Corresponding Author: Susan J. Curry, PhD, University of Iowa, 111 Jessup Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242 (chair@uspstf.net).
Accepted for Publication: July 18, 2018.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Susan J. Curry, PhD; Alex H. Krist, MD, MPH; Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS; Michael J. Barry, MD; Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD; Karina W. Davidson, PhD, MASc; Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH; John W. Epling Jr, MD, MSEd; Alex R. Kemper, MD, MPH, MS; Martha Kubik, PhD, RN; C. Seth Landefeld, MD; Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH; Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH; Michael Silverstein, MD, MPH; Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH; Chien-Wen Tseng, MD, MPH, MSEE; John B. Wong, MD.
Affiliations of The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: University of Iowa, Iowa City (Curry); Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia (Krist); Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (Krist); Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California (Owens); Stanford University, Stanford, California (Owens); Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Barry); Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (Caughey); Columbia University, New York, New York (Davidson); University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Doubeni); Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke (Epling); Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio (Kemper); Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Kubik); University of Alabama at Birmingham (Landefeld); University of California, Los Angeles (Mangione); Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island (Phipps); Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts (Silverstein); Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois (Simon); University of Hawaii, Honolulu (Tseng); Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii (Tseng); Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts (Wong).
Author Contributions: Dr Curry had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The USPSTF members contributed equally to the recommendation statement.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Authors followed the policy regarding conflicts of interest described at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/conflict-of-interest-disclosures. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. Dr Barry reported serving as chief science officer of Healthwise. Dr Epling reported serving as a statewide presenter for a National Area Health Education Center Organization grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to promote human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine use among primary care physicians. Dr Simon reported receiving a grant from the Merck Foundation related to the topic of cervical cancer (Merck & Co is the maker of the GARDASIL vaccine for HPV). No other authors reported disclosures.
Funding/Support: The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The US Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) support the operations of the USPSTF.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: AHRQ staff assisted in the following: development and review of the research plan, commission of the systematic evidence review from an Evidence-based Practice Center, coordination of expert review and public comment of the draft evidence report and draft recommendation statement, and the writing and preparation of the final recommendation statement and its submission for publication. AHRQ staff had no role in the approval of the final recommendation statement or the decision to submit for publication.
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the US government. They should not be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Additional Contributions: We thank Prajakta Adsul, MBBS, MPH, PhD (National Cancer Institute), Elizabeth Kato, MD, MRP (National Cancer Institute), and Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, MPH (AHRQ), who contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and Lisa Nicolella, MA (AHRQ), who assisted with coordination and editing.
2.Melnikow
J, Henderson
JT, Burda
BU,
et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force: Evidence Synthesis No. 158. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2018. AHRQ publication 15-05224-EF-1.
3.Kim
JJ, Burger
EA, Regan
C, Sy
S. Screening for Cervical Cancer in Primary Care: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2018. AHRQ publication 15-05224-EF-2.
4.Melnikow
J, Henderson
JT, Burda
BU, Senger
CA, Durbin
S, Weyrich
MS. Screening for cervical cancer with high-risk human papillomavirus testing: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force [published August 21, 2018].
JAMA. doi:
10.1001/jama.2018.10400Google Scholar 5.Kim
JJ, Burger
EA, Regan
C, Sy
S. Screening for cervical cancer in primary care: a decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force [published August 21, 2018].
JAMA. doi:
10.1001/jama.2017.19872Google Scholar 6.Saslow
D, Solomon
D, Lawson
HW,
et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012;16(3):175-204. doi:
10.1097/LGT.0b013e31824ca9d5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 8.Benard
VB, Watson
M, Castle
PE, Saraiya
M. Cervical carcinoma rates among young females in the United States.
Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1117-1123.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 9.National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2015: With Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2016. Report 2016-1232.
11.Wang
SS, Sherman
ME, Hildesheim
A, Lacey
JV
Jr, Devesa
S. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976-2000.
Cancer. 2004;100(5):1035-1044. doi:
10.1002/cncr.20064PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 13.Benard
VB, Thomas
CC, King
J, Massetti
GM, Doria-Rose
VP, Saraiya
M; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: cervical cancer incidence, mortality, and screening—United States, 2007-2012.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(44):1004-1009.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 14.Andresen
EM, Peterson-Besse
JJ, Krahn
GL, Walsh
ES, Horner-Johnson
W, Iezzoni
LI. Pap, mammography, and clinical breast examination screening among women with disabilities: a systematic review.
Womens Health Issues. 2013;23(4):e205-e214. doi:
10.1016/j.whi.2013.04.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 16.Peitzmeier
SM, Reisner
SL, Harigopal
P, Potter
J. Female-to-male patients have high prevalence of unsatisfactory Paps compared to non-transgender females: implications for cervical cancer screening.
J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(5):778-784. doi:
10.1007/s11606-013-2753-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 19.Freeman
HP, Wingrove
BK. Excess Cervical Cancer Mortality: A Marker for Low Access to Health Care in Poor Communities. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute, Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities; 2005. NIH publication 05-5282.
23.Vesco
KK, Whitlock
EP, Eder
M,
et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force: Evidence Synthesis No. 86. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. AHRQ publication 11-05156-EF-1.
24.Owens
DK, Whitlock
EP, Henderson
J,
et al; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Use of decision models in the development of evidence-based clinical preventive services recommendations: methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(7):501-508. doi:
10.7326/M15-2531PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 27.Kulasingam
SL, Havrilesky
L, Ghebre
R, Myers
ER. Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. AHRQ publication 11-05157-EF-1.
28.Ronco
G, Giorgi-Rossi
P, Carozzi
F,
et al; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer screening (NTCC) Working Group. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):249-257. doi:
10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70360-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 29.Ogilvie
GS, Krajden
M, van Niekerk
D,
et al. HPV for cervical cancer screening (HPV FOCAL): Complete round 1 results of a randomized trial comparing HPV-based primary screening to liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer.
Int J Cancer. 2017;140(2):440-448. doi:
10.1002/ijc.30454PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 30.Leinonen
MK, Nieminen
P, Lönnberg
S,
et al. Detection rates of precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions within one screening round of primary human papillomavirus DNA testing: prospective randomised trial in Finland.
BMJ. 2012;345:e7789. doi:
10.1136/bmj.e7789PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 31.Canfell
K, Caruana
M, Gebski
V,
et al. Cervical screening with primary HPV testing or cytology in a population of women in which those aged 33 years or younger had previously been offered HPV vaccination: results of the Compass pilot randomised trial.
PLoS Med. 2017;14(9):e1002388. doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1002388PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 32.Ronco
G, Giorgi-Rossi
P, Carozzi
F,
et al; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening Working Group. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology in primary screening of women younger than 35 years: results at recruitment for a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(7):547-555. doi:
10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70731-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 33.Ronco
G, Segnan
N, Giorgi-Rossi
P,
et al; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Working Group. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(11):765-774. doi:
10.1093/jnci/djj209PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 34.Ronco
G, Giorgi-Rossi
P, Carozzi
F,
et al; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening Working Group. Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(7):492-501. doi:
10.1093/jnci/djn065PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 35.Ogilvie
GS, van Niekerk
D, Krajden
M,
et al. Effect of screening with primary cervical HPV testing vs cytology testing on high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at 48 months: the HPV FOCAL randomized clinical trial.
JAMA. 2018;320(1):43-52. doi:
10.1001/jama.2018.7464PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 36.Naucler
P, Ryd
W, Törnberg
S,
et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer [published correction appears in
N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1637].
N Engl J Med. 2007;357(16):1589-1597. doi:
10.1056/NEJMoa073204PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 37.Elfström
KM, Smelov
V, Johansson
AL,
et al. Long term duration of protective effect for HPV negative women: follow-up of primary HPV screening randomised controlled trial.
BMJ. 2014;348:g130. doi:
10.1136/bmj.g130PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 39.Kitchener
HC, Almonte
M, Gilham
C,
et al; ARTISTIC Trial Study Group. ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening.
Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(51):1-150. doi:
10.3310/hta13510PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 41.Rijkaart
DC, Berkhof
J, Rozendaal
L,
et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):78-88. doi:
10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70296-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 42.C Kitchener
H, Canfell
K, Gilham
C,
et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds.
Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(23):1-196. doi:
10.3310/hta18230PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 44.Ronco
G, Dillner
J, Elfström
KM,
et al; International HPV Screening Working Group. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials.
Lancet. 2014;383(9916):524-532. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 45.Zorzi
M, Frayle
H, Rizzi
M,
et al; Veneto HPV-screening Working Group. A 3-year interval is too short for re-screening women testing negative for human papillomavirus: a population-based cohort study.
BJOG. 2017;124(10):1585-1593. doi:
10.1111/1471-0528.14575PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 46.Katki
HA, Kinney
WK, Fetterman
B,
et al. Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice. [published correction appears in
Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(8):722].
Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):663-672. doi:
10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70145-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 48.Gage
JC, Katki
HA, Schiffman
M,
et al. Age-stratified 5-year risks of cervical precancer among women with enrollment and newly detected HPV infection.
Int J Cancer. 2015;136(7):1665-1671. doi:
10.1002/ijc.29143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 54.Dijkstra
MG, van Zummeren
M, Rozendaal
L,
et al. Safety of extending screening intervals beyond five years in cervical screening programmes with testing for high risk human papillomavirus: 14 year follow-up of population based randomised cohort in the Netherlands.
BMJ. 2016;355:i4924. doi:
10.1136/bmj.i4924PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 55.Castle
PE, Kinney
WK, Xue
X,
et al. Effect of several negative rounds of human papillomavirus and cytology co-testing on safety against cervical cancer: an observational cohort study.
Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(1):20-29. doi:
10.7326/M17-1609PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 58.Ogilvie
GS, van Niekerk
DJ, Krajden
M,
et al. A randomized controlled trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening: trial design and preliminary results (HPV FOCAL Trial).
BMC Cancer. 2010;10:111. doi:
10.1186/1471-2407-10-111PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 59.Bulkmans
NW, Rozendaal
L, Snijders
PJ,
et al. POBASCAM, a population-based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high-risk HPV testing in cervical screening: design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women.
Int J Cancer. 2004;110(1):94-101. doi:
10.1002/ijc.20076PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 60.Luyten
A, Buttmann-Schweiger
N, Luyten
K,
et al. Early detection of CIN3 and cervical cancer during long-term follow-up using HPV/Pap smear co-testing and risk-adapted follow-up in a locally organised screening programme.
Int J Cancer. 2014;135(6):1408-1416. doi:
10.1002/ijc.28783PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 61.Petry
KU, Luyten
A, Scherbring
S. Accuracy of colposcopy management to detect CIN3 and invasive cancer in women with abnormal screening tests: results from a primary HPV screening project from 2006 to 2011 in Wolfsburg, Germany.
Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(2):282-287. doi:
10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.10.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref