women aged 15 to 24 years vs. 2.1% among women aged 25 to 29 years).

Effect of National Screening Programs on the Incidence of Cervical Cancer

A population-based, case–control study of 4012 women with ICC and 7889 control participants done in the United Kingdom's National Health Service found that cervical cancer screening among women younger than 25 years was not associated with a decreased incidence of cervical cancer diagnosed before 30 years of age 9. The investigators could not rule out the possibility that screening women aged 20 and 24 years would be effective in reducing stage IB or worse cervical cancer in women aged 25 to 27 years because the group was small (65 women) and CIs were wide (odds ratio, 0.52 [CI, 0.23 to 1.2]). A statistically significant protective effect of screening was not demonstrated until age 32 years, when screening was associated with a 45% reduction (odds ratio, 0.55 [CI, 0.44 to 0.69]) in the incidence of ICC diagnosed between 35 and 39 years of age 9.
In 1969, Iceland began a national program to screen women aged 25 to 69 years of age for cervical cancer at 2- to 3-year intervals. After 1987, women aged 20 years or older were also invited to screening at 2-year intervals. In the years after the introduction of cervical cancer screening for women aged 20 to 24 years, the rate of ICC did not change among women aged 20 to 34 years 9. The rate decreased significantly among women aged 35 to 39 years, with a stage shift toward earlier disease detection. In contrast, the detection rate of CIN2 and CIN3 increased among women aged 20 to 29 years, whereas detection of CIN2 increased among women aged 30 to 34 years but detection of CIN3 decreased 9.

Summary Considerations on the Age at Which to Start Screening

In 2003, the USPSTF recommended that cervical cancer screening begin at 21 years of age. In its 2009 update, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made the same age recommendation, citing the very low incidence of disease in women younger than 20 years, the high likelihood of HPV and CIN regression, and the potential for adverse effects related to follow-up for women identified as having abnormal cytology 9. Findings from our review support this recommendation. Invasive cervical cancer is exceedingly rare in women younger than 20 years. Screening before 21 years of age is complicated by lower detection rates; higher rates of false-positive results than in older women; and relatively high rates of transient HPV and regressive cervical abnormalities, for which treatment may yield long-term harm to future reproduction. The goal of cervical cancer screening is to detect and treat preinvasive lesions, and the incidence of CIN2 and CIN3 does not begin to peak until women reach their late 20s. Thus, the decision of when to screen women must carefully balance numerous potential harms associated with diagnosis and treatment with any potential benefit.
Colposcopy with biopsy is performed when evaluation of an abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) smear is needed 9. Recent data suggest that the risk for adverse effects from this procedure is not trivial 9. In TOMBOLA (Trial of Management of Borderline and Other Low-Grade Abnormal Smears) 9, lower proportions of women in the surveillance group than the immediate colposcopy group reported pain (15.0% vs. 38.9%; P < 0.001), bleeding (17.2% vs. 46.9%; P < 0.001), or discharge (8.6% vs. 34.2%; P < 0.001).
Once CIN is identified, current U.S. practice is to treat lesions that are CIN2 or worse 9. Potential harms of treating CIN include immediate, short-term, and long-term risks. An observational study in the TOMBOLA cohort found that 67% of women who had a loop electrosurgical excision procedure reported pain, 87% reported bleeding, and 63% reported discharge 9. Two systematic reviews of obstetric outcomes after cold-knife conization and loop electrosurgical excision procedure found that cold-knife conization was associated with increased risk for preterm delivery 9,9. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure was associated with a 1.7 times increased risk for birth before 37 weeks in one review 9, but was not associated with birth before 34 weeks in another review 9.
Given the potential short- and long-term risks associated with treatment and the high likelihood of HPV, CIN1, and CIN2 regression among young women, available data suggest that screening women younger than 21 years would probably result in more harm than benefit. Whether this balance of risks and benefits is similar for women in their early 20s is unclear. Recommendations for when cervical cancer screening should begin range from age 18 to 30 years in various countries (9). In England and Northern Ireland, the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme does not begin screening until 25 years of age 9,9; in Scotland and Wales, screening begins at age 20 years 9,9. The large case–control study discussed earlier 9 was designed to determine whether screening should begin before 25 years of age in the United Kingdom. The investigators concluded that screening women aged 20 to 24 years would have little or no effect on rates of ICC up to age 30 years; however, there was still uncertainty about its effect on advanced-stage tumors in women younger than 30 years 9. In June 2009, the United Kingdom Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening reviewed the practice of initiating screening at 25 years of age and unanimously agreed not to change the policy 9.

