Clinical Usefulness of Cervicogram as a Primary Screening Test for Cervical Neoplasia

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the cervicogram as a primary screening test for cervical neoplasia. A total of 294 women who had undergone a cervicogram and a Pap test between January and July 2003, were selected. The diagnostic accuracy of the Pap test, cervicogram, and the Pap test combined with a cervicogram were compared with the histopathologic diagnosis. Among 294 women, the Pap test was negative in 130 cases and positive in 164 cases. Among patients with positive Pap test, cervicogram were negative in 101 cases (61.6%) and positive in 63 cases (38.4%). The diagnostic accuracy between cervicogram with positive Pap test and histology was as follows; sensitivity 44.9%, specificity 78.3%, positive predictive value 84.1%, negative predictive value 32.7%, false positive rate 15.9%, and false negative rate 67.3%. Although the adjunctive use of cervicogram with the Pap test in the initial screening of cervical neoplasia showed a higher specificity and higher positive predictive value compared to the Pap test alone, consideration in terms of lower sensitivity, lower positive predictive value, higher false positive rate and cost-effectiveness should be given in lieu of clinically applying cervicogram with the pap test as an initial screening test

Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen-positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age-standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21-65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two- to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations