Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cervical screening

Cervical screening is a preventive health intervention that detects precancerous cellular abnormalities or early-stage cervical cancer in asymptomatic individuals, primarily women, through methods such as cytological examination of exfoliated cervical cells (the Papanicolaou or Pap test) or molecular assays for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, the necessary causal agent for nearly all cervical cancers.^[1]^[2] Originating from the work of Greek anatomist Georgios Papanicolaou, who developed the Pap test in the 1920s with demonstrated efficacy by the 1940s, widespread implementation via organized programs has empirically reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality by 50% to 80% in high-uptake populations, attributing causality to timely identification and treatment of high-grade lesions that would otherwise progress.^[3]^[4] Key methods include the conventional Pap smear, involving microscopic review of stained cells for dysplasia, and modern HPV testing, which targets persistent infection by oncogenic types like HPV-16 and -18, offering higher sensitivity for detecting lesions likely to advance while allowing risk stratification to minimize unnecessary interventions.^[5]^[6] Guidelines from bodies like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend initiating screening around age 25-30 with intervals of 3-5 years, transitioning to HPV-centric approaches, though adherence varies and under-screening persists in underserved groups.^[7] Despite these gains, controversies surround overdiagnosis—wherein low-grade or regressive changes are flagged and treated, leading to potential harms like infertility from excision procedures, anxiety from false positives, and resource strain—prompting debates on balancing benefits against iatrogenic risks, with empirical estimates of overdiagnosis varying but underscoring the need for precise triage to avoid overtreatment of self-resolving conditions.^[8]^[9]^[10] Advances in self-sampling and vaccination against HPV further refine screening's role, aiming to eradicate cervical cancer globally by targeting causal pathways directly.^[11]^[12]

Historical Development

Invention and early adoption of cytological screening

George Nicholas Papanicolaou (1883–1962), a Greek-born physician and researcher who immigrated to the United States in 1913, pioneered cytological screening for cervical cancer while working at Cornell University Medical College.^[13] Initially studying reproductive cycles in guinea pigs, Papanicolaou shifted to human vaginal smears around 1917, publishing early observations on cyclical cellular changes in vaginal fluid.^[14] By the early 1920s, he refined staining techniques and identified atypical cells indicative of malignancy in smears from patients with known uterine cancer, laying the groundwork for diagnostic cytology.^[3] In 1928, Papanicolaou first publicly described the method for detecting uterine cancer through exfoliative vaginal cytology at a conference, proposing its use for early diagnosis via microscopic examination of cellular morphology.^[3] ^[15] However, the technique faced initial skepticism from the medical community due to limited validation and the novelty of relying on cellular exfoliation rather than direct biopsy.^[15] Papanicolaou's wife, Andromache, contributed to its development through self-administered daily smears, which helped correlate cellular changes with menstrual cycles and disease states.^[16] The method's efficacy was substantively demonstrated in 1941 through a collaborative study with Howard C. Taylor Jr., analyzing over 600 cases and achieving high accuracy in detecting preclinical cervical lesions, which spurred broader acceptance.^[3] ^[15] This re-publication emphasized standardized smear collection from the cervix and vagina, improved fixation, and a multi-class staining protocol that enhanced visibility of nuclear abnormalities.^[13] By the mid-1940s, amid rising awareness of cervical cancer as a leading cause of female mortality—responsible for nearly 80% fatality rates at diagnosis—the Pap test gained traction in clinical practice, particularly in the U.S., where it was promoted by organizations like the American Cancer Society for preventive screening.^[17] Early adoption accelerated post-World War II, with mass screening initiatives emerging in the late 1940s and 1950s in the U.S., including hospital-based programs and public health campaigns targeting asymptomatic women.^[18] Clinical trials validating its impact on reducing invasive cancer incidence began in the 1950s, confirming detection rates of precancerous lesions up to 90% in some cohorts.^[19] In Europe, uptake lagged; opportunistic screening started disorganizedly in places like England in 1964, without centralized coordination until later decades.^[20] By the 1960s, cytological screening had become a standard gynecological procedure in developed nations, credited with initial declines in cervical cancer mortality, though implementation varied by resource availability and physician training.^[21]^[14]

