Search

The U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) have higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates and lower screening coverage compared with the United States. This is likely because of economic, geographical, health care delivery, and cultural barriers for women living in these resource-constrained, isolated regions. The most recent U.S. and World Health Organization cervical cancer screening guidelines recommended primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as one screening option or the preferred screening modality. Primary HPV screening-based strategies offer several advantages over current screening methods in the USAPI. However, adoption of this newer screening modality has been slow in the United States and not yet incorporated into USAPI screening programs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and partners initiated the Pacific Against Cervical Cancer (PACe) project in 2019 to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of primary HPV testing-based strategies in Guam and in Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. This report provides an overview of the PACe project and outlines the approaches we took in implementing primary HPV testing as a new cervical cancer screening strategy (including the option of self-sampling in Yap), encompassing four core components: (1) community engagement and education, (2) medical and laboratory capacity building, (3) health information and system improvement, and (4) modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis. The PACe project provides examples of systematic implementation and resource appropriate technologies to the USAPI, with broader implications for never screened and under-screened populations in the United States and Pacific as they face similar barriers to accessing cervical cancer screening services.

In the United States, approximately 180,000 patients receive mental health services each day at approximately 4,000 inpatient and residential psychiatric facilities (1). SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly within congregate residential settings (2-4), including psychiatric facilities. On April 13, 2020, two patients were transferred to Wyoming's state psychiatric hospital from a private psychiatric hospital that had confirmed COVID-19 cases among its residents and staff members (5). Although both patients were asymptomatic at the time of transfer and one had a negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 at the originating facility, they were both isolated and received testing upon arrival at the state facility. On April 16, 2020, the test results indicated that both patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection. In response, the state hospital implemented expanded COVID-19 infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures (e.g., enhanced screening, testing, and management of new patient admissions) and adapted some standard IPC measures to facilitate implementation within the psychiatric patient population (e.g., use of modified face coverings). To assess the likely effectiveness of these procedures and determine SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence among patients and health care personnel (HCP) (6) at the state hospital, a point prevalence survey was conducted. On May 1, 2020, 18 days after the patients' arrival, 46 (61%) of 76 patients and 171 (61%) of 282 HCP had nasopharyngeal swabs collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. All patients and HCP who received testing had negative test results, suggesting that the hospital's expanded IPC strategies might have been effective in preventing the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection within the facility. In congregate residential settings, prompt identification of COVID-19 cases and application of strong IPC procedures are critical to ensuring the protection of other patients and staff members. Although standard guidance exists for other congregate facilities (7) and for HCP in general (8), modifications and nonstandard solutions might be needed to account for the specific needs of psychiatric facilities, their patients, and staff members., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objective-The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends biennial mammography screening for women aged 50-74 to reduce mortality from breast cancer. In the United States, foreign-born women have historically had higher breast cancer mortality rates than their U.S.-born peers. This report presents national estimates of mammography screening among women by nativity, birthplace, and percentage of lifetime living in the United States. Methods-Combined data were analyzed from 29,951 women aged 50-74 years who participated in the 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015 National Health Interview Survey. The percentage of these women who ever had a mammogram and met the USPSTF recommendations for screening by nativity, birthplace, and percentage of lifetime in the United States was generated. Estimates were adjusted for selected demographic, socioeconomic, and health care access and utilization factors and presented as predictive margins. Results-Overall, foreign-born women were less likely than U.S.-born women to have ever had a mammogram (88.3% compared with 94.1%). Foreign-born women living in the United States for less than 25% of their lifetime were less likely to have ever had a mammogram (76.4%) or meet the USPSTF recommendations (55.0%) compared with U.S.-born women. Foreign-born women living in the United States for 25% or more of their lifetime were also less likely to have ever had a mammogram (90.9%) compared with U.S.-born women. After adjustment for selected sociodemographic characteristics, the percentage of foreign-born women who ever received a mammogram increased but was still lower than that of U.S.-born women. Foreign-born women residing in the United States for less than 25% of their lifetime were as likely as U.S.-born women to have met the USPSTF recommendations (72.1% and 72.4%, respectively), while those residing in the United States for 25% or more of their lifetime (75.1%) were more likely to do so than U.S.-born women. Differences by birthplace were also observed., (All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.)

