2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Methods for Risk Estimation, Recommended Management, and Validation

Li C Cheung, Didem Egemen, Xiaojian Chen, Hormuzd A Katki, Maria Demarco, Amy L Wiser, Rebecca B Perkins, Richard S Guido, Nicolas Wentzensen, Mark Schiffman, Li C Cheung, Didem Egemen, Xiaojian Chen, Hormuzd A Katki, Maria Demarco, Amy L Wiser, Rebecca B Perkins, Richard S Guido, Nicolas Wentzensen, Mark Schiffman

Abstract

Objective: To manage cervical screening abnormalities, the 2019 ASCCP management consensus guidelines will recommend clinical action on the basis of risk of cervical precancer and cancer. This article details the methods used to estimate risk, to determine the risk-based management, and to validate that the risk-based recommendations are of general use in different settings.

Methods: Based on 1.5 million patients undergoing triennial cervical screening by cotesting at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2003 to 2017, we estimated risk profiles for different clinical scenarios and combinations of past and current human papillomavirus and cytology test results. We validated the recommended management by comparing with the estimated risks in several external data sources.

Results: Risk and management tables are presented separately by Egemen et al. and Demarco et al. Risk-based management derived from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California largely agreed with the management implied from the estimated risks of the other data sources.

Conclusions: The new risk-based guidelines present management of abnormal cervical screening results. By describing the steps used to develop these guidelines, the methods presented in this article can provide a basis for future extensions of the risk-based guidelines.

Conflict of interest statement

R.S.G. reports that he was an ASCCP consultant for the guideline and a DSMB consultant for Ikonosys. The other authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Egemen D, Cheung LC, Chen X, et al. Risk estimates supporting the 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2020;24:132–43.
    1. Demarco M, Egemen D, Raine-Bennett TR, et al. A study of partial human papillomavirus genotyping in support of the 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2020;24:144–7.
    1. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17(5 suppl 1):S1–27.
    1. 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):S28–35.
    1. Castle PE, Xie X, Xue X, et al. Impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on the clinical meaning of cervical screening results. Prev Med 2019;118:44–50.
    1. Clarke MA, Cheung LC, Castle PE, et al. Five-year risk of cervical precancer following p16/Ki-67 dual-stain triage of HPV-positive women. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:181–6.
    1. Schiffman M, Hyun N, Raine-Bennett TR, et al. A cohort study of cervical screening using partial HPV typing and cytology triage. Int J Cancer 2016;139:2606–15.
    1. 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;168:20–9.
    1. Castle PE, Kinney WK, Xue X, et al. Role of screening history in clinical meaning and optimal management of positive cervical screening results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019;111:820–7.
    1. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 1999;281:1605–10.
    1. Lee NC, Wong FL, Jamison PM, et al. Implementation of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: the beginning. Cancer 2014;120(suppl 16):2540–8.
    1. Stoler MH, Wright TC, Jr., Parvu V, et al. The Onclarity Human Papillomavirus Trial: design, methods, and baseline results. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:498–505.
    1. Wright TC, Jr., Stoler MH, Behrens CM, et al. The ATHENA human papillomavirus study: design, methods, and baseline results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:46.e41–11.
    1. Gage JC, Hunt WC, Schiffman M, et al. Similar risk patterns after cervical screening in two large U.S. populations: implications for clinical guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:1248–57.
    1. 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. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:663–72.
    1. Castle PE, Kinney WK, Cheung LC, et al. Why does cervical cancer occur in a state-of-the-art screening program? Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:546–53.
    1. Castle PE, Shaber R, LaMere BJ, et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in women with cervical precancer and cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:946–53.
    1. Castle PE, Solomon D, Wheeler CM, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype specificity of Hybrid Capture 2. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:2595–604.
    1. Kardos TF. The FocalPoint System: FocalPoint slide profiler and FocalPoint GS. Cancer 2004;102:334–9.
    1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–9.
    1. Wright TC, Jr., Cox JT, Massad LS, et al. , Conference AS-sC. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women with Cervical Cytological Abnormalities. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2002;6:127–43.
    1. Wright TC, Jr., Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11:201–22.
    1. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al. 2019 ASCCP Risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2020;24:102–31.
    1. McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:425–34.
    1. Cheung LC, Pan Q, Hyun N, et al. Mixture models for undiagnosed prevalent disease and interval-censored incident disease: applications to a cohort assembled from electronic health records. Stat Med 2017;36:3583–95.
    1. Hyun N, Cheung LC, Pan Q, et al. Flexible risk prediction models for left or interval-censored data from electronic health records. Ann Appl Stat 2017;11:1063–84.
    1. Landy R, Cheung LC, Schiffman M, et al. Challenges in risk estimation using routinely collected clinical data: the example of estimating cervical cancer risks from electronic health-records. Prev Med 2018;111:429–35.
    1. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018;320:674–86.
    1. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:184–210.
    1. Saraiya M, Cheung LC, Soman A, et al. CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program 2009–2017: Risk of CIN3+ in Uninsured and Underserved Women. 2020. Unpublished manuscript.
    1. Andrews JC, Yanson KA, Eckert K, et al. [Risk of CIN3+ in the Onclarity Trial]. 2020. Unpublished manuscript.
    1. Safaeian M, et al. [Risk of CIN3+ in the ATHENA study]. 2020. Unpublished manuscript.
    1. Petry KU, Cox JT, Johnson K, et al. Evaluating HPV-negative CIN2+ in the ATHENA trial. Int J Cancer 2016;138:2932–9.
    1. Arbyn M, Xu L, Verdoodt F, et al. Genotyping for human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in women with minor cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2017;166:118–27.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner