[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Screening for Cervical CancerUS Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Educational Objective
To review the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation regarding screening for cervical cancer.
1 Credit CME
Abstract

Importance  The number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States has decreased substantially since the implementation of widespread cervical cancer screening and has declined from 2.8 to 2.3 deaths per 100 000 women from 2000 to 2015.

Objective  To update the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 recommendation on screening for cervical cancer.

Evidence Review  The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for cervical cancer, with a focus on clinical trials and cohort studies that evaluated screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing alone or hrHPV and cytology together (cotesting) compared with cervical cytology alone. The USPSTF also commissioned a decision analysis model to evaluate the age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal interval for screening, the effectiveness of different screening strategies, and related benefits and harms of different screening strategies.

Findings  Screening with cervical cytology alone, primary hrHPV testing alone, or cotesting can detect high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer. Screening women aged 21 to 65 years substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The harms of screening for cervical cancer in women aged 30 to 65 years are moderate. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years substantially outweigh the harms. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with both tests (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years outweigh the harms. Screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and women younger than 21 years does not provide significant benefit. Screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer provides no benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate to high certainty that screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer, screening women younger than 21 years, and screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer does not result in a positive net benefit.

Conclusions and Recommendation  The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cervical cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with hrHPV testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than 21 years. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer. (D recommendation)

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

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.

References
1.
National Cancer Institute (NCI). Cancer Stat Facts: cervical cancer. NCI website. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html. Accessed June 28, 2018.
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
7.
Huh  WK, Ault  KA, Chelmow  D,  et al.  Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.  Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):330-337. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000669PubMedGoogle 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.
10.
Beavis  AL, Gravitt  PE, Rositch  AF.  Hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer mortality rates reveal a larger racial disparity in the United States.  Cancer. 2017;123(6):1044-1050. doi:10.1002/cncr.30507PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
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
12.
Galic  V, Herzog  TJ, Lewin  SN,  et al.  Prognostic significance of adenocarcinoma histology in women with cervical cancer.  Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(2):287-291. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.012PubMedGoogle 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
15.
Tracy  JK, Schluterman  NH, Greenberg  DR.  Understanding cervical cancer screening among lesbians: a national survey.  BMC Public Health. 2013;13:442. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-442PubMedGoogle 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
17.
Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Human papillomavirus (HPV) ACIP vaccine recommendations. CDC website. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/hpv.html. Accessed June 28, 2018.
18.
Panel on Opportunistic Infections in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections in HIV-infected adults and adolescents: human papillomavirus disease. National Institutes of Health website. https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/guidelines/html/4/adult-and-adolescent-oi-prevention-and-treatment-guidelines/343/hpv. Accessed June 28, 2018.
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.
20.
American Cancer Society (ACS). Cervix at a glance. ACS website.https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/cancer-site/Cervix. Accessed June 28, 2018.
21.
Healthy People 2020. Cancer objectives. HealthyPeople.gov website. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/cancer/objectives. Updated June 18, 2018. Accessed June 28, 2018.
22.
Moyer  VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement  [published correction appears in Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):852].  Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-891, W312. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00424PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
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
25.
Sankaranarayanan  R, Nene  BM, Shastri  SS,  et al.  HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1385-1394. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0808516PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Insinga  RP, Glass  AG, Rush  BB.  Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):105-113. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.043PubMedGoogle 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
38.
Kitchener  HC, Fletcher  I, Roberts  C, Wheeler  P, Almonte  M, Maguire  P.  The psychosocial impact of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening—a study within a randomized trial.  Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(4):743-748. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01113.xPubMedGoogle 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
40.
Kitchener  HC, Almonte  M, Thomson  C,  et al.  HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(7):672-682. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70156-1PubMedGoogle 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
43.
McCaffery  K, Waller  J, Forrest  S, Cadman  L, Szarewski  A, Wardle  J.  Testing positive for human papillomavirus in routine cervical screening: examination of psychosocial impact.  BJOG. 2004;111(12):1437-1443. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00279.xPubMedGoogle 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
47.
Castle  PE, Fetterman  B, Poitras  N,  et al.  Variable risk of cervical precancer and cancer after a human papillomavirus-positive test.  Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):650-656. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318209da59PubMedGoogle 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
49.
Gage  JC, Schiffman  M, Katki  HA,  et al.  Reassurance against future risk of precancer and cancer conferred by a negative human papillomavirus test.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(8):dju153. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju153PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Katki  HA, Schiffman  M, Castle  PE,  et al.  Five-year risks of CIN 3+ and cervical cancer among women who test Pap-negative but are HPV-positive.  J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17(5)(suppl 1):S56-S63. doi:10.1097/LGT.0b013e318285437bPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Katki  HA, Schiffman  M, Castle  PE,  et al.  Benchmarking CIN 3+ risk as the basis for incorporating HPV and Pap cotesting into cervical screening and management guidelines.  J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17(5)(suppl 1):S28-S35. doi:10.1097/LGT.0b013e318285423cPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Ibáñez  R, Autonell  J, Sardà  M,  et al.  Protecting the underscreened women in developed countries: the value of HPV test.  BMC Cancer. 2014;14:574. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-574PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Demarco  M, Lorey  TS, Fetterman  B,  et al.  Risks of CIN 2+, CIN 3+, and cancer by cytology and human papillomavirus status: the foundation of risk-based cervical screening guidelines.  J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21(4):261-267. doi:10.1097/LGT.0000000000000343PubMedGoogle 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
56.
Coldman  AJ, Gondara  L, Smith  LW,  et al.  Disease detection and resource use in the safety and control arms of the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial.  Br J Cancer. 2016;115(12):1487-1494. doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.368PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Cook  DA, Mei  W, Smith  LW,  et al.  Comparison of the Roche cobas® 4800 and Digene Hybrid Capture® 2 HPV tests for primary cervical cancer screening in the HPV FOCAL trial.  BMC Cancer. 2015;15:968. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1959-5PubMedGoogle 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
62.
Dinkelspiel  H, Fetterman  B, Poitras  N,  et al.  Screening history preceding a diagnosis of cervical cancer in women age 65 and older.  Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(2):203-206. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.037PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Fox  J, Remington  P, Layde  P, Klein  G.  The effect of hysterectomy on the risk of an abnormal screening Papanicolaou test result.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(5):1104-1109. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70601-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Pearce  KF, Haefner  HK, Sarwar  SF, Nolan  TE.  Cytopathological findings on vaginal Papanicolaou smears after hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease.  N Engl J Med. 1996;335(21):1559-1562. doi:10.1056/NEJM199611213352103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Clinical preventive service recommendation: cervical cancer. AAFP website. https://www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/cervical-cancer.html. 2018. Accessed June 28, 2018.
66.
Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology.  Practice Bulletin No. 168: cervical cancer screening and prevention.  Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(4):e111-e130. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001708PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Topics
State Requirements