Shift toward molecular HPV detection

The transition from cytology-based cervical screening to primary molecular detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types gained momentum following recognition that persistent infection with oncogenic HPV strains causes nearly all cervical cancers. Early HPV assays, such as the Hybrid Capture 2 test approved by the FDA in 1999, were initially used for triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) on Pap smears rather than standalone screening.^[22] This adjunctive role evolved as evidence accumulated demonstrating HPV testing's superior sensitivity for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), with pooled estimates showing 96% sensitivity compared to 53% for cytology.^[23] Pivotal randomized controlled trials, including the ATHENA study involving over 47,000 women aged 21 and older, provided robust data supporting HPV as a primary screen. Conducted from 2009 to 2012, ATHENA compared the Roche cobas HPV test against cytology and hybrid strategies, finding equivalent or superior effectiveness in identifying CIN3+ lesions when HPV testing was used alone for women aged 25 and older, with a 3-year cumulative incidence risk of CIN3+ below 0.5% after negative HPV results.^[24] ^[25] These findings led to FDA approval of the cobas test for primary screening in 2014, marking a regulatory shift toward standalone HPV molecular testing without preceding cytology.^[26] Guideline bodies subsequently endorsed primary HPV screening, prioritizing its higher negative predictive value for extending safe intervals to 5 years. The American Cancer Society updated recommendations in 2020 to favor HPV testing every 5 years starting at age 25, citing reduced CIN3+ detection risks over cytology-alone approaches.^[27] ^[28] Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2021 included primary high-risk HPV testing every 5 years as a preferred option for ages 30-65, alongside cytology or co-testing.^[29] Internationally, countries like the Netherlands (via the TERCAN trial) and Australia implemented HPV primary screening by 2017-2018, with modeling predicting greater reductions in cancer incidence compared to cytology-based programs.30007-5/fulltext) This paradigm shift reflects HPV testing's ability to detect persistent infections earlier in the causal pathway, as transient HPV clears in most cases without progression, allowing risk stratification via genotyping (e.g., HPV16/18) to manage lower specificity.^[30] Empirical data from European trials, such as the ARTISTIC study, confirmed 20-30% greater CIN3+ detection in initial rounds with HPV primary screening, though requiring triage to minimize colposcopy referrals.00167-9/fulltext) Adoption has accelerated in organized programs, with Canada's 2022 nationwide transition from Pap to HPV testing exemplifying policy alignment with evidence of improved precancer yield.^[31] Despite infrastructure needs for molecular labs, the approach's causal focus on etiology has driven global uptake, as endorsed by WHO for settings with feasible implementation.^[32]

Scientific Foundations

Epidemiology and etiology of cervical cancer

Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide, with an estimated 662,000 new cases and 350,000 deaths in 2022.^[11] ^[33] The age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) stood at 14.12 per 100,000 women, while the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) was 7.08 per 100,000.^[34] Incidence and mortality rates vary markedly by region, with the highest burdens in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and South-East Asia, where limited access to screening and vaccination contributes to elevated rates.^[11] In high-income countries like the United States, the incidence rate is lower at 7.7 new cases per 100,000 women annually, reflecting the impact of organized screening programs.^[35] The disease typically manifests in women aged 30 to 50 years, with peak incidence often observed in the 30-34 age group in regions such as the United Kingdom.^[36] In the United States, approximately 78% of cases in women under 40 occur between ages 30 and 39, underscoring a relatively young age distribution compared to other HPV-associated cancers.^[37] Mortality disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries, where over 90% of deaths occur due to disparities in healthcare infrastructure.^[11] The primary etiology of cervical cancer involves persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types, particularly HPV-16 and HPV-18, which account for about 70% of cases.^[38] The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies these high-risk HPV types as Group 1 carcinogens, establishing a causal link through mechanisms where viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 disrupt tumor suppressor genes p53 and Rb, promoting cellular immortalization and progression to invasive cancer.^[39] Transient HPV infections, common in sexually active populations, rarely progress to malignancy; instead, sustained infection over years or decades is required for the development of precancerous lesions like cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3, which precede invasive disease in nearly all cases.^[40] ^[41] While HPV is necessary and often sufficient for carcinogenesis, cofactors modulate risk among infected individuals. Smoking introduces carcinogens that impair cervical mucosal immunity and enhance HPV persistence, doubling the odds of progression to cancer.^[42] Immunosuppression, as in HIV-positive women, elevates risk by impairing viral clearance, leading to 5-6 times higher incidence rates.^[42] ^[43] Other contributors include multiple lifetime sexual partners or early sexual debut, which increase HPV exposure; long-term oral contraceptive use; and multiparity, potentially through hormonal or mechanical effects on the cervical epithelium.^[42] ^[43] Chlamydia co-infection may exacerbate inflammation and persistence.^[42] These factors do not independently cause cancer absent HPV but amplify progression in infected hosts.^[43]