Introduction: Many U.S. women continue to be screened annually for cervical cancer, despite current guidelines that recommend 3- or 5-year screening intervals depending on screening modality and patient age., Methods: Data from 2012 and 2015 web-based surveys of U.S. adults were analyzed in 2017 to investigate U.S. women's cervical cancer screening preferences. The study was limited to women aged ≥18 years without a hysterectomy or cervical cancer diagnosis (2012 n=1,380, 2015 n=1,339)., Results: Women's preference for 3- or 5-year screening intervals doubled during the study period (2012: 31.2%, 2015: 64.2%, p<0.001). The most preferred screening options in 2015 were co-testing every 3 years with the Pap and human papillomavirus tests (34.0%) and annual Pap testing (30.4%)-neither of which were recommended at that time or currently. Use of 3- and 5-year Pap testing intervals increased during the study period (2012: 6.9%, 2015: 12.9%, p<0.001), whereas annual Pap testing declined (2012: 48.5%, 2015: 35.6%, p<0.001). Among women who were regularly screened and preferred 3- or 5-year screening intervals, the minority reported screening practices that matched this preference (2012: 24.1%, 2015: 29.3%, p=0.71)., Conclusions: Women's preference for longer cervical cancer screening intervals has increased rapidly and outpaced utilization. At the same time, many women continue to be screened annually. Expanding appropriate screening may require increasing women's and providers' comfort with screening recommendations., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Primary HPV testing (without the Pap test) has recently been recommended as a cervical cancer screening option in the United States. U.S. women's awareness and acceptance of primary HPV testing were evaluated., Methods: Data from a 2015 web-based survey of U.S. adults was examined. Analyses were limited to women who were ≥18years old, had not undergone a hysterectomy, had not been diagnosed with cervical cancer, and would accept cervical cancer screening (N=1309). Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of acceptance of primary HPV testing every 3years., Results: Primary HPV testing every 3years was the least accepted cervical cancer screening option (13.5%), and annual Pap testing was the most accepted (41.2%). Most women (65.2%) reported that they were unsure how the HPV test is administered. HPV-vaccinated women were more likely to accept primary HPV testing every 3years than unvaccinated women (Adj OR=1.80, 95% CI=1.22-2.63, p=0.003). And, women who had participated in HPV testing at any interval were more likely to accept primary HPV testing every 3years than those who did not have regular HPV tests or were unsure how often they had HPV tests (Adj OR=1.74, 95% CI=1.20-2.52, p=0.003)., Conclusions: Acceptance of primary HPV testing among U.S. women was low and associated with variables which may be indicative of general HPV awareness. Widespread adoption of primary HPV testing may require increasing women's familiarity with the HPV test and screening guidelines., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The reductions in cancer morbidity and mortality afforded by population-based cancer screening programmes have led many low-income and middle-income countries to consider the implementation of national screening programmes in the public sector. Screening at the population level, when planned and organised, can greatly benefit the population, whilst disorganised screening can increase costs and reduce benefits. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) was created to share lessons, experience, and evidence regarding cancer screening in countries with organised screening programmes. Organised screening programmes provide screening to an identifiable target population and use multidisciplinary delivery teams, coordinated clinical oversight committees, and regular review by a multidisciplinary evaluation board to maximise benefit to the target population. In this Series paper, we report outcomes of the first regional consultation of the ICSN held in Agartala, India (Sept 5-7, 2016), which included discussions from cancer screening programmes from Denmark, the Netherlands, USA, and Bangladesh. We outline six essential elements of population-based cancer screening programmes, and share recommendations from the meeting that policy makers might want to consider before implementation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the HPV testing recommendations of US physicians who perform cervical cancer screening., Methods: Data from the 2015 DocStyles survey of U.S. health care providers were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression to identify provider characteristics associated with routine recommendation of primary HPV testing for average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old. The analysis was limited to primary care physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists who performed cervical cancer screening (N=843)., Results: Primary HPV testing for average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old was recommended by 40.8% of physicians who performed cervical cancer screening, and 90.1% of these providers recommended primary HPV testing for women of all ages. The screening intervals most commonly recommended for primary HPV testing with average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old were every 3years (35.5%) and annually (30.2%). Physicians who reported that patient HPV vaccination status influenced their cervical cancer screening practices were almost four times more likely to recommend primary HPV testing for average-risk, asymptomatic women ≥30years old than other providers (Adj OR=3.96, 95% CI=2.82-5.57)., Conclusion: Many US physicians recommended primary HPV testing for women of all ages, contrary to guidelines which limit this screening approach to women ≥25years old. The association between provider recommendation of primary HPV testing and patient HPV vaccination status may be due to anticipated reductions in the most oncogenic HPV types