Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41342729›Full record

GuidelineCA: a cancer journal for clinicians

Self-collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing and guidance on screening exit: An update to the American Cancer Society cervical cancer screening guideline.

Rebecca B Perkins, Andrew M D Wolf, Timothy R Church, Elena B Elkin, Steven J Skates, Ruth D Etzioni, Carmen E Guerra, Abbe Herzig, Richard M Hoffman, Kevin C Oeffinger and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Rebecca B PerkinsTufts University School of Medicine/Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7054-3014
Andrew M D WolfUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-5510-7224
Timothy R ChurchMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3292-5035
Elena B ElkinDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8833-4213
Steven J SkatesMassachusetts General Hospital, MGH Biostatistics, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ruth D EtzioniFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Carmen E GuerraPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9164-6370
Abbe HerzigPatient Representative, Mathematics Department, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY, USA.
Richard M HoffmanDepartment of Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4714-7726
Kevin C OeffingerDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Duke Cancer Institute Center for Onco-Primary Care, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0806-7894
Sana RaoofDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Ya-Chen Tina ShihDavid Geffen School of Medicine and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7290-3864
Louise C WalterDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9642-6238
Charnita Zeigler-JohnsonFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2641-7755
Deana Manassaram-BaptisteCenter for Early Cancer Detection, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Robert A SmithCenter for Early Cancer Detection, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3344-2238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This update expands the 2020 American Cancer Society (ACS) cervical cancer screening guideline for average-risk women and individuals with a cervix who are at average risk, to include self-collection for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and revised guidance for exiting cervical cancer screening. Self-collected vaginal specimens, a method of primary HPV testing, align with the ACS cervical cancer screening guideline. When clinician-collected cervical specimens are used for HPV testing, repeat screening is recommended every 5 years for those with a negative test. For self-collected vaginal specimens, the ACS endorses the following recommendations of the Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee (of which it is a member): (1) primary HPV screening using clinician-collected cervical specimens is preferred, and self-collected vaginal specimens are acceptable for average-risk individuals aged 25-65 years; and (2) repeat testing in 3 years is recommended after a negative result on a self-collected HPV screening test. These recommendations apply only to combinations of collection devices and HPV assays approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HPV testing in a clinical setting or at home. The rationale notes that the use of self-collected vaginal specimens can overcome barriers to screening for many patients, but most patients who test HPV-positive will require extra follow-up steps, and data on long-term, real-world effectiveness are limited. For certain high-risk individuals, clinician-collected samples are still recommended. Furthermore, in response to high rates of cervical cancer among individuals older than 65 years and with poor implementation of current exiting screening criteria, ACS has amended the 2020 guideline to recommend HPV testing at ages 60 and 65 years, with the last HPV test at an age no younger than 65 years as a requisite to exiting screening. The revised recommendation states: To qualify for discontinuation of screening, the ACS recommends an average-risk woman or an individual with a cervix at average risk have negative primary HPV tests (preferred) or negative co-testing using HPV tests and cytology (acceptable) at ages 60 and 65 years. If primary HPV tests or co-testing are not available, three consecutive negative cytology (Papanicolaou) tests at the recommended screening interval with the last test at age 65 years are acceptable. If self-collected vaginal specimens are used for HPV testing, the 3-year testing interval should be followed. Additional screening exit stipulations relate to women at higher risk because of prior abnormal test results or current immune suppression.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultAgedAmerican Cancer SocietyFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedUnited StatesVaginacancer preventioncervical cancerearly detection of cancerguidelinehuman papillomaviruses (HPV)human papillomavirus testingself‐collection

Identifiers

PMID41342729
PMCPMC12677112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.