Cervical Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Women

2015 ◽  
Vol 162 (12) ◽  
pp. I-28
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Average Risk

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 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

Developing and validating the Personal Risk of Oncogenic Human Papillomavirus infection score in US Women

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thuy N Thai ◽  
Thanh C Bui ◽  
Mark H Ebell
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Personal Risk

Abstract Background Determining risk scores for genital high-risk human papillomavirus (HRHPV) infection in women will support more efficient cervical cancer screening strategies. Objective We developed and validated point scores to predict the likelihood of any genital HRHPV infection in women. Methods We conducted the cross-sectional analysis in 2017 and used data from the 2005–14 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (7337 women aged 25–59 years; 6300 women aged 30–59 years). Predictors were reproductive health practices, risk behaviors and demographic variables. The outcome was a positive result for any of the 21 genital HRHPV genotypes. The 2005–12 cohorts were used as training and testing sets to develop scores that best classified women into three risk groups: low risk (<20%), average risk (20–30%) and high risk (>30%). The 2013–14 cohort was used to validate the final scores. Results Two-point scores with six self-reported variables were created to predict any HRHPV risks for the two age groups: the Personal Risk of Oncogenic HPV (PRO-HPV25) for women aged 25–59 years old and PRO-HPV30 for women aged 30–59 years old. The scores were successfully prospectively validated, with good calibration with regards to the predicted and observed rates of HRHPV infection. The scores had fair discrimination (c-statistics: 0.67–0.68). Conclusion The PRO-HPV risk scores can identify groups at low, average and high risk of genital HRHPV infection. This information can be used to prioritize women for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings or to personalize screening intervals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document