among vaccinated women., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Major organizations recommend cytology screening (Pap test) every 3years for women aged 21-65; women aged 30 to 65 have the option of adding the HPV test (co-test) every 5years. We examined national percentages of cervical cancer screening, and we examined use of co-testing as an option for screening., Methods: We used 2015 U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data to examine recent cervical cancer screening (Pap test within 3years among women aged 21-65 without a hysterectomy; N=10,596) and co-testing (N=9,125). We also conducted a multivariable analysis to determine odds of having had a Pap test or co-test by demographic variables. To evaluate changes in screening over time, we examined Pap testing during the years 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015. Analysis completed in Atlanta, GA during 2016., Results: Overall, 81.1% of eligible women reported having a Pap test within 3years; percentages declined over time among all age groups. An estimated 14 million women aged 21-65 had not been screened within the past 3years. Recent immigrants to the United States, women without insurance, and women without a usual source of healthcare had lower odds of being up to date with screening. About 1/3 of women up to date on Pap testing reported having a co-test with their most recent Pap test., Conclusions: Declines in screening among women aged 21-65 are cause for concern. More research is needed on co-testing practices. Provider and patient education efforts may be needed to clarify recommended use of HPV tests., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Cervical cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in females and is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in Kenya; limited cervical cancer screening services may be a factor. Few studies have examined men's and women's perceptions on environmental and psychosocial barriers and benefits related to screening., Materials and Methods: In 2014, 60 women aged 25-49 years and 40 male partners participated in 10 focus groups (6 female and 4 male), in both rural and urban settings (Nairobi and Nyanza, Kenya), to explore perceptions about barriers to and benefits of cervical cancer screening. Focus groups were segmented by sex, language, geographic location, and screening status. Data were transcribed, translated into English, and analyzed by using qualitative software., Results: Participants identified screening as beneficial for initiating provider discussions about cancer but did not report it as a beneficial method for detecting precancers. Perceived screening barriers included access (transportation, cost), spousal approval, stigma, embarrassment during screening, concerns about speculum use causing infertility, fear of residual effects of test results, lack of knowledge, and religious or cultural beliefs. All participants reported concerns with having a male doctor perform screening tests; however, men uniquely reported the young age of a doctor as a barrier., Conclusion: Identifying perceived barriers and benefits among people in low- and middle-income countries is important to successfully implementing emerging screening programs. The novel findings on barriers and benefits from this study can inform the development of targeted community outreach activities, communication strategies, and educational messages for patients, families, and providers. The Oncologist 2017;22: 173-181 Implications for Practice: This article provides important information for stakeholders in clinical practice and research when assessing knowledge, beliefs, and acceptability of cervical cancer screening and treatment services in low- and middle-resourced countries. Formative research findings provide information that could be used in the development of health interventions, community education messages, and materials. Additionally, this study illuminates the importance of understanding psychosocial barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening, community education, and reduction of stigma as important methods of improving prevention programs and increasing rates of screening among women., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Background: Current cervical cancer screening guidelines include the option of lengthening the screening interval to 5 years for average-risk women aged 30-65 years when screened with Pap and human papillomavirus (HPV) test (co-test). Because many providers are reluctant to extend screening intervals, we launched an educational intervention to promote recommended screening practices. The study objective was to assess changes in provider attitudes and beliefs to extending screening intervals among low-income women., Methods: The study was conducted in 15 clinics in Federally Qualified Health Centers in Illinois. Providers in the intervention arm received a multicomponent educational intervention. Fifty-six providers (n = 29 intervention and n = 27 control) completed baseline and 12-month follow-up surveys assessing beliefs and intentions about extending screening intervals., Results: The 12-month assessment showed providers in the intervention arm were significantly more likely than those in the control arm to recommend a 3-year screening interval (guideline recommendation at time of study) with a normal co-test result. Providers who received the intervention were significantly more likely to agree that routine co-testing is the best way to screen for cervical cancer, that extending the screening interval would be good, easy, and beneficial, and to disagree that the increased screening interval would cause patients to lose contact with the medical system., Conclusion: Educating providers on the natural history of HPV infection and cervical cancer and the benefits of extended intervals increased their willingness to follow guidelines. This study provides evidence that an educational intervention delivered with HPV testing materials may be effective in encouraging appropriate cervical screening intervals.