Natural history of HPV infection and precancerous lesions

Human papillomavirus (HPV) primarily infects the transformation zone of the cervix through sexual transmission, with acquisition common shortly after sexual debut; prospective studies indicate a cumulative incidence of approximately 40% within 24 months among young women.^[44] Over 200 HPV types exist, but 12–14 high-risk types (notably HPV-16 and HPV-18) are associated with cervical precancer and cancer, accounting for about 70% of invasive cases worldwide, with HPV-16 responsible for roughly 50%.^[44]^[40] Following infection, the virus integrates into basal epithelial cells, where its E6 and E7 oncoproteins can disrupt tumor suppressors like p53 and Rb, potentially leading to dysplasia if unchecked.^[40] The majority of HPV infections are transient and self-limiting, cleared by cell-mediated immunity; empirical data show 70% resolution within 12 months and up to 80–90% within 1–2 years, with clearance rates similar across types in the absence of progression.^[40]^[44] Persistence, defined as detection beyond 6–12 months, occurs in 10–30% of cases and is the critical precursor to precancerous changes, influenced by factors such as immunosuppression, smoking, and high viral load; high-risk types like HPV-16 exhibit higher persistence rates than low-risk ones.^[40]^[45] Without persistence, oncogenic transformation rarely occurs, as transient infections do not allow sufficient time for viral genome integration and cellular immortalization.^[40] Persistent high-risk HPV infection drives the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), graded by dysplasia extent: CIN1 (mild, akin to low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or LSIL) often represents a productive viral infection with high spontaneous regression rates of 50–80% within 1–2 years, particularly in younger women or HPV-negative cases post-detection.^[46]^[47] Progression from CIN1 to higher grades is uncommon (around 10%), with most cases regressing to normal epithelium.^[46] CIN2 (moderate dysplasia) shows intermediate behavior, with regression rates of 40–60% over 24 months—higher in adolescents and HPV clearance scenarios—but progression to CIN3 or invasive disease in 10–20% if untreated.^[48]00542-2/fulltext) CIN3 (severe dysplasia or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, HSIL) represents a true precancerous state, detectable in 99% of cases with high-risk HPV; regression occurs in about 30% over several years, but persistence is common, with 10–30% progressing to invasive squamous cell carcinoma over 10–20 years if unexcised, based on historical cohorts without screening.^[44]^[40] The timeline from persistent infection to CIN3 typically spans months to years, while frank invasion from CIN3 averages 10–30 years, underscoring the slow, stepwise accumulation of genetic alterations beyond initial viral oncogenesis.^[40] High-risk HPV persistence remains necessary throughout, as clearance halts progression in most instances.^[40]

