» Articles » PMID: 36162041

Secondary Prevention of Cervical Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline Update

Abstract

Purpose: To update resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on secondary prevention of cervical cancer globally.

Methods: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel to produce recommendations reflecting four resource-tiered settings. A review of existing guidelines, formal consensus-based process, and modified ADAPTE process to adapt existing guidelines was conducted. Other experts participated in formal consensus.

Results: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five existing guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness analyses provided indirect evidence to inform consensus, which resulted in ≥ 75% agreement.

Recommendations: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is recommended in all resource settings; visual inspection with acetic acid may be used in basic settings. Recommended age ranges and frequencies vary by the following setting: maximal: age 25-65 years, every 5 years; enhanced: age 30-65 years, if two consecutive negative tests at 5-year intervals, then every 10 years; limited: age 30-49 years, every 10 years; basic: age 30-49 years, one to three times per lifetime. For basic settings, visual assessment is used to determine treatment eligibility; in other settings, genotyping with cytology or cytology alone is used to determine treatment. For basic settings, treatment is recommended if abnormal triage results are obtained; in other settings, abnormal triage results followed by colposcopy is recommended. For basic settings, treatment options are thermal ablation or loop electrosurgical excision procedure; for other settings, loop electrosurgical excision procedure or ablation is recommended; with a 12-month follow-up in all settings. Women who are HIV-positive should be screened with HPV testing after diagnosis, twice as many times per lifetime as the general population. Screening is recommended at 6 weeks postpartum in basic settings; in other settings, screening is recommended at 6 months. In basic settings without mass screening, infrastructure for HPV testing, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

Citing Articles

Relationship Between Health Literacy and Knowledge About Gynaecological Cancer Prevention of Women.

Aksoy F, Boyraz Yanik H, Erbil N Int J Nurs Pract. 2025; 31(1):e70000.

PMID: 39908577 PMC: 11798590. DOI: 10.1111/ijn.70000.


Cervical Cancer 2010-2019: An Upper Midwest Catchment of 40,000 Square Miles.

Ulmer K, Wilson P, Petereit M, Sargent M, Cina K, Kroboth L J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2024; 29(1):23-30.

PMID: 39626082 PMC: 11661925. DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000853.


Risk factors related to recurrence after surgical excision procedure for cervical dysplasia.

Mitta K, Tsertanidou A, Tsakiridis I, Zoubanioti E, Dagklis T, Mamopoulos A Hippokratia. 2024; 27(4):132-140.

PMID: 39372323 PMC: 11451503.


Defining precancer: a grand challenge for the cancer community.

Faupel-Badger J, Kohaar I, Bahl M, Chan A, Campbell J, Ding L Nat Rev Cancer. 2024; 24(11):792-809.

PMID: 39354069 DOI: 10.1038/s41568-024-00744-0.


Supportive care 2030 movement: towards unifying ambitions for global excellence in supportive cancer care-an international Delphi study.

Chan R, Knowles R, Ashbury F, Bowen J, Chan A, Chin M EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 76:102825.

PMID: 39309723 PMC: 11415959. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102825.


References
1.
Arbyn M, Smith S, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P . Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018; 363:k4823. PMC: 6278587. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k4823. View

2.
Arrossi S, Paolino M, Laudi R, Gago J, Campanera A, Marin O . Programmatic human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer prevention in the Jujuy Demonstration Project in Argentina: a population-based, before-and-after retrospective cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2019; 7(6):e772-e783. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30048-8. View

3.
Peitzmeier S, Bernstein I, McDowell M, Pardee D, Agenor M, Alizaga N . Enacting power and constructing gender in cervical cancer screening encounters between transmasculine patients and health care providers. Cult Health Sex. 2019; 22(12):1315-1332. PMC: 7188565. DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2019.1677942. View

4.
Campos N, Tsu V, Jeronimo J, Mvundura M, Lee K, Kim J . To expand coverage, or increase frequency: Quantifying the tradeoffs between equity and efficiency facing cervical cancer screening programs in low-resource settings. Int J Cancer. 2016; 140(6):1293-1305. PMC: 5516173. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30551. View

5.
Mezei A, Armstrong H, Pedersen H, Campos N, Mitchell S, Sekikubo M . Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening methods in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Int J Cancer. 2017; 141(3):437-446. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30695. View