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer and fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women in Thailand. In 2005, the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) in Thailand initiated a phased national cervical cancer screening program. To monitor progress toward national screening targets--80% of women 30-60 years of age screened for cervical cancer once in the previous 5 years by 2013--the MoPH used the 2010 Thai Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to assess cervical cancer screening coverage. Results from the survey showed that 67.4% of women aged 30-60 years had been screened for cervical cancer in the past 5 years with varying screening coverage by region, residence, education, and marital status. Although the national cervical cancer screening program in Thailand appears to be close to reaching its national targets, the causes of lower coverage in some subpopulations need to be identified so that targeted interventions can be developed to increase coverage in these groups.

Introduction: Current U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend a 3- or 5-year screening interval depending on age and screening modality. However, many women continue to be screened annually. The purpose of this study is to investigate U.S. women's self-reported frequency of cervical cancer screening, acceptance of an extended screening interval (once every 3-5 years), and preferred screening options., Methods: Data from a 2012 web-based survey of U.S. women aged ≥18 years who had not undergone a hysterectomy or been diagnosed with cervical cancer (N=1,380) were analyzed in 2014. Logistic regression models of extended screening interval use, acceptance, and preference were developed., Results: Annual Pap testing was the most widely used (48.5%), accepted (61.0%), and preferred (51.1%) screening option. More than one third of respondents (34.4%) indicated that an extended screening interval would be acceptable, but only 6.3% reported that they were currently screened on an extended interval. Women who preferred an extended screening interval (32.9% of those willing to accept regular screening) were more likely to report no primary care visits during the last 12 months (AOR=2.05, p<0.003), no history of abnormal Pap test results (AOR=1.71, p=0.013), and that their last Pap test was performed by an internist/family practitioner rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist (AOR=2.03, p<0.001)., Conclusions: U.S. women's acceptance of and preference for an extended cervical cancer screening interval appears to be more widespread than utilization. Strategies to educate women about the reasoning behind recommendations for less-than-annual testing and to foster informed preferences should be devised and evaluated., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of a policy supporting early detection and prevention of cervical cancer among low-income and uninsured women by comparing women who reported never or rarely being screened (last screen >5 years) to those who reported screening in the past ≤5 years., Methods: We analyzed data from 1,485,251 women who received their first Pap test in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) from July 2002 through June 2012. Of these, 461,893 women (31 %) reported being never or rarely screened and 1,023,358 (69 %) reported being screened in the past 5 years. Demographic (age, race/ethnicity, residence, and region) and clinic (cytologic and histologic results) characteristics were examined for the two groups., Results: Women who were aged ≥50 years, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, multiracial, living in non-metro areas, or living in the South or a territory were more likely to report being never or rarely screened. The percentage of abnormal Pap tests and the rate of precancer and cancer (combined) was higher in the never or rarely screened group compared with the screened group (abnormal percentage: 2.9 vs 2.6 %, p value < 0.01; rate of precancer and cancer: 6.9 vs 3.7 per 1,000 women, p value < 0.01)., Conclusions: The priority of reaching never or rarely screened women should continue since those women who entered the NBCCEDP not adequately screened had a greater prevalence of high-grade histological lesions and invasive cervical cancers at later stages than women screened more recently.