Screening Modalities

Cytology-based techniques

Cytology-based techniques for cervical screening primarily involve the collection and microscopic examination of exfoliated cervical epithelial cells to detect cellular abnormalities suggestive of precancerous lesions or invasive cancer. The standard method, known as the Papanicolaou test or Pap smear, targets cells from the transformation zone of the cervix, where squamous and columnar epithelia meet, as this area is most susceptible to human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced dysplasia.^[49] The procedure entails inserting a speculum to visualize the cervix, followed by scraping cells using a wooden or plastic spatula for the ectocervix and a cytobrush or cotton swab for the endocervix. In conventional Pap smear preparation, collected cells are immediately smeared onto glass slides, fixed with an alcohol-based fixative or spray to preserve morphology, and stained using the Papanicolaou method, which differentially colors nuclei, cytoplasm, and keratin to highlight dysplastic features such as increased nuclear size, irregular contours, and hyperchromasia. Slides are then manually reviewed by cytotechnologists under light microscopy, with abnormal findings confirmed by pathologists using the Bethesda System for reporting, which classifies results into categories like negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM), atypical squamous cells (ASC), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), or squamous cell carcinoma.^[49]^[50] Liquid-based cytology (LBC), introduced in the 1990s as variants such as ThinPrep and SurePath, modifies preparation by rinsing collected cells into a preservative solution (e.g., methanol-based for ThinPrep), which disperses and filters debris like blood, mucus, and overlapping cells. The suspension is then centrifuged or filtered onto a slide as a thin, uniform layer, reducing artifacts and enabling ancillary testing such as HPV DNA assays from residual liquid. LBC aims to improve sample adequacy and diagnostic yield, with reported adequacy rates exceeding 90% compared to 70-80% for conventional smears in some settings.^[51]^[52] Comparative evidence from randomized trials and meta-analyses indicates that LBC does not significantly outperform conventional cytology in detecting high-grade lesions, with relative sensitivities around 0.65-0.80 for both in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+). A large noninferiority trial published in 2009 found LBC relative sensitivity for histologically confirmed HSIL at 0.76 versus 0.78 for conventional Pap, concluding no detection advantage despite higher costs. While LBC reduces unsatisfactory samples and unsatisfactory rates by 5-10%, overall screening effectiveness remains equivalent, prompting critiques of its routine adoption driven more by industry marketing than empirical superiority.^[53]^[51]^[54] Automated assistance, such as computer-assisted imaging devices (e.g., ThinPrep Imaging System), prescreens slides by scanning for abnormal cells, flagging fields for human review to enhance efficiency in high-volume labs, though studies show modest improvements in ASC detection (5-10% increase) without altering HSIL sensitivity. Self-collection for cytology, using tampons or brushes, yields comparable adequacy to clinician-collected samples but lower specificity, limiting its use primarily to resource-constrained settings. Limitations of cytology include subjective interpretation, with interobserver variability up to 20% for borderline lesions, and lower sensitivity (50-70%) for detecting CIN2+ compared to HPV testing (90%+).^[55]^[56]

HPV molecular testing

HPV molecular testing detects the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA or RNA in cervical samples, targeting oncogenic types such as HPV-16 and HPV-18, which are causally linked to nearly all cervical cancers.^[5] This approach leverages nucleic acid-based assays to identify viral genetic material, providing a direct marker of infection risk rather than morphological changes seen in cytology. Primary hrHPV testing has demonstrated superior sensitivity for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+), the precursor to invasive cancer, compared to traditional Pap smears.70188-7/abstract) Common techniques include polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based amplification, which multiplies target HPV DNA sequences for detection and allows genotyping of specific hrHPV types, and signal amplification methods like Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), which uses RNA probes to hybridize with hrHPV DNA from 13 high-risk types, followed by chemiluminescent signal measurement.^[57] HC2, approved by the FDA in 2003, requires a relative light unit cutoff ratio of ≥1.0 for positivity and has been validated for clinical use in screening programs, though it cannot distinguish between types without additional assays.^[58] PCR methods, such as real-time quantitative PCR, offer higher analytical sensitivity (detecting as few as 10-100 viral copies) and specificity for genotyping but may over-detect clinically insignificant transient infections due to their ability to amplify low-level DNA.^[59] Emerging RNA-based tests, detecting E6/E7 oncogene transcripts, aim to identify actively transforming infections but remain less widely adopted than DNA assays.^[60] In primary cervical screening, hrHPV testing is recommended for women aged 30-65 every 5 years by bodies like the USPSTF and ACOG, either alone or co-tested with cytology, as it identifies persistent infections likely to progress to precancer with greater lead time than cytology.^[61] The ATHENA trial (2011), involving over 47,000 U.S. women, found hrHPV testing detected 96.3% of CIN3+ cases versus 54.6% for liquid-based cytology, though it yielded more false positives (false-positive rate ~10% higher), necessitating triage strategies like HPV-16/18 genotyping or cytology reflex to reduce colposcopy referrals.70188-7/abstract) Similarly, the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening (NTCC) trial in Italy showed a 40-50% reduction in CIN3+ detection delay with HPV primary screening over 3 years compared to cytology.^[62] WHO guidelines (2021) endorse HPV DNA testing as the first-line method globally, particularly in low-resource settings, due to its feasibility with self-collected vaginal samples and potential for longer screening intervals.^[63] Despite advantages, HPV testing's lower specificity—detecting up to 20-30% more transient infections that regress spontaneously—raises concerns for overdiagnosis, especially in women under 30 where hrHPV prevalence exceeds 20% but progression risk is low.^[5] Longitudinal data indicate that after two negative HPV tests 5 years apart, the 5-year CIN3+ risk drops below 0.2%, supporting extended intervals, but single negative tests warrant 3-5 year follow-up to account for new acquisitions.^[64] Cost-effectiveness analyses favor primary HPV screening, with models showing greater reductions in cancer incidence per dollar spent than cytology alone, though implementation requires robust triage to mitigate unnecessary interventions.^[6]

