Advertisement

Compliance with cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus testing guidelines among insured young women

      Objective

      In December 2009, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that women under 21 years old should not receive cervical cancer screening (Papanicolaou tests) or human papillomavirus (HPV) tests. This study examined whether clinicians stopped administering Papanicolaou and HPV tests among women younger than 21 years of age after new ACOG guidelines were issued.

      Study Design

      This study was a retrospective secondary data analysis of administrative claims data that included insurance enrollees from across the United States that examined the frequency of Papanicolaou tests and HPV tests among 178,898 nonimmunocompromised females 12-20 years old who had a paid claim for a well-woman visit in 2008, 2009, or 2010. Young women with well-woman examinations in each observed year were examined longitudinally to determine whether past diagnoses of cervical cell abnormalities accounted for Papanicolaou testing in 2010.

      Results

      The proportion of women younger than 21 years old that received a Papanicolaou test as part of her well-woman exam dropped from 77% in 2008 and 2009 to 57% by December of 2010, whereas HPV testing remained stable across time. A diagnosis of cervical cell abnormalities in 2009 was associated with Papanicolaou testing in 2010. However, a previous Papanicolaou test was more strongly associated with a Papanicolaou test in 2010.

      Conclusion

      These data show that some physicians are adjusting their practices among young women according to ACOG guidelines, but Papanicolaou and HPV testing among insured women younger than 21 years of age still remains unnecessarily high.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology
        ACOG practice bulletin no. 109: cervical cytology screening.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1409-1420
        • American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice
        ACOG practice bulletin clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102: 417-427
        • Moscicki A.-B.
        • Ma Y.
        • Wibbelsman C.
        • et al.
        Rate of and risks for regression of CIN-2 in adolescents and young women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1373-1380
        • Moscicki A.-B.
        • Shiboski S.
        • Hills N.K.
        • et al.
        Regression of low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions in young women.
        Lancet. 2004; 364: 1678-1683
        • Moore K.
        • Cofer A.
        • Elliot L.
        • Lanneau G.
        • Walker J.
        • Gold M.A.
        Adolescent cervical dysplasia: histologic evaluation, treatment, and outcomes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 141.e1-141.e6
        • Sadler L.
        • Saftlas A.
        Cervical surgery and preterm birth.
        J Perinat Med. 2007; 35: 5-9
        • Sadler L.
        • Saftlas A.
        • Wang W.
        • Exeter M.
        • Whittaker J.
        • McCowan L.
        Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery.
        JAMA. 2004; 291: 2100-2106
        • Bruinsma F.J.
        • Quinn M.A.
        The risk of preterm birth following treatment for precancerous changes in the cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BJOG. 2011; 118: 1031-1041
        • Armarnik S.
        • Sheiner E.
        • Piura B.
        • Meirovitz M.
        • Zlotnik A.
        • Levy A.
        Obstetric outcome following cervical conization.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011; 283: 765-769
        • Nam K.H.
        • Kwon J.Y.
        • Kim Y.-H.
        • Park Y.-W.
        Pregnancy outcome after cervical conization: risk factors for preterm delivery and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage.
        J Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 21: 225-229
        • Ortoft G.
        • Henriksen T.B.
        • Hansen E.S.
        • Petersen L.K.
        After conisation of the cervix, the perinatal mortality as a result of preterm delivery increases in subsequent pregnancy.
        BJOG. 2010; 117: 258-267
        • Guido R.
        Human papillomavirus and cervical disease in adolescents.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 51: 290-305
        • Maissi E.
        • Marteau T.M.
        • Hankins M.
        • Moss S.
        • Legood R.
        • Gray A.
        The psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing n women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: 6-month follow-up.
        Br J Cancer. 2005; 92: 990-994
        • McCaffery K.J.
        • Irwig L.
        • Turner R.
        • et al.
        Psychosocial outcomes of three triage methods for the management of borderline abnormal cervical smears: an open randomised trial.
        BMJ. 2010; 340: b4491
        • 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: 1437-1443
        • Massad L.S.
        Assessing new technologies for cervical cancer screening: beyond sensitivity.
        J Lower Genit Tract Dis. 2008; 12: 211-315
        • American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology
        Cervical cancer in adolescents: screening, evaluation, and management.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 469-472
      1. Albright D. Clinformatics DataMart training conducted at the University of Texas Medical Branch; Web presentation by the dataset administrators from Eden Prairie, MN given to UTMB researchers in Galveston, TX; in August of 2012.

        • Lee J.W.-Y.
        • Berkowitz Z.
        • Saraiya M.
        Low-risk human papillomavirus testing and other nonrecommended human papillomavirus testing practices among US health care providers.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 4-13
        • Wright J.D.
        • Davila R.M.
        • Pinto K.R.
        • et al.
        Cervical dysplasia in adolescents.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 115-120
        • Moscicki A.-B.
        • Ma Y.
        • Wibbelsman C.
        • et al.
        Risks for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-3 among adolescent and young women with abnormal cytology.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112: 1335-1342
        • Watson M.
        • Saraiya M.
        • Benard V.
        • et al.
        Burden of cervical cancer in the United States, 1998-2003.
        Cancer. 2008; 113: 2855-2864
      2. National Cancer Institute. SEER cancer statistics review 1975-2009. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/results_merged/sect_05_cervix_uteri.pdf. 2011. Accessed Aug. 22, 2012.

        • Schwaiger C.
        • Aruda M.
        • LaCoursiere S.
        • Rubin R.
        Current guidelines for cervical cancer screening.
        J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2012; 24: 417-424