Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.

dc.contributor.author

Holt, Hunter K

dc.contributor.author

Kulasingam, Shalini

dc.contributor.author

Sanstead, Erinn C

dc.contributor.author

Alarid-Escudero, Fernando

dc.contributor.author

Smith-McCune, Karen

dc.contributor.author

Gregorich, Steven E

dc.contributor.author

Silverberg, Michael J

dc.contributor.author

Huchko, Megan J

dc.contributor.author

Kuppermann, Miriam

dc.contributor.author

Sawaya, George F

dc.date.accessioned

2020-10-01T15:20:48Z

dc.date.available

2020-10-01T15:20:48Z

dc.date.issued

2020-07

dc.date.updated

2020-10-01T15:20:47Z

dc.description.abstract

Purpose. In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed three strategies for cervical cancer screening in women ages 30 to 65: cytology every 3 years, testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) every 5 years, and cytology plus hrHPV testing (co-testing) every 5 years. It further recommended that women discuss with health care providers which testing strategy is best for them. To inform such discussions, we used decision analysis to estimate outcomes of screening strategies recommended for women at age 30. Methods. We constructed a Markov decision model using estimates of the natural history of HPV and cervical neoplasia. We evaluated the three USPSTF-endorsed strategies, hrHPV testing every 3 years and no screening. Outcomes included colposcopies with biopsy, false-positive testing (a colposcopy in which no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse was found), treatments, cancers, and cancer mortality expressed per 10,000 women over a shorter-than-lifetime horizon (15-year). Results. All strategies resulted in substantially lower cancer and cancer death rates compared with no screening. Strategies with the lowest likelihood of cancer and cancer death generally had higher likelihood of colposcopy and false-positive testing. Conclusions. The screening strategies we evaluated involved tradeoffs in terms of benefits and harms. Because individual women may place different weights on these projected outcomes, the optimal choice for each woman may best be discerned through shared decision making.

dc.identifier

10.1177_2381468320952409

dc.identifier.issn

2381-4683

dc.identifier.issn

2381-4683

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/21565

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

SAGE Publications

dc.relation.ispartof

MDM policy & practice

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1177/2381468320952409

dc.subject

Pap smear

dc.subject

cervical cancer screening

dc.subject

high-risk HPV DNA testing

dc.subject

shared decision making

dc.title

Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Huchko, Megan J|0000-0002-4081-4768

pubs.begin-page

2381468320952409

pubs.issue

2

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Cancer Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Global Health Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Institutes and Centers

pubs.organisational-group

University Institutes and Centers

pubs.organisational-group

Institutes and Provost's Academic Units

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

5

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.pdf
Size:
357.43 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format