User login
Diagnostics company asserts medical and pathology groups prefer cotesting for cervical cancer screening
We are concerned about Dr. Wright’s March 2018 gynecologic cancer coverage of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines for cervical cancer.
The article suggests that draft USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines issued in September 2017 are final when in fact that is not the case. The USPSTF issued draft guidelines in late 2017, butfinal publication is pending USPSTFrevisions in response to submitted public comments. This means that, for now, existing USPSTF guidelines remain in place, and these guidelines clearly recommend cotesting (high-risk HPV and cytology/Pap) in women 30 to 65 years of age every 5 years as an appropriate screening modality, in alignment with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Cancer Society, among others.
It is also notable that the proposed USPSTF guidelines have been met with sharp resistance. ACOG, as well as several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, the American Society for Cytotechnology, the College of American Pathologists, the International Academy of Cytology, and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, cite concerns with the proposed USPSTF guidelines and continue to argue in favor of cotesting in women 30 to 65 years of age.1,2
We also fear that Dr. Wright may have provided data out of context. For instance, he notes that the USPSTF, in its draft guidelines, found that cotesting increased the number of follow-up tests but did not increase detection of CIN3+ in a decision model. Yet, the USPSTF analysis overrelied on research from European populations (not representative of the US cervical cancer experience) and excluded peer-reviewed data of women in the United States, which clearly shows that HPV-Pap together catches more cervical cancers than either Pap or HPV alone.3
D.P. Alagia, MD, and Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, MBA
Quest Diagnostics
Madison, New Jersey
Dr. Wright responds
I thank Drs. Alagia and Kaufman for their interest in the work and their comments regarding the USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines. As stated in the article, the USPSTF recommendations are currently in draft form and subject to revision based on public comment. The guidelines are a synthesis of best available evidence and are meant to weigh the benefits and harms of various cervical cancer screening strategies. The recommendations are based in part on simulation modeling that incorporates available evidence and projects the long-term effects of multiple rounds of screening. While the decision models incorporated a large amount of data and were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses, as with all decision analyses, they are limited by the underlying assumptions utilized in the model. Over the last 2 decades, screening practices for cervical cancer have dramatically shifted. Highlighting the USPSTF draft guidelines was meant to raise awareness among clinicians and policy makers of the evolving role of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in combination with cytology, as a screening modality for cervical cancer.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Leading women’s health care groups issue joint statement on USPSTF draft cervical cancer screening recommendations. September 13, 2017. https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/Statements/2017/Leading-Womens-Health-Care-Groups-Issue-Joint-Statement-on-USPSTF. Accessed July 5, 2018.
- Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium. Response to new USPSTF guidelines for cervical cancer screening. October 2, 2017. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ascpcdn/static/ONELab/pdf/2017/CETC+-USPSTF+Letter+10-2-17.PDF. Accessed July 5, 2018.
- Blatt AJ, Kennedy R, Luff RD, Austin RM, Rabin DS. Comparison of cervical cancer screening results among 256,648 women in multiple clinical practices. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:282–288.
Diagnostics company asserts medical and pathology groups prefer cotesting for cervical cancer screening
We are concerned about Dr. Wright’s March 2018 gynecologic cancer coverage of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines for cervical cancer.
The article suggests that draft USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines issued in September 2017 are final when in fact that is not the case. The USPSTF issued draft guidelines in late 2017, butfinal publication is pending USPSTFrevisions in response to submitted public comments. This means that, for now, existing USPSTF guidelines remain in place, and these guidelines clearly recommend cotesting (high-risk HPV and cytology/Pap) in women 30 to 65 years of age every 5 years as an appropriate screening modality, in alignment with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Cancer Society, among others.