Table.

National and International Recommendations for Cervical Cancer Screening

Table.
Whether the United States should adopt a later age for initiating cervical cancer screening is uncertain because it has no unifying national health care system. We found no similar analyses to those that used U.S. data and do not know whether findings from other countries are generalizable or would be representative of U.S. health outcomes. In addition, the ecologic study from Iceland suggested some potential benefit at a population level of screening women in their early 20s. In the end, further data are needed to clarify whether starting cervical cancer screening at an age older than 21 years in the United States would or would not provide a better risk–benefit tradeoff.

Summary Considerations on the Age at Which to Stop Screening

There is no national or international consensus on the age at which to discontinue cervical cancer screening (9) 9,9. In the United States, recommendations range from 65 to 70 years 9,9,9. Internationally, they range from age 59 to 60 years in Sweden and Finland, respectively, and to age 69 to 70 years in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand (9) 9,9,9,9.
A 2003 review of 12 cohort studies for the USPSTF 9 reported the following conclusions:

The incidence and prevalence of high-grade cervical lesions and cancer decreased with age and, in general, those over the age of 65 years had the lowest burden of disease. The age-related decrease in cervical disease was similar in previously unscreened women. There was no difference in the aggressiveness of invasive cancers in older women. Repeat screening after negative smears was associated with a reduced risk of high-grade cytologic abnormalities.

On the basis of that fair-quality evidence, the USPSTF recommended against routinely screening women older than 65 years for cervical cancer if they have had adequate recent screening with normal Pap smears and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer 9.
Improving the burden of cervical cancer in older women may best be achieved by focusing on screening those who are at higher risk for cervical cancer or who have not been adequately screened. Defining an adequate screening history, however, is clear-cut only for women who have never been screened. Although available evidence does not clearly indicate what “adequate” should be, it is commonly interpreted as 3 previous negative screenings 9,9. The relationship between “adequate” screening history and future disease risk may vary by age. A recent observational study in Italy found a nearly 8-fold lower cumulative risk for CIN2 or worse after 3 previous negative screenings in women aged 50 to 64 years than in those aged 25 to 49 years 9. A separate study found the incidence of cervical cancer after 3 consecutive negative screening tests to be the same after 10 years of follow-up in women aged 30 to 44 years and those aged 45 to 54 years 9. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the proportion of U.S. women aged 65 or older who have had a Pap smear in the past 3 years has decreased from 64.5% in 2000 to 50% in 2008 9. Although lower proportions of older women have received cervical cancer screening in the past decade, age-adjusted rates of cervical cancer mortality among women aged 65 and older in the United States have decreased from 7.6 cases per 100 000 women in 2000 to 6.2 cases per 100 000 women in 2007 9.
Likewise, a recent review on screening intervals and age limits 9 determined that screening women older than 65 years who had an adequate screening history would be inefficient 9. Screening women who have not been adequately screened triennially, however, would reduce mortality by 74% 9. The inefficiency is primarily because more smears are required, less CIN is detected as women age, and there are other competing causes of death.
Race, ethnicity, and education are important predictors of recent screening. Data from 2008 show that only about 65% of women aged 25 years or older with less than a high school education had completed a Pap test during the previous 3 years, compared with about 85% of women with some college or higher-level education 9. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for women aged 18 years or older show that Asian women are less likely to have had a Pap smear during the previous 3 years than are women of other racial or ethnic groups 9.
Incidence and mortality rates for cervical cancer also vary by race and ethnicity 9. Among non-Hispanic white women, the incidence rate of cervical cancer increases with age and peaks among those aged 60 to 69 years and then declines 9. In contrast, the incidence rate of cervical cancer among black women does not decline with advancing age, even though this group has slightly higher-than-average rates of adherence with recommended cervical screening 9,9,9. In 2007, the mortality rate from cervical cancer was almost twice as high for black women as white women (4.3 vs. 2.2 cases per 100 000 women) 9. Compared with rates in white women, rates of ICC in Hispanic women peak earlier and black women have a higher absolute rate that is prolonged (to age >85 years). It is unclear whether these differences are related to variation in prevalence of risk factors for associated cervical cancer, in obtaining adequate cervical cancer screening, or other disease-related factors.
Potential concerns about recommendations to discontinue screening among older women are the need for greater vigilance on the part of health care providers for symptomatic presentation of cervical cancer and patient acceptance of discontinuation of screening. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that if screening is discontinued, risk factors should be assessed at subsequent gynecologic examinations to determine whether screening should be reinitiated 9. A survey of U.S. adults on cessation of colon, breast, and prostate cancer screening found that plans to stop screening were uncommon among participants who had recently faced a screening decision 9. Another survey on beliefs about cervical cancer screening among 199 women aged 65 years or older found that most women believed that lifelong cervical cancer screening was important 9. Of those whose physicians had recommended ending screening, 87% reported that they had ended screening.
In conclusion, the available evidence suggests that cervical cancer screening should not begin before 21 years of age because cervical cancer is rare in this age group and the potential for harm due to treatment of regressive HPV infections and CIN is not trivial. Whether the age of screening initiation in the United States could be raised to, for example, 25 years is unclear. Studies on U.S. screening and treatment practices in relation to CIN and cervical cancer outcomes across age groups could help inform this question. Finally, available evidence also suggests that discontinuation of screening can be considered for women aged 65 years or older without a history of CIN or cervical cancer who have had recent negative cervical cancer screening.

