scholarly journals Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth T. H. Fontham ◽  
Andrew M. D. Wolf ◽  
Timothy R. Church ◽  
Ruth Etzioni ◽  
Christopher R. Flowers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
American Cancer Society ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Cancer Society

scholarly journals State of the Science: Screening, Surveillance, and Epidemiology of HPV-Related Malignancies

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Rahel Ghebre ◽  
J. Michael Berry-Lawhorn ◽  
Gypsyamber D’Souza
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Cancer Precursors ◽  
The U.S

Oropharyngeal, cervical, vulvar, and anal cancers share a common risk factor of HPV infection. HPV vaccination is currently recommended at age 11 or 12 to prevent new HPV infections for all genders with catch-up vaccination recommened up to age 26. Despite the known effectiveness of HPV vaccination to prevent HPV-related cancer, there is continued low uptake in the United States; only 40% of eligible persons were vaccinated in 2018, though rates are 70% among teenagers. Current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening, but do not have specific recommendations for screening for other HPV-related cancers. Oropharyngeal cancer precursors have yet to be identified, and there are currently no routine screening tests for oropharyngeal cancer recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society recommend cervical cancer screening for women at average risk up to age 65, and screening guidelines do not currently differ by HPV vaccination status. Primary HPV DNA testing was first approved for cervical cancer screening in 2016 and was shown to be superior for cervical cancer prevention. Vulvar and anal cancer precursors have been identified, but optimal screening remains unclear. Examination of the anal canal and perianus is best performed by trained clinicians using high-resolution anoscopy, and effectiveness of using high-resolution anoscopy to detect and treat anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to prevent cancer is actively being researched. Current multistep approaches to control HPV-related malignancies include HPV vaccination coupled with cervical cancer screening or surveillance for oropharyngeal, vulvar, and anal cancers.

scholarly journals A comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology using data for cervical cancer screening from the Japan Cancer Society

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-144
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ito ◽  
Ryusei Kimura ◽  
Hiroshi Konishi ◽  
Nobuyoshi Ozawa ◽  
Nobuo Yaegashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Conventional Cytology ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Liquid Based Cytology ◽  
Using Data

Abstract Objective Liquid-based cytology has replaced conventional cytology in cervical cancer screening in many countries. However, a detailed comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology has not been reported in Japan. Therefore, the aim of the study is to evaluate efficacy of liquid-based cytology in Japan. Methods We first evaluated the prevalence of use of liquid-based cytology and then examined the efficacy of liquid-based cytology and conventional cytology for detecting CIN and the rate of unsatisfactory specimens using data from cancer screening collected by the Japanese Cancer Society from FY2011 to FY2014. A Poisson regression model with random effects analyses was used to classify histological outcomes and unsatisfactory specimens using liquid-based cytology compared to conventional cytology. Results A total of 3 815 131 women were analyzed in the study. The rate of liquid-based cytology increased from approximately 8% in FY2011 to 37% in FY2014. Compared to conventional cytology, the detection rates with liquid-based cytology were significantly higher (1.42 times) for CIN1+ [detection rate ratio (DRR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35–1.48, P < 0.001] and CIN2+ (DRR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.08–1.25, P < 0.001). Positive predictive value ratios of CIN1+ and CIN2+ were also significantly higher for liquid-based cytology than for conventional cytology. However, there was no significant difference between liquid-based cytology and conventional cytology for detection rates and positive predictive values of CIN3+ and cancer. The rate of unsatisfactory specimens was significantly lower with liquid-based cytology compared to conventional cytology (DRR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.05–0.09, P < 0.001). Conclusions In order to avoid the unsatisfactory specimens in cervical cancer screening, the results of this study did indicate that liquid-based cytology was more useful than conventional cytology in practical standpoints.

scholarly journals Overuse of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Women With Average Risk in the United States From 2013 to 2014

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. e218373
Author(s):  
Jason D. Wright ◽  
Ling Chen ◽  
Ana I. Tergas ◽  
Alexander Melamed ◽  
Caryn M. St. Clair ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests

scholarly journals Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M.D. Wolf ◽  
Elizabeth T.H. Fontham ◽  
Timothy R. Church ◽  
Christopher R. Flowers ◽  
Carmen E. Guerra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
American Cancer Society ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Cancer Society
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document