Skip Navigation
PrintDownload PDFGet Adobe ReaderDownload to WordDownload as HTMLDownload as XMLCitation Manager
Save to Favorites
Guideline Summary
Guideline Title
Cervical cytology screening.
Bibliographic Source(s)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Cervical cytology screening. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); 2009 Dec. 12 p. (ACOG practice bulletin; no. 109).  [96 references]
Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Jump ToGuideline ClassificationRelated Content

Scope

Disease/Condition(s)

Cervical cancer

Guideline Category
Screening
Clinical Specialty
Family Practice
Internal Medicine
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Oncology
Pathology
Pediatrics
Intended Users
Health Care Providers
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)
  • To aid practitioners in making decisions about appropriate obstetric and gynecologic care
  • To provide a review of the best available evidence on screening for cervical cancer
Target Population

  • Women 21 years of age and older (for cervical cancer screening)
  • Sexually active adolescent girls (i.e., younger than age 21 years) (for counseling and testing for sexually transmitted infections)

Interventions and Practices Considered
  1. Cervical cancer screening
  2. Timing of initial screening and optimal frequency of screening
  3. Discontinuation of screening based on age and prior screening results
  4. Discontinuation of screening in women who have undergone hysterectomy and have no prior history of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
  5. Conventional or liquid-based cytology screening
  6. Co-testing using the combination of cytology plus human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing
  7. Counseling and testing for sexually transmitted diseases and counseling regarding safe sex and contraception in sexually active adolescents
Major Outcomes Considered
  • Sensitivity and specificity of screening
  • Incidence of cervical cancer

Methodology

Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

The MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Library, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) own internal resources and documents were used to conduct a literature search to locate relevant articles published between January 1985 and July 2009. The search was restricted to articles published in the English language. Priority was given to articles reporting results of original research, although review articles and commentaries also were consulted. Abstracts of research presented at symposia and scientific conferences were not considered adequate for inclusion in this document. Guidelines published by organizations or institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were reviewed, and additional studies were located by reviewing bibliographies of identified articles.

Number of Source Documents

Not stated

Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence

Studies were reviewed and evaluated for quality according to the method outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force:

I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.

II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.

II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case–control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.

II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments also could be regarded as this type of evidence.

III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Review of Published Meta-Analyses
Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Not stated

Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Analysis of available evidence was given priority in formulating recommendations. When reliable research was not available, expert opinions from obstetrician-gynecologists were used. See also the "Rating Scheme for the Strength of Recommendations" field regarding Grade C recommendations.

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations

Based on the highest level of evidence found in the data, recommendations are provided and graded according to the following categories:

Level A - Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.

Level B - Recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence.

Level C - Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.

Cost Analysis
  • The use of liquid-based cytology has advantages and disadvantages compared with conventional cervical cytology screening. The principal disadvantages are the higher cost and a decreased specificity.
  • Formal cost-effective analysis of data from a national program showed that the most cost-effective strategy for cervical cancer screening is cytology testing no more often than every 3 years in women with prior normal screening test results. Moreover, regardless of age, annual Pap testing was never found to be cost effective.
  • Continued vaginal cytology examinations are not cost-effective in women who have had a total hysterectomy for benign conditions and who have no prior history of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).
  • Any low-risk woman aged 30 years or older who receives negative test results on both cervical cytology screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing should be rescreened no sooner than 3 years. The combined use of these modalities has been shown to increase sensitivity but also decrease specificity and increase cost. The increased cost results from both the cost of the HPV DNA test itself and additional follow-up tests inherent in reduced specificity.
Method of Guideline Validation
Internal Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation

Practice Bulletins are validated by two internal clinical review panels composed of practicing obstetrician-gynecologists generalists and sub-specialists. The final guidelines are also reviewed and approved by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Executive Board.

Recommendations

Major Recommendations

The grades of evidence (I-III) and levels of recommendation (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

The following recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence (Level A):

  • Cervical cancer screening should begin at age 21 years. Screening before age 21 should be avoided because it may lead to unnecessary and harmful evaluation and treatment in women at very low risk of cancer.
  • Cervical cytology screening is recommended every 2 years for women between the ages of 21 years and 29 years.
  • Women aged 30 years and older who have had three consecutive negative cervical cytology screening test results and who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or CIN 3, are not human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected, are not immunocompromised, and were not exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero may extend the interval between cervical cytology examinations to every 3 years.
  • Both liquid-based and conventional methods of cervical cytology are acceptable for screening.
  • In women who have had a total hysterectomy for benign indications and have no prior history of high grade CIN, routine cytology testing should be discontinued.
  • Co-testing using the combination of cytology plus human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing is an appropriate screening test for women older than 30 years. Any low-risk woman aged 30 years or older who receives negative test results on both cervical cytology screening and HPV DNA testing should be rescreened no sooner than 3 years subsequently.