References

  1. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2011. Accessed at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/results_merged/sect_05_cervix_uteri.pdf on 21 Apr 2011.
  2. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
    SEER*Stat Database: All COD, Aggregated with State, Total U.S. (1969-2007).
    Bethesda, MD
    National Cancer Institute
    2011
  3. Sung
    HY
    ,  
    Kearney
    KA
    ,  
    Miller
    M
    ,  
    Kinney
    W
    ,  
    Sawaya
    GF
    ,  
    Hiatt
    RA
    .  
    Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan.
    Cancer
    2000
    88
    2283
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
  4. Kinney
    W
    ,  
    Sung
    HY
    ,  
    Kearney
    KA
    ,  
    Miller
    M
    ,  
    Sawaya
    G
    ,  
    Hiatt
    RA
    .  
    Missed opportunities for cervical cancer screening of HMO members developing invasive cervical cancer (ICC).
    Gynecol Oncol
    1998
    71
    428
    30
     PubMed
  5. Leyden
    WA
    ,  
    Manos
    MM
    ,  
    Geiger
    AM
    ,  
    Weinmann
    S
    ,  
    Mouchawar
    J
    ,  
    Bischoff
    K
    .  et al. 
    Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    2005
    97
    675
    83
     PubMed
  6. Janerich
    DT
    ,  
    Hadjimichael
    O
    ,  
    Schwartz
    PE
    ,  
    Lowell
    DM
    ,  
    Meigs
    JW
    ,  
    Merino
    MJ
    .  et al. 
    The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut.
    Am J Public Health
    1995
    85
    791
    4
     PubMed
  7. International Agency for Research on Cancer
    IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention: Cervix Cancer Screening.
    Lyon, France
    IARC Pr
    2005
  8. Vesco
    KK
    ,  
    Whitlock
    EP
    ,  
    Eder
    M
    ,  
    Lin
    J
    ,  
    Burda
    BU
    ,  
    Senger
    CA
    .  et al. 
    Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Report no. 86. AHRQ publication no. 11-05156-EF-1. 2011.
    Rockville, MD
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    2011
  9. Whitlock
    EP
    ,  
    Vesco
    KK
    ,  
    Eder
    M
    ,  
    Lin
    JS
    ,  
    Senger
    CA
    ,  
    Burda
    BU
    .  
    Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
    Ann Intern Med
    2011
    155
    687
    97
  10. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
    USPSTF Procedure Manual. AHRQ Publication no. 08-05118-EF.
    Rockville, MD
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    2008
  11. Kulasingam SL, Havrilesky L, Ghebre R, Myers ER. Screening for cervical cancer: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. In preparation.
  12. American Cancer Society. Cervical cancer. Atlanta: American Cancer Soc; 2006. Accessed at www.cancer.org/cancer/cervicalcancer/index on 19 Apr 2011.
  13. Solomon
    D
    ,  
    Davey
    D
    ,  
    Kurman
    R
    ,  
    Moriarty
    A
    ,  
    O'Connor
    D
    ,  
    Prey
    M
    .  et al. 
    Forum Group Members
    The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology.
    JAMA
    2002
    287
    2114
    9
     PubMed
  14. Schiffman
    M
    ,  
    Castle
    PE
    ,  
    Jeronimo
    J
    ,  
    Rodriguez
    AC
    ,  
    Wacholder
    S
    .  
    Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer.
    Lancet
    2007
    370
    890
    907
     PubMed
  15. Cox
    JT
    ,  
    Schiffman
    M
    ,  
    Solomon
    D
    .  
    ASCUS-low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group
    Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol
    2003
    188
    1406
    12
     PubMed
  16. Dalla Palma
    P
    ,  
    Giorgi Rossi
    P
    ,  
    Collina
    G
    ,  
    Buccoliero
    AM
    ,  
    Ghiringhello
    B
    ,  
    Gilioli
    E
    .  et al. 
    NTCC Pathology Group
    The reproducibility of CIN diagnoses among different pathologists: data from histology reviews from a multicenter randomized study.
    Am J Clin Pathol
    2009
    132
    125
    32
     PubMed
  17. Carreon
    JD
    ,  
    Sherman
    ME
    ,  
    Guillén
    D
    ,  
    Solomon
    D
    ,  
    Herrero
    R
    ,  
    Jerónimo
    J
    .  et al. 
    CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples.
    Int J Gynecol Pathol
    2007
    26
    441
    6
     PubMed
  18. Ostör
    AG
    .  
    Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review.
    Int J Gynecol Pathol
    1993
    12
    186
    92
     PubMed
  19. Castle
    PE
    ,  
    Schiffman
    M
    ,  
    Wheeler
    CM
    ,  
    Solomon
    D
    .  
    Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2.
    Obstet Gynecol
    2009
    113
    18
    25
     PubMed
  20. McCredie
    MR
    ,  
    Sharples
    KJ
    ,  
    Paul
    C
    ,  
    Baranyai
    J
    ,  
    Medley
    G
    ,  
    Jones
    RW
    .  et al. 
    Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study.
    Lancet Oncol
    2008
    9
    425
    34
     PubMed
  21. Trottier
    H
    ,  
    Franco
    EL
    .  
    The epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection.
    Vaccine
    2006
    24
    Suppl 1
    S1
    15
     PubMed
  22. Schiffman
    M
    ,  
    Wentzensen
    N
    ,  
    Wacholder
    S
    ,  
    Kinney
    W
    ,  
    Gage
    JC
    ,  
    Castle
    PE
    .  
    Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer.
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    2011
    103
    368
    83
     PubMed
  23. Clifford
    GM
    ,  
    Smith
    JS
    ,  
    Aguado
    T
    ,  
    Franceschi
    S
    .  
    Comparison of HPV type distribution in high-grade cervical lesions and cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.
    Br J Cancer
    2003
    89
    101
    5
     PubMed
  24. Smith
    JS
    ,  
    Lindsay
    L
    ,  
    Hoots
    B
    ,  
    Keys
    J
    ,  
    Franceschi
    S
    ,  
    Winer
    R
    .  et al. 
    Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update.
    Int J Cancer
    2007
    121
    621
    32
     PubMed
  25. Peto
    J
    ,  
    Gilham
    C
    ,  
    Deacon
    J
    ,  
    Taylor
    C
    ,  
    Evans
    C
    ,  
    Binns
    W
    .  et al. 
    Cervical HPV infection and neoplasia in a large population-based prospective study: the Manchester cohort.
    Br J Cancer
    2004
    91
    942
    53
     PubMed
  26. Cotton
    SC
    ,  
    Sharp
    L
    ,  
    Seth
    R
    ,  
    Masson
    LF
    ,  
    Little
    J
    ,  
    Cruickshank
    ME
    .  et al. 
    TOMBOLA Group
    Lifestyle and socio-demographic factors associated with high-risk HPV infection in UK women.
    Br J Cancer
    2007
    97
    133
    9
     PubMed
  27. Datta
    SD
    ,  
    Koutsky
    LA
    ,  
    Ratelle
    S
    ,  
    Unger
    ER
    ,  
    Shlay
    J
    ,  
    McClain
    T
    .  et al. 
    Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cytology in women screened for cervical cancer in the United States, 2003-2005.
    Ann Intern Med
    2008
    148
    493
    500
     PubMed
  28. Plummer
    M
    ,  
    Schiffman
    M
    ,  
    Castle
    PE
    ,  
    Maucort-Boulch
    D
    ,  
    Wheeler
    CM
    .  
    ALTS Group
    A 2-year prospective study of human papillomavirus persistence among women with a cytological diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.
    J Infect Dis
    2007
    195
    1582
    9
     PubMed
  29. Insinga
    RP
    ,  
    Dasbach
    EJ
    ,  
    Elbasha
    EH
    ,  
    Liaw
    KL
    ,  
    Barr
    E
    .  
    Incidence and duration of cervical human papillomavirus 6, 11, 16, and 18 infections in young women: an evaluation from multiple analytic perspectives.
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
    2007
    16
    709
    15
     PubMed
  30. Khan
    MJ
    ,  
    Castle
    PE
    ,  
    Lorincz
    AT
    ,  
    Wacholder
    S
    ,  
    Sherman
    M
    ,  
    Scott
    DR
    .  et al. 
    The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice.
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    2005
    97
    1072
    9
     PubMed
  31. Woodman
    CB
    ,  
    Collins
    S
    ,  
    Winter
    H
    ,  
    Bailey
    A
    ,  
    Ellis
    J
    ,  
    Prior
    P
    .  et al. 
    Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal cohort study.
    Lancet
    2001
    357
    1831
    6
     PubMed
  32. Cox
    JT
    .  
    The development of cervical cancer and its precursors: what is the role of human papillomavirus infection?
    Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol
    2006
    18
    Suppl 1
    s5
    s13
     PubMed
  33. Berrington de González
    A
    ,  
    Green
    J
    .  
    International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer
    Comparison of risk factors for invasive squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 8,097 women with squamous cell carcinoma and 1,374 women with adenocarcinoma from 12 epidemiological studies.
    Int J Cancer
    2007
    120
    885
    91
     PubMed
  34. Castellsagué
    X
    ,  
    Díaz
    M
    ,  
    de Sanjosé
    S
    ,  
    Muñoz
    N
    ,  
    Herrero
    R
    ,  