Background: Some primary care physicians choose not to provide cervical cancer screening., Purpose: To investigate the characteristics and screening beliefs of family practitioners and internists who treat adult women in outpatient settings but perform no routine Pap tests., Methods: A survey of U.S. primary care physicians (N=892) was conducted and analyzed in 2012., Results: Participants who performed no Pap tests during a typical month (17.2% of family practitioners and 44.3% of internists) generally reported that they referred patients to gynecologists for cervical cancer screening. The most significant predictor of Pap test non-provision was agreement that patients are best served by having Pap tests performed by gynecologists (AOR=8.80, 95% CI=5.58, 13.88, p<0.001)., Conclusions: The perception that patients benefit from cervical cancer screening administered by gynecologists may deter screening in primary care settings, resulting in missed opportunities to offer screening to women who are never or rarely screened., (Copyright © 2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: The benefits of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) on cervical cancer screening for participating uninsured low-income women have never been measured., Purpose: To estimate the benefits in life-years (LYs) gained; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; and deaths averted., Methods: A cervical cancer simulation model was constructed based on an existing cohort model. The model was applied to NBCCEDP participants aged 18-64 years. Screening habits for uninsured low-income women were estimated using National Health Interview Survey data from 1990 to 2005 and NBCCEDP data from 1991 to 2007. The study was conducted during 2011-2012 and covered all 68 NBCCEDP grantees in 50 states, the District of Columbia, five U.S. territories, and 12 tribal organizations. Separate simulations were performed for the following three scenarios: (1) women who received NBCCEDP (Program) screening; (2) women who received screening without the program (No Program); and (3) women who received no screening (No Screening)., Results: Among 1.8 million women screened in 1991-2007, the Program added 10,369 LYs gained compared to No Program, and 101,509 LYs gained compared to No Screening. The Program prevented 325 women from dying of cervical cancer relative to No Program, and 3,829 relative to No Screening. During this time period, the Program accounted for 15,589 QALYs gained when compared with No Program, and 121,529 QALYs gained when compared with No Screening., Conclusions: These estimates suggest that NBCCEDP cervical cancer screening has reduced mortality among medically underserved low-income women who participated in the program., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Melanoma incidence and mortality are increasing among United States adults. At present, routine skin cancer screening via total body skin examinations (TBSEs) by a physician is not recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); while organizations such as the American Cancer Society recommend screening. Currently, there are limited data on the prevalence, correlates, and trends of TBSE among United States adults., Methods: We analyzed data by race/ethnicity, age, and skin cancer risk level, among other characteristics from three different National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) cancer control supplements conducted every five years since 2000 in random United States households. High-risk status and middle-risk status were defined based on the USPSTF criteria (age, race, sunburn, and family history)., Results: Prevalence of having at least one TBSE increased from 14.5 in 2000 to 16.5 in 2005 to 19.8 in 2010 (P<0.0001). In 2010, screening rates were higher among the elderly, the fair-skinned, those reporting sunburn(s), and individuals with a family history of skin cancer. Approximately 104.7million (51.1%) U.S. adults are at high-risk for developing melanoma, of which 24.0% had at least one TBSE., Conclusions: TBSE rates have been increasing since 2000 both overall and among higher-risk groups. Data on screening trends could help tailor future prevention strategies., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The recommended screening interval when using the Papanicolaou (Pap) and human papillomavirus (HPV) test (co-testing) is 5 years. However because providers are reluctant to extend the screening interval, we launched a study to identify barriers to appropriate use of the co-test and to implement an educational intervention to promote evidence-based screening practices. This article provides an overview of the study including the multi-component intervention and participant demographics., Methods: The study was conducted in 15 clinics associated with 6 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Illinois. Each clinic received HPV tests to administer with routine Pap tests among enrolled patients (n=2,246) and was assigned to a study arm: intervention arm (n=7) received a multi-component educational intervention (small media, academic detailing, and website) for providers and printed educational materials for patients, and control arm (n=8) received printed copies of general guidelines. Clinic coordinators (n=15), providers (n=98), and patients (n=984) completed baseline surveys to assess screening practices., Results: Providers reported an average age of 41.3 years and were predominately female, non-Hispanic, and white. Patients reported an average age of 45.0 years and nearly two-thirds were Hispanic or black. Of the 2,246 patients, 89% had a normal co-test. Lessons learned from the study included the importance of buy-in at a high level in the organization, a champion provider, and a clinical coordinator devoted to the study., Conclusion: Materials from this study can be adapted to educate providers and patients on appropriate use of the co-test and encourage extended screening intervals as a safe and effective practice.