It is also notable that the proposed USPSTF guidelines have been met with sharp resistance. ACOG, as well as several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, the American Society for Cytotechnology, the College of American Pathologists, the International Academy of Cytology, and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, cite concerns with the proposed USPSTF guidelines and continue to argue in favor of cotesting in women 30 to 65 years of age.1,2
We also fear that Dr. Wright may have provided data out of context. For instance, he notes that the USPSTF, in its draft guidelines, found that cotesting increased the number of follow-up tests but did not increase detection of CIN3+ in a decision model. Yet, the USPSTF analysis overrelied on research from European populations (not representative of the US cervical cancer experience) and excluded peer-reviewed data of women in the United States, which clearly shows that HPV-Pap together catches more cervical cancers than either Pap or HPV alone.3
D.P. Alagia, MD, and Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, MBA
Quest Diagnostics
Madison, New Jersey
Dr. Wright responds
I thank Drs. Alagia and Kaufman for their interest in the work and their comments regarding the USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines. As stated in the article, the USPSTF recommendations are currently in draft form and subject to revision based on public comment. The guidelines are a synthesis of best available evidence and are meant to weigh the benefits and harms of various cervical cancer screening strategies. The recommendations are based in part on simulation modeling that incorporates available evidence and projects the long-term effects of multiple rounds of screening. While the decision models incorporated a large amount of data and were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses, as with all decision analyses, they are limited by the underlying assumptions utilized in the model. Over the last 2 decades, screening practices for cervical cancer have dramatically shifted. Highlighting the USPSTF draft guidelines was meant to raise awareness among clinicians and policy makers of the evolving role of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in combination with cytology, as a screening modality for cervical cancer.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
Diagnostics company asserts medical and pathology groups prefer cotesting for cervical cancer screening
We are concerned about Dr. Wright’s March 2018 gynecologic cancer coverage of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines for cervical cancer.
The article suggests that draft USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines issued in September 2017 are final when in fact that is not the case. The USPSTF issued draft guidelines in late 2017, butfinal publication is pending USPSTFrevisions in response to submitted public comments. This means that, for now, existing USPSTF guidelines remain in place, and these guidelines clearly recommend cotesting (high-risk HPV and cytology/Pap) in women 30 to 65 years of age every 5 years as an appropriate screening modality, in alignment with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Cancer Society, among others.
It is also notable that the proposed USPSTF guidelines have been met with sharp resistance. ACOG, as well as several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, the American Society for Cytotechnology, the College of American Pathologists, the International Academy of Cytology, and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, cite concerns with the proposed USPSTF guidelines and continue to argue in favor of cotesting in women 30 to 65 years of age.1,2
We also fear that Dr. Wright may have provided data out of context. For instance, he notes that the USPSTF, in its draft guidelines, found that cotesting increased the number of follow-up tests but did not increase detection of CIN3+ in a decision model. Yet, the USPSTF analysis overrelied on research from European populations (not representative of the US cervical cancer experience) and excluded peer-reviewed data of women in the United States, which clearly shows that HPV-Pap together catches more cervical cancers than either Pap or HPV alone.3
D.P. Alagia, MD, and Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, MBA
Quest Diagnostics
Madison, New Jersey
Dr. Wright responds
I thank Drs. Alagia and Kaufman for their interest in the work and their comments regarding the USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines. As stated in the article, the USPSTF recommendations are currently in draft form and subject to revision based on public comment. The guidelines are a synthesis of best available evidence and are meant to weigh the benefits and harms of various cervical cancer screening strategies. The recommendations are based in part on simulation modeling that incorporates available evidence and projects the long-term effects of multiple rounds of screening. While the decision models incorporated a large amount of data and were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses, as with all decision analyses, they are limited by the underlying assumptions utilized in the model. Over the last 2 decades, screening practices for cervical cancer have dramatically shifted. Highlighting the USPSTF draft guidelines was meant to raise awareness among clinicians and policy makers of the evolving role of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in combination with cytology, as a screening modality for cervical cancer.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Leading women’s health care groups issue joint statement on USPSTF draft cervical cancer screening recommendations. September 13, 2017. https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/Statements/2017/Leading-Womens-Health-Care-Groups-Issue-Joint-Statement-on-USPSTF. Accessed July 5, 2018.
- Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium. Response to new USPSTF guidelines for cervical cancer screening. October 2, 2017. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ascpcdn/static/ONELab/pdf/2017/CETC+-USPSTF+Letter+10-2-17.PDF. Accessed July 5, 2018.
- Blatt AJ, Kennedy R, Luff RD, Austin RM, Rabin DS. Comparison of cervical cancer screening results among 256,648 women in multiple clinical practices. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:282–288.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Leading women’s health care groups issue joint statement on USPSTF draft cervical cancer screening recommendations. September 13, 2017. https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/Statements/2017/Leading-Womens-Health-Care-Groups-Issue-Joint-Statement-on-USPSTF. Accessed July 5, 2018.
- Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium. Response to new USPSTF guidelines for cervical cancer screening. October 2, 2017. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ascpcdn/static/ONELab/pdf/2017/CETC+-USPSTF+Letter+10-2-17.PDF. Accessed July 5, 2018.
- Blatt AJ, Kennedy R, Luff RD, Austin RM, Rabin DS. Comparison of cervical cancer screening results among 256,648 women in multiple clinical practices. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:282–288.