    Franceschi
    S
    .  et al. 
    International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group
    Worldwide human papillomavirus etiology of cervical adenocarcinoma and its cofactors: implications for screening and prevention.
    J Natl Cancer Inst
    2006
    98
    303
    15
     PubMed
  35. Bosch
    FX
    ,  
    de Sanjosé
    S
    .  
    The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer.
    Dis Markers
    2007
    23
    213
    27
     PubMed
  36. Ault
    KA
    .  
    Epidemiology and natural history of human papillomavirus infections in the female genital tract.
    Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol
    2006
    2006
    Suppl
    40470
     PubMed
  37. International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer
    Cervical carcinoma and reproductive factors: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 16,563 women with cervical carcinoma and 33,542 women without cervical carcinoma from 25 epidemiological studies.
    Int J Cancer
    2006
    119
    1108
    24
     PubMed
  38. Muñoz
    N
    ,  
    Franceschi
    S
    ,  
    Bosetti
    C
    ,  
    Moreno
    V
    ,  
    Herrero
    R
    ,  
    Smith
    JS
    .  et al. 
    International Agency for Research on Cancer
    Multicentric Cervical Cancer Study Group
    Role of parity and human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: the IARC multicentric case-control study.
    Lancet
    2002
    359
    1093
    101
     PubMed
  39. Moreno
    V
    ,  
    Bosch
    FX
    ,  
    Muñoz
    N
    ,  
    Meijer
    CJ
    ,  
    Shah
    KV
    ,  
    Walboomers
    JM
    .  et al. 
    International Agency for Research on Cancer; Multicentric Cervical Cancer Study Group
    Effect of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer in women with human papillomavirus infection: the IARC multicentric case-control study.
    Lancet
    2002
    359
    1085
    92
     PubMed
  40. Appleby
    P
    ,  
    Beral
    V
    ,  
    Berrington de González
    A
    ,  
    Colin
    D
    ,  
    Franceschi
    S
    ,  
    Goodill
    A
    .  et al. 
    International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer
    Carcinoma of the cervix and tobacco smoking: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 13,541 women with carcinoma of the cervix and 23,017 women without carcinoma of the cervix from 23 epidemiological studies.
    Int J Cancer
    2006
    118
    1481
    95
     PubMed
  41. Plummer
    M
    ,  
    Herrero
    R
    ,  
    Franceschi
    S
    ,  
    Meijer
    CJ
    ,  
    Snijders
    P
    ,  
    Bosch
    FX
    .  et al. 
    IARC Multi-centre Cervical Cancer Study Group
    Smoking and cervical cancer: pooled analysis of the IARC multi-centric case—control study.
    Cancer Causes Control
    2003
    14
    805
    14
     PubMed
  42. Kalliala
    I
    ,  
    Anttila
    A
    ,  
    Pukkala
    E
    ,  
    Nieminen
    P
    .  
    Risk of cervical and other cancers after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: retrospective cohort study.
    BMJ
    2005
    331
    1183
    5
     PubMed
  43. Strander
    B
    ,  
    Andersson-Ellström
    A
    ,  
    Milsom
    I
    ,  
    Sparén
    P
    .  
    Long term risk of invasive cancer after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: population based cohort study.
    BMJ
    2007
    335
    1077
     PubMed
  44. Kalliala
    I
    ,  
    Dyba
    T
    ,  
    Nieminen
    P
    ,  
    Hakulinen
    T
    ,  
    Anttila
    A
    .  
    Mortality in a long-term follow-up after treatment of CIN.
    Int J Cancer
    2010
    126
    224
    31
     PubMed
  45. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
    SEER*Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 17 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2010 Sub (1973-2008 varying).
    Bethesda, MD
    National Cancer Institute
    2011
  46. Insinga
    RP
    ,  
    Glass
    AG
    ,  
    Rush
    BB
    .  
    Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol
    2004
    191
    105
    13
     PubMed
  47. Sasieni
    P
    ,  
    Castanon
    A
    ,  
    Cuzick
    J
    .  
    Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data.
    BMJ
    2009
    339
    b2968
     PubMed
  48. Sigurdsson
    K
    ,  
    Sigvaldason
    H
    .  
    Is it rational to start population-based cervical cancer screening at or soon after age 20? Analysis of time trends in preinvasive and invasive diseases.
    Eur J Cancer
    2007
    43
    769
    74
     PubMed
  49. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology
    ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 109: cervical cytology screening.
    Obstet Gynecol
    2009
    114
    1409
    20
     PubMed
  50. Wright
    TC
    Jr
    ,  
    Massad
    LS
    ,  
    Dunton
    CJ
    ,  
    Spitzer
    M
    ,  
    Wilkinson
    EJ
    ,  
    Solomon
    D
    .  
    2006 ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference
    2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests.
    J Low Genit Tract Dis
    2007
    11
    201
    22
     PubMed
  51. TOMBOLA Group
    Cytological surveillance compared with immediate referral for colposcopy in management of women with low grade cervical abnormalities: multicentre randomised controlled trial.
    BMJ
    2009
    339
    b2546
     PubMed
  52. Sharp
    L
    ,  
    Cotton
    S
    ,  
    Cochran
    C
    ,  
    Gray
    N
    ,  
    Little
    J
    ,  
    Neal
    K
    .  et al. 
    TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group
    After-effects reported by women following colposcopy, cervical biopsies and LLETZ: results from the TOMBOLA trial.
    BJOG
    2009
    116
    1506
    14
     PubMed
  53. Kyrgiou
    M
    ,  
    Koliopoulos
    G
    ,  
    Martin-Hirsch
    P
    ,  
    Arbyn
    M
    ,  
    Prendiville
    W
    ,  
    Paraskevaidis
    E
    .  
    Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Lancet
    2006
    367
    489
    98
     PubMed
  54. Arbyn
    M
    ,  
    Kyrgiou
    M
    ,  
    Simoens
    C
    ,  
    Raifu
    AO
    ,  
    Koliopoulos
    G
    ,  
    Martin-Hirsch
    P
    .  et al. 
    Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis.
    BMJ
    2008
    337
    a1284
     PubMed
  55. National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme. About cervical cancer screening. Sheffield, UK: National Health Service; 2011. Accessed at www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/about-cervical-screening.html on 11 May 2011.
  56. HSC Public Health Agency. NI Cancer Screening Programmes. History of the cervical screening programme. Belfast, Ireland: Health and Social Care; 2011. Accessed at www.cancerscreening.hscni.net/cervical/02-B-CERVICALHISTORY.html#P-4_0 on 29 July 2011.
  57. Cervical Screening Wales. Cardiff: Public Health Wales; 2011. Accessed at www.screeningservices.org.uk/csw/pub/index.asp on 20 September 2011.
  58. The Scottish Government. Cervical cancer screening programme. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Scottish Government; 2008. Accessed at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/health/cancer/Cancer-Screening/ccscreening on 25 July 2011.
  59. Australia Department of Health and Aging. National cervical screening programme. Canberra, Australia: Australia Department of Health and Aging; 2009. Accessed at www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/cervical-about on 11 May 2011.
  60. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Screening for cervical cancer. Ottawa: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 1994. Accessed at www.canadiantaskforce.ca/_archive/index.html on 11 May 2011.
  61. Arbyn
    M
    ,  
    Antilla
    A
    ,  
    Jordan
    J
    ,  
    Ronco
    G
    ,  
    Schenck
    U
    ,  
    Segnan
    N
    .  et al. 
    European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. 2nd ed.
    Luxembourg
    European Commission
    2008
  62. Finnish Cancer Registry
    Cervical Cancer Screening: Screening Programme.
    Helsinki
    Institute for Statistical and Epidemiological Cancer Research
    2011
  63. Dowling
    EC
    ,  
    Klabunde
    C
    ,  
    Patnick
    J
    ,  
    Ballard-Barbash
    R
    .  
    International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN)
    Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries.
    J Med Screen
    2010
    17
    139
    46
     PubMed
  64. New Zealand National Cervical Screening Programme. Guidelines for cervical screening in New Zealand. Incorporating the Management of Women with Abnormal Cervical Smears. Wellington, New Zealand: National Screening Unit, Ministry of Health; 2008. Accessed at www.nsu.govt.nz/files/NCSP/NCSP_Guidelines_ALL_small(1).pdf on 11 May 2011.
  65. American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer. Atlanta: American Cancer Soc; 2010. Accessed at www.cancer.org/Healthy/FindCancerEarly/CancerScreeningGuidelines/american-cancer-society-guidelines-for-the-early-detection-of-cancer on 11 May 2011.
  66. American Academy of Family Physicians. Cervical cancer. Leawood, KS: American Academy of Family Physicians; 2008. Accessed at www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/exam/cervicalcancer.html on 11 May 2011.