Objective: A shift toward later initiation of cervical cancer screening for women began in 2002. We generated national estimates of screening prevalence rates and guideline-consistent screening among U.S. women ages 15-29 before and after the first evidence-based recommendations for reduced cervical cancer screening., Method: We used National Survey of Family Growth data to compare self-reported cervical cancer screening in 2002 and 2006-2008, stratified by age (15-17, 18-20, 21-29) and sexual activity. We also assessed receipt of guideline-consistent screening by selected demographic variables., Results: Among females ages 15-17, the proportion screened decreased from 23% to 12%, and screening was significantly more likely to be guideline-consistent. Among females ages 18-20, 24% were screened too early in 2006-2008, but among those not yet sexually active, screening declined to 8%, appropriately reflecting new guidelines. In multivariable analysis, private health insurance, pregnancy, and hormonal contraceptive use were associated with guideline-consistent screening among sexually-active women., Conclusion: Fewer adolescents were being screened before sexual initiation, representing newer guidelines. However, sexually-active young adult women also should have later screening initiation. Factors related to health care access contribute to receipt of screening. Monitoring and provider education are needed to improve guideline-consistent screening, as newer guidelines call for less screening., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cervical cancer incidence has declined as a result of Papanicolaou (Pap) test use. Current guidelines recommend increasing screening intervals for women of average risk. The objective of this study is to examine current screening intervals, factors associated with recency of Pap testing, and future testing plans., Methods: We analyzed data from 2915 female respondents, aged 18-64, using the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a biennial national survey of access and use of cancer information in the United States. We divided time since last Pap test into ≤1 year (n=1960), >1 to ≤3 years (n=512), >3 years/never had Pap test (n=443). We performed univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression, using proportional odds model with cumulative logit link., Results: Sixty-five percent of women had their most recent Pap test within 1 year. Most expected to be screened again within 1 year (81%). This expectation was highest among women who were tested within the previous year (90.9%). Having had a test within 1 year was positively associated with age groups 31-45 vs. 46-64 years; with being non-Hispanic black vs. non-Hispanic white; with being a college graduate vs. having less education; with being married, divorced, or separated vs. widowed; with having at least one visit to a healthcare provider in the past year; and with being aware of the human papillomavirus (HPV)., Conclusions: Most women currently are tested and anticipate future testing at annual intervals. To implement guidelines, increased communication and systematic or policy changes may be needed to reduce overtesting.

Background: US cervical cancer screening recommendations have not changed since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine introduction in 2006, but epidemiological and cost-effectiveness studies indicate that recommendations will need to change for fully vaccinated women. We evaluated physician intentions regarding HPV vaccine's impact on future screening., Methods: A nationally representative sample of 1212 primary care physicians was surveyed in 2006-2007 (response rate: 67.5%). Our study included 1114 physicians who provided Pap testing. Questions covered Pap test screening practices and intentions regarding HPV vaccine's impact on screening. Distribution differences were assessed using chi(2) statistics; multivariate analyses were performed., Results: Overall, 40.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 37.6-43.8%) of physicians agreed that the HPV vaccine will affect screening initiation, and 38.2% (35.0-41.5%) agreed that vaccination will affect screening frequency. Significant differences in responses were found by specialty; internists were more likely to agree that vaccination would impact screening than other specialties. Belief in the effectiveness of new screening technologies was associated with intention to change screening initiation (odds ratio (OR) = 1.66 (1.20-2.31)) and frequency (OR = 1.99 (1.40-2.83)). Adherence to current Pap test screening interval guidelines was associated with intention to change screening frequency (OR = 1.39 (1.01-1.91))., Conclusions: Many providers anticipate adjusting screening for vaccinated women, but a significant group believes nothing will change or are unsure. The present study provides important baseline data on intentions in the period preceding widespread vaccine diffusion and may help explain current and future trends in practice patterns.

Background: Guidelines recommend screening for cervical cancer among women 30 years or older 3 years after a normal Papanicolaou test (hereinafter referred to as Pap test) result or a combined normal screening result (normal Pap/negative human papillomavirus [HPV] test results). We assessed reported recommendations by US primary care physicians (PCPs) on screening intervals that incorporate HPV cotesting compared with Pap testing alone., Methods: From September 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007, we conducted a mailed survey of a representative sample of 1212 PCPs, of whom 950 performed Pap tests and recommended the HPV test for screening or management. The main outcome measure included self-reported data on timing of screening intervals for women with normal results using clinical vignettes., Results: Among Pap test providers who recommend HPV testing, 31.8% reported that they would conduct the next Pap test in 3 years for a 35-year-old woman with 3 normal Pap test results. For a 35-year-old woman with a normal Pap test result and a negative HPV test finding, only 19.0% would conduct the next Pap test in 3 years. Most remaining physicians would conduct the Pap test more frequently. Most PCPs did not recommend a second HPV test or recommended the next HPV test at the same frequency as the Pap test. Physician specialty was strongly associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the next Pap or HPV test., Conclusions: A lower proportion of PCPs recommend extending screening intervals to 3 years with an HPV cotest than those screening with the Pap test alone. Implementation of effective interventions and strategies that improve physician adherence to recommendations will be important for efficient screening practices.

