No abstract

PurposeTo provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the secondary prevention of cervical cancer globally.MethodsASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of oncology, primary care, epidemiology, health economic, cancer control, public health, and patient advocacy experts to produce recommendations reflecting four resource-tiered settings. A review of existing guidelines, a formal consensus-based process, and a modified ADAPTE process to adapt existing guidelines were conducted. Other experts participated in formal consensus.ResultsSeven existing guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Four systematic reviews plus cost-effectiveness analyses provided indirect evidence to inform consensus, which resulted in ≥ 75% agreement.RecommendationsHuman papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is recommended in all resource settings; visual inspection with acetic acid may be used in basic settings. Recommended age ranges and frequencies by setting are as follows: maximal: ages 25 to 65, every 5 years; enhanced: ages 30 to 65, if two consecutive negative tests at 5-year intervals, then every 10 years; limited: ages 30 to 49, every 10 years; and basic: ages 30 to 49, one to three times per lifetime. For basic settings, visual assessment is recommended as triage; in other settings, genotyping and/or cytology are recommended. For basic settings, treatment is recommended if abnormal triage results are present; in other settings, colposcopy is recommended for abnormal triage results. For basic settings, treatment options are cryotherapy or loop electrosurgical excision procedure; for other settings, loop electrosurgical excision procedure (or ablation) is recommended. Twelve-month post-treatment follow-up is recommended in all settings. Women who are HIV positive should be screened with HPV testing after diagnosis and screened twice as many times per lifetime as the general population. Screening is recommended at 6 weeks postpartum in basic settings; in other settings, screening is recommended at 6 months. In basic settings without mass screening, infrastructure for HPV testing, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/rs-cervical-cancer-secondary-prev-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.It is the view of of ASCO that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement, but not replace, local guidelines.

Findings support the need for integration of pre-surgical assessment, and prospective, post-treatment surveillance of lymphedema into gynecological cancer care. Future research exploring the role of maintaining healthy body weight, regular physical activity and education about early detection of lymphedema to improve gynecological cancer survivorship is warranted.

Objective To determine the frequency of different outcomes in women participating in cervical screening. Design Analysis of screening records from 348 419 women, and modelling of cases of cervical cancer and deaths with and without screening. Setting Cervical screening programme in Bristol. Results For every 10 000 women screened from 1976 to 1996, 1564 had abnormal cytology, 818 were investigated, and 543 had abnormal histology. One hundred and seventy six had persistent abnormality for two years or more. In the absence of screening 80 women would be expected to develop cancer of the cervix by 2011, of whom 25 would die. With screening 10 of these deaths would be avoided. Comparison of cumulative abnormality rates with numbers expected to develop cancer in the absence of screening suggests that at least 80% of high grade dyskaryosis and of high grade dysplasia would not progress to cancer. The lifetime risk of having abnormal cytology detected could be as high as 40% for women born since 1960. Conclusions Screening is labour and resource intensive. It involves treatment for many women not destined to develop invasive cancer. The increased intervention rate for cervical abnormality in England is due to change in practice, not a cohort effect, and is probably the reason for the marked fall in incidence and mortality during the 1990s. For other cancers there is scope for major iatrogenic harm from screening because of invasive tests and treatments.

No abstract