  67. Hawkes
    AP
    ,  
    Kronenberger
    CB
    ,  
    MacKenzie
    TD
    ,  
    Mardis
    AL
    ,  
    Palen
    TE
    ,  
    Schulter
    WW
    .  et al. 
    Cervical cancer screening: American College of Preventive Medicine practice policy statement.
    Am J Prev Med
    1996
    12
    342
    4
     PubMed
  68. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
    Screening for Cervical Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale.
    Rockville, MD
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    2003
  69. Sasieni
    P
    ,  
    Castanon
    A
    .  
    Call and recall cervical screening programme: screening interval and age limits.
    Curr Diagn Pathol
    2006
    12
    114
    26
  70. Mandelblatt
    J
    ,  
    Lawrence
    W
    ,  
    Yi
    B
    ,  
    King
    J
    .  
    The balance of harms, benefits, and costs of screening for cervical cancer in older women: the case for continued screening.
    Arch Intern Med
    2004
    164
    245
    7
     PubMed
  71. Hartmann
    KE
    ,  
    Hall
    SA
    ,  
    Nanda
    K
    ,  
    Boggess
    JF
    ,  
    Zolnoun
    D
    .  
    Screening for Cervical Cancer. Systematic Review no. 25, ii-74.
    Rockville, MD
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    2002
  72. Armaroli
    P
    ,  
    Gallo
    F
    ,  
    Bellomi
    A
    ,  
    Ciatto
    S
    ,  
    Consonni
    D
    ,  
    Davi
    D
    .  et al. 
    Do women > or = 50 years of age need as much screening as women <50 years after they have had negative screening results?
    Br J Cancer
    2008
    99
    239
    44
     PubMed
  73. Rebolj
    M
    ,  
    van Ballegooijen
    M
    ,  
    Lynge
    E
    ,  
    Looman
    C
    ,  
    Essink-Bot
    ML
    ,  
    Boer
    R
    .  et al. 
    Incidence of cervical cancer after several negative smear results by age 50: prospective observational study.
    BMJ
    2009
    338
    b1354
     PubMed
  74. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cervical cancer screening rates. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/screening.htm on 8 Apr 2011.
  75. Fahs
    MC
    ,  
    Mandelblatt
    J
    ,  
    Schechter
    C
    ,  
    Muller
    C
    .  
    Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly.
    Ann Intern Med
    1992
    117
    520
    7
     PubMed
  76. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Cervix Uteri. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2010. Accessed at http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html#incidence-mortality on 21 Apr 2011.
  77. Henley
    SJ
    ,  
    King
    JB
    ,  
    German
    RR
    ,  
    Richardson
    LC
    ,  
    Plescia
    M
    .  
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    Surveillance of screening-detected cancers (colon and rectum, breast, and cervix) - United States, 2004-2006.
    MMWR Surveill Summ
    2010
    59
    9
    1
    25
     PubMed
  78. Barnholtz-Sloan
    J
    ,  
    Patel
    N
    ,  
    Rollison
    D
    ,  
    Kortepeter
    K
    ,  
    MacKinnon
    J
    ,  
    Giuliano
    A
    .  
    Incidence trends of invasive cervical cancer in the United States by combined race and ethnicity.
    Cancer Causes Control
    2009
    20
    1129
    38
     PubMed
  79. McDougall
    JA
    ,  
    Madeleine
    MM
    ,  
    Daling
    JR
    ,  
    Li
    CI
    .  
    Racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer incidence rates in the United States, 1992-2003.
    Cancer Causes Control
    2007
    18
    1175
    86
     PubMed
  80. Xu
    J
    ,  
    Kochanek
    KD
    ,  
    Murphy
    SL
    ,  
    Tejada-Vera
    B
    .  
    Deaths: final data for 2007.
    Natl Vital Stat Rep
    2007
    58
    1
    135
  81. Lewis
    CL
    ,  
    Couper
    MP
    ,  
    Levin
    CA
    ,  
    Pignone
    MP
    ,  
    Zikmund-Fisher
    BJ
    .  
    Plans to stop cancer screening tests among adults who recently considered screening.
    J Gen Intern Med
    2010
    25
    859
    64
     PubMed
  82. Sawaya
    GF
    ,  
    Iwaoka-Scott
    AY
    ,  
    Kim
    S
    ,  
    Wong
    ST
    ,  
    Huang
    AJ
    ,  
    Washington
    AE
    .  et al. 
    Ending cervical cancer screening: attitudes and beliefs from ethnically diverse older women.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol
    2009
    200
     PubMed
Figure 1.
Prevalence of high-risk HPV and incident cases of cervical cancer in the United States, 2003–2005.

Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data for incident cases among females aged 15 to 19 years and 50 to 64 years. Data are from references 9 and 9. HPV = human papillomavirus.

Figure 2.
Prevalence of high-risk HPV and incidence of CIN3 or worse.

High-risk HPV types are 16, 18, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68. Data are from reference 9. Reproduced with permission from Macmillan Publishers, British Journal of Cancer, copyright 2004. CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; HPV = human papillomavirus.

Figure 3.
Age-adjusted incidence of and deaths from invasive cervical cancer in the United States, 2000–2008.

Mortality rates are from 2000–2007 data. Data are from reference 9.

Table.

National and International Recommendations for Cervical Cancer Screening

Table.

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Video News Release - Editor, Christine Laine, Explains Results of Women's Cancer Studies (2:42)

Christine Laine, MD, MPH discusses women's cancer screening articles in this issue.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

0 Comments

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, et al. Risk Factors and Other Epidemiologic Considerations for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:698–705. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-10-201111150-00377

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(10):698-705.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-10-201111150-00377

53 Citations

See Also

Liquid-Based Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing to Screen for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Annals of Internal Medicine; 163 (8): 589-597
Should U.S. Women Be Screened for Cervical Cancer With Pap Tests, HPV Tests, or Both?
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (4): 295-297
Review: Self-collected samples are less accurate for HPV testing than clinician-collected samples
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (4): JC11
Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Annals of Internal Medicine; 156 (12): 880-891
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

Review: Self-collected samples are less accurate for HPV testing than clinician-collected samples
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (4): JC11
HPV vaccination reduced cytologic abnormalities compared with control vaccination in young women
Annals of Internal Medicine; 159 (12): JC4
Quadrivalent HPV vaccine prevented HPV infection and external genital lesions in boys and men 16 to 26 years of age
Annals of Internal Medicine; 154 (10): JC5-10
Quadrivalent HPV vaccine reduced risk for HPV infection and related disease in women 24 to 45 years of age
Annals of Internal Medicine; 151 (8): JC4-12
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Cancer Screening/Prevention
Hematology/Oncology
Infectious Disease
Prevention/Screening

Cancer Screening/Prevention, Hematology/Oncology, Infectious Disease, Prevention/Screening.

PubMed Articles

A practicable method to prepare nitrated proteins with peroxynitrite and low concentration of sodium hydroxide.
Mol Biol Rep 2019.
Toward Personalized Medicine Implementation: Survey of Military Medicine Providers in the Area of Pharmacogenomics.
Mil Med 2019.
View More

Results provided by: PubMed

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×