Objectives: To establish current estimates and project potential reductions in the volume and cost of annual Pap tests administered at visits to physician office and hospital outpatient departments in light of cervical cancer screening changes and HPV vaccination., Study Design: Assessment of baseline national administrative data and future projection., Methods: We used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to analyze physician office and hospital outpatient department visits made by female subjects 15 years and older from 2003 through 2005., Results: Pap tests were ordered annually at 30.2 million physician office and hospital outpatient department visits in the United States from 2003 through 2005. Among visits by young women aged 15 to 26 years, Pap tests were ordered at 5.8 million visits each year, representing 19.3% of all Pap tests ordered. Among visits made by women of childbearing age that included Pap tests, 76.0% occurred in obstetrics and gynecology offices or clinics. Using a simple projection model, we estimated an overall annual decrease of 1.2 million Pap tests for young women aged 15 to 26 years and a corresponding cost reduction of $77.6 million after routine HPV vaccination and HPV DNA testing. Among female subjects 15 years and older, the estimated potential decrease in Pap tests was 6.3 million, with an estimated $403.8 million in cost reduction., Conclusions: The NAMCS and NHAMCS provide baseline data to estimate the effects of HPV vaccination and HPV DNA testing on cervical cancer screening policy. These future technologies may result in changes to cervical cancer screening policies and, when fully accepted and implemented, may reduce economic costs associated with cervical cancer in the United States.

Background: Since 2003, newer cervical cancer screening guidelines that include human papillomavirus (HPV) testing with cytology (HPV co-testing) call for extension of screening intervals in women who are cytology normal and HPV negative. Continuing medical education (CME) may help increase knowledge and appropriate adoption of new technologies and guidelines. However, there are concerns that industry support of CME may bias messages favoring newer technologies without emphasizing the updated guidelines, especially less frequent testing recommendations. Our objectives were to assess availability and accuracy of web-based CME activities describing cervical cancer screening guidelines, screening intervals, and HPV testing., Methods: We identified 20 web-based CME activities available between 2006 and 2008 and evaluated the content for messages related to HPV and natural history, cervical cancer screening guidelines, management of HPV abnormalities, and counseling tips for patients. In addition to content, we noted funding source, credit offered, and dates available., Results: Most activities (80%) discussed the updated screening guidelines with HPV co-testing for eligible women. Twelve activities (60%) referenced professional organization support of the extended screening interval with the HPV co-test, and three (15%) discussed the justification for extension of intervals for eligible women. Eight activities (40%) were funded by industry, seven of which included accurate, updated screening guidelines about extension of screening intervals., Conclusions: Web-based CME activities generally support updated guidance for HPV co-testing and extended screening intervals but need more information on counseling patients and acceptability of extending screening intervals.

Background: No studies have examined medical students' recommendation and use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal exam (DRE) to screen for prostate cancer. We hypothesized that students' race and extent of training on these techniques would be associated with their administration of them., Methods: We analyzed multiinstitutional longitudinal data from a cohort of 2181 medical students in the class of 2003. We queried students' health behavior, their knowledge of prostate cancer racial disparities, their frequency of performing a PSA test or a DRE on a man 50 years of age or older (senior year only), the perceived relevance of such services to their future practice, and their training on PSA and DRE. We examined predictors of students' administering PSA and DRE tests to patients during the senior year and changes in the predictors over time., Results: Respectively, 27% and 34% of students reported using the PSA and DRE "usually/always" during their senior year. Black students reported administering the PSA test more often than did students of other races, but race was not a significant predictor of PSA screening after controlling for personal healthy behavior. High perceived relevance to future practice and extensive training on PSA were most strongly associated with administration of PSA., Conclusions: The association between healthy personal behavior and PSA administration confounded the association between race and PSA screening. These results may help explain differences in prostate cancer screening among physicians and help medical educators tailor their curricula on prostate cancer screening.

