Accepted for Publication: March 11, 2019.
Published Online: May 13, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0299
Correction: This article was corrected on June 17, 2019, to fix an error in Table 2.
Corresponding Author: George F. Sawaya, MD, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, Floor 7, San Francisco, CA 94143 (george.sawaya@ucsf.edu).
Author Contributions: Drs Sawaya and Kulasingam had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Sawaya, Smith-McCune, Gregorich, Silverberg, Kuppermann, Kulasingam.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Sawaya, Alarid-Escudero, Kuppermann, Kulasingam.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Alarid-Escudero, Leyden.
Obtained funding: Sawaya, Smith-McCune, Gregorich, Kuppermann.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Sawaya, Smith-McCune, Leyden, Kulasingam.
Supervision: Sawaya, Kuppermann.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sawaya reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Smith-McCune reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Gregorich reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Leyden reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr. Huchko reported receiving grants from the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology during the conduct of the study. Dr Kulasingam reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support: This work was funded by grant 1R01CA169093 from the US National Cancer Institute.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Additional Contributions: Allison O’Leary, MPH, and Melissa Duncanson, BA, University of California, San Francisco, provided research administration assistance. Allison O’Leary, MPH, Mayra Carrillo, BS, Xochilt Borja, BS, and Rachel Freyre, BS, University of California, San Francisco, conducted participant interviews. Michelle Moghadassi, MPH, and Cinthia Blat, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, provided statistical support. Hilary Whitham, PhD, and Ran Zhao, MPH, University of Minnesota, provided modeling assistance. All individuals except Ms Duncanson were compensated for their contributions.
2.Saslow
D, Solomon
D, Lawson
HW,
et al; ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee. 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.
CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(3):147-172. doi:
10.3322/caac.21139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4.Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin number 131: screening for cervical cancer.
Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1222-1238.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 9.O’Connor
M, Gallagher
P, Waller
J, Martin
CM, O’Leary
JJ, Sharp
L; Irish Cervical Screening Research Consortium (CERVIVA). Adverse psychological outcomes following colposcopy and related procedures: a systematic review.
BJOG. 2016;123(1):24-38. doi:
10.1111/1471-0528.13462PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 11.Torrance
GW, Thomas
WH, Sackett
DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs.
Health Serv Res. 1972;7(2):118-133.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 13.Massad
LS, Einstein
MH, Huh
WK,
et al; 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 Updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.
Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):829-846. doi:
10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182883a34PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 14.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 15.Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. SEER*Stat database: mortality—all COD, aggregated with state, total U.S. (1969-2015) <Katrina/Rita population adjustment>, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, released December 2017. Underlying mortality data provided by NCHS.
21.Arbyn
M, Buntinx
F, Van Ranst
M, Paraskevaidis
E, Martin-Hirsch
P, Dillner
J. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(4):280-293. doi:
10.1093/jnci/djh037PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 23.Kocken
M, Uijterwaal
MH, de Vries
AL,
et al. High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(2):500-507. doi:
10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 29.Sanders
GD, Neumann
PJ, Basu
A,
et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093-1103. doi:
10.1001/jama.2016.12195PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 30.Stoler
MH, Austin
RM, Zhao
C. Point-counterpoint: cervical cancer screening should be done by primary human papillomavirus testing with genotyping and reflex cytology for women over the age of 25 years.
J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(9):2798-2804. doi:
10.1128/JCM.01087-15PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 34.Wright
T, Huang
J, Baker
E, Garfield
S, Hertz
D, Cox
JT. The budget impact of cervical cancer screening using HPV primary screening.
Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(3):e95-e105.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 37.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