The following recommendations are based on limited and inconsistent scientific evidence (Level B):

  • Sexually active adolescents (i.e., females younger than age 21 years) should be counseled and tested for sexually transmitted infections, and should be counseled regarding safe sex and contraception. These measures may be carried out without cervical cytology and, in the asymptomatic patient without introduction of a speculum.
  • Because cervical cancer develops slowly and risk factors decrease with age, it is reasonable to discontinue cervical cancer screening between 65 years and 70 years of age in women who have three or more negative cytology test results in a row and no abnormal test results in the past 10 years.
  • Women treated in the past for CIN 2, CIN 3, or cancer remain at risk for persistent or recurrent disease for at least 20 years after treatment and after initial post-treatment surveillance, and should continue to have annual screening for at least 20 years.
  • Women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and have a history of CIN 2 or CIN 3—or in whom a negative history cannot be documented—should continue to be screened even after their period of posttreatment surveillance. Whereas the screening interval may then be extended, there are no good data to support or refute discontinuing screening in this population.

The following recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion (Level C):

  • Regardless of the frequency of cervical cytology screening, physicians also should inform their patients that annual gynecologic examinations may still be appropriate even if cervical cytology is not performed at each visit.
  • Women who have been immunized against HPV-16 and HPV-18 should be screened by the same regimen as nonimmunized women.

Definitions:

Grades of Evidence

I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.

II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.

II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case–control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.

II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments also could be regarded as this type of evidence.

III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

Levels of Recommendations

Level A - Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.

Level B - Recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence.

Level C - Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.

Clinical Algorithm(s)

None provided

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see "Major Recommendations").

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

When cervical cytology screening programs have been introduced into communities, marked reductions in cervical cancer incidence have followed.

Potential Harms
  • Mucosal atrophy common after menopause may predispose to false-positive cytology. False-positive results are likely to be followed with additional procedures, anxiety, and expense in this population.
  • In some cases, cervical cancer is undetected despite a recent screening test because of errors in sampling, interpretation, or follow-up.

Qualifying Statements

Qualifying Statements

These guidelines should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure. Variations in practice may be warranted based on the needs of the individual patient, resources, and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice.

Implementation of the Guideline

Description of Implementation Strategy

An implementation strategy was not provided.

Implementation Tools
Audit Criteria/Indicators
Foreign Language Translations
Patient Resources
For information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories

IOM Care Need
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
Timeliness

Identifying Information and Availability

Bibliographic Source(s)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Cervical cytology screening. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG); 2009 Dec. 12 p. (ACOG practice bulletin; no. 109).  [96 references]
Adaptation

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

Date Released
2003 Aug (revised 2009 Dec)
Guideline Developer(s)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Medical Specialty Society
Source(s) of Funding

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)

Guideline Committee

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology

Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committees are created or abolished and their overall function defined by the Executive Board. Appointments are made for one year, with the understanding that such appointment may be continued for a total of three years. The majority of committee members are Fellows, but Junior Fellows also are eligible for appointment. Some committees may have representatives from other organizations when this is particularly appropriate to committee activities. The president elect appoints committee members annually.

Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

Not stated

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Guideline Availability

Electronic copies: None available

Print copies: Available for purchase from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Distribution Center, PO Box 933104 Atlanta, GA, 31193-3104; telephone, 800-762-2264, ext. 192; e-mail: sales@acog.org. The ACOG Bookstore is available online at the ACOG Web site External Web Site Policy.

Availability of Companion Documents

A proposed performance measure is provided in the original guideline document.

Patient Resources

The following are available:

Print copies: Available for purchase from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Distribution Center, PO Box 933104 Atlanta, GA, 31193-3104; telephone, 800-762-2264, ext. 192; e-mail: sales@acog.org. The ACOG Bookstore is available online at the ACOG Web site External Web Site Policy.

Please note: This patient information is intended to provide health professionals with information to share with their patients to help them better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. By providing access to this patient information, it is not the intention of NGC to provide specific medical advice for particular patients. Rather we urge patients and their representatives to review this material and then to consult with a licensed health professional for evaluation of treatment options suitable for them as well as for diagnosis and answers to their personal medical questions. This patient information has been derived and prepared from a guideline for health care professionals included on NGC by the authors or publishers of that original guideline. The patient information is not reviewed by NGC to establish whether or not it accurately reflects the original guideline's content.

NGC Status

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on October 12, 2007. The information was verified by the guideline developer on December 3, 2007. This NGC summary was updated by ECRI Institute on January 21, 2010. The information was verified by the guideline developer on February 18, 2010.

Copyright Statement

This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions.

Disclaimer

NGC Disclaimer

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

Read full disclaimer...