Objective: Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests is common but remains controversial. Total PSA using thresholds of 4.0 and 2.5 ng/mL has been used for screening men. In addition, the percent free PSA (free PSA/total PSA x 100%) using thresholds of less than 25% and 15% have been proposed for use in screening for prostate cancer in conjunction with the total PSA. The distributions of total PSA, free PSA, and percent free PSA, which vary with age and race-ethnicity among American men, would help determine the burden of screening using different thresholds of PSA tests., Methods: PSA tests were performed on serum samples from men age 40 years and older (n = 2,546) who participated in the 2001-04 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Total, free and percent free PSA were estimated for Mexican American, non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black men., Results: About 6.2%, (95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 5.2-7.2%), corresponding to an estimated 3.6 million (95% CI: 3.0-4.2 million) men 40 years of age and older, had a total PSA of greater than or equal to 4.0 ng/mL. Approximately 3.6% (95% CI: 1.8-6.2%) of Mexican American men, 6.2% (95% CI: 5.1-7.6%) of non-Hispanic white men, and 7.8% (95% CI: 5.2-11.1 ) of non-Hispanic black men had total PSA of 4.0 ng/mL or more. Approximately 13.1 (95% CI: 11.7-14.5%) of men 40 years of age and older had total PSA greater than or equal to 2.5 ng/mL. For men with total PSA less than 2.5 ng/mL, 23.1% (95% CI: 21.0-25.3%) had a percent free PSA between 15% and 25%, and 5.0% had free PSA (95% CI: 3.9-6.4%) less than or equal to 15%., Conclusions: The effect of lowering the total PSA thresholds increases the number of U.S. men who would be referred for screening for prostate cancer. Total and free PSA increased with age in Mexican American, non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black men. Information about the distribution of total, free, and percent free PSA will help guide public health policy in screening for prostate cancer.

Genital Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. Of the 100 HPV types, HPV type 16 and HPV type 18 have been demonstrated to cause cervical cancer. Two pharmaceutical manufacturers have developed and tested HPV vaccines and are applying to the FDA for licensure. This research describes the content of HPV vaccine information contained in news articles. The Lexis-Nexis database was used to identify 25 articles on HPV that were published in 285 U.S. newspapers from January 1, 2003 to June 17, 2005. The coding schema captured information about the news event and source, as well as HPV and cervical cancer, transmission, vaccine, potential impact of the vaccine, and its relationship to PAP tests. The content analysis revealed that the news coverage of HPV vaccine provides information on the experimental status and efficacy of the vaccine, explains link between HPV and cervical cancer, and reports the manufacturers by name, as well as relies on them for a news source. Detailed information about HPV, however, was frequently missing which could lead to an incomplete picture or lack of understanding of the complexity of HPV and cervical cancer. As a major source of medical information, the media can be particularly important in educating policy makers and the general public about new scientific advances. Public health officials may wish to collaborate with journalists, health educators, healthcare providers, and women's health advocates to ensure that future educational initiatives explain the complexity of the association of HPV and cervical cancer and to stress the importance of continued cervical cancer screening.

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provides breast and cervical cancer screening to low-income women who are uninsured or underinsured. For women with three consecutive annual Pap tests with normal findings, the NBCCEDP supports extending the screening interval to every 3 years. Thirteen telephone focus groups were conducted with physician providers in 17 states and the District of Columbia to investigate familiarity with NBCCEDP's triennial Pap test policy, the Pap test intervals actually used, and the factors influencing screening interval selection. No participants were familiar with NBCCEDP's triennial Pap test policy, and none reported routinely extending the screening interval after three consecutive annual Pap tests with normal findings. Two patterns of screening interval use were reported: annual screeners continued performing yearly Pap tests, and selective extended screeners offered an extended interval to select patients. Annual and selective extended screeners reported that both unique and common factors influenced the screening intervals they used. The NBCCEDP has established its cancer screening priorities to focus limited resources on the goal of providing services to eligible women who have rarely or never been screened. Increased efforts are needed to educate physicians about the science supporting an extended Pap screening interval and overcome the barriers associated with its adoption.

Background: Relatively little is known about the prevalence of skin cancer screening in the context of inconsistent skin cancer screening recommendations., Methods: To determine the prevalence and predictors of skin cancer screening rates in the U.S. adult population, we used self-reported data from the 1992, 1998, and 2000 National Health Interview Surveys, a nationally representative survey of civilian noninstitutionalized adults., Results: The percentage of the U.S. adult population who had ever had a skin examination conducted by a doctor was 20.6% in 1992, 20.9% in 1998, and 14.5% in 2000. The percentage with a recent skin examination was 10.3% in 1992, 11.0% in 1998, and 8.0% in 2000. White non-Hispanics reported being screened more frequently than persons in other racial or ethnic groups. Recent skin cancer screening exams were more common among white persons who had a family history of melanoma, had higher education, had usual place of care, and were older (> or =50 years). Frequent use of sunscreen and hats was associated with a recent skin cancer exam., Conclusions: In the past decade, skin cancer screening rates have been consistently low. Continued monitoring of skin cancer examination is important given conflicting current research results and potentially evolving science.