Visual inspection approaches

Visual inspection approaches for cervical screening, primarily visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI), involve naked-eye examination of the cervix after application of chemical agents to highlight abnormalities. These methods are low-cost, require minimal equipment, and enable "screen-and-treat" protocols in a single visit, making them suitable for low-resource settings where laboratory-based tests like cytology or HPV DNA detection are unavailable.^[65]^[66] In VIA, a 3-5% acetic acid solution is applied to the cervix ectocervix and transformation zone, followed by inspection after 1 minute using a bright light source, such as a flashlight or headlamp, at a distance of 30-50 cm. Abnormal findings include well-defined acetowhite lesions, especially near the squamocolumnar junction, dense white patches, or lesions with irregular borders, which may indicate cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or invasive cancer due to altered protein coagulation in HPV-affected epithelium.^[67]^[68] Positive VIA prompts referral for colposcopy or immediate cryotherapy if feasible. VILI uses 3-5% Lugol's iodine solution instead, where normal glycogen-rich squamous epithelium stains mahogany brown, while abnormal areas appear pale yellow or non-staining due to absent glycogen in precancerous lesions, offering potentially clearer demarcation.^[69]^[70] Meta-analyses indicate VIA sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ lesions ranges from 66-91%, with specificity around 64-82%, outperforming cytology in sensitivity but underperforming in specificity, leading to higher referral rates.^[65]^[71] VILI demonstrates higher sensitivity (up to 91%, 95% CI 89-92%) and diagnostic odds ratio (57.44) compared to VIA, though specificity is slightly lower at 85%.^[72] A 2022 systematic review of randomized trials found VIA screening reduced cervical cancer incidence by 22% (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) and mortality by 30% (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.91) over 7-12 years of follow-up in low- and middle-income countries.^[67] However, effectiveness depends heavily on provider training, with inter-observer variability reducing reliability; studies emphasize the need for standardized training to minimize subjectivity.^[73]^[70] The World Health Organization endorses VIA and VILI for settings lacking HPV testing infrastructure, recommending screening women aged 30-49 every 3-5 years, with immediate treatment of positives via cryotherapy to avert progression.^[74]^[66] Compared to primary HPV testing, which offers superior sensitivity (90-95%) and negative predictive value for 5-10 year intervals, visual methods yield more false positives, potentially overburdening limited colposcopy services, though their simplicity supports higher coverage in resource-constrained areas.^[71]^[75] Limitations include lower performance in postmenopausal women due to atrophic changes and challenges in obese patients obscuring visualization.^[76]

Co-testing and hybrid strategies

Co-testing, also known as concurrent screening, combines cervical cytology (such as the Papanicolaou test) with testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types, typically performed on the same clinical sample or visit.^[7] This dual approach aims to leverage the high sensitivity of hrHPV detection for identifying persistent infections causative of precancerous lesions alongside cytology's specificity for morphological abnormalities.^[61] In practice, liquid-based cytology allows residual sample material to be used for hrHPV assays, facilitating efficiency.^[7] Major guidelines, including those from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), endorse co-testing every five years for individuals aged 30 to 65 years as an equivalent alternative to primary hrHPV testing every five years or cytology alone every three years.^[29] ^[61] Evidence from trials like the ATHENA study and systematic reviews indicates co-testing detects more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cancers than cytology alone, with sensitivity for CIN3+ around 100% versus 60-70% for cytology.^[77] ^[78] However, co-testing yields higher colposcopy referral rates—up to 20-25% of screens—due to hrHPV-positive, cytology-negative results, many of which represent transient infections not progressing to disease, increasing risks of overdiagnosis and procedural harms compared to primary hrHPV strategies.^[79] ^[80] Hybrid strategies extend co-testing principles by incorporating sequential or triage elements, such as primary hrHPV screening followed by cytology reflex testing on positives to mitigate unnecessary referrals.^[77] For instance, in hrHPV-positive cases with negative cytology, risk stratification models (e.g., using HPV genotyping or repeat testing) guide management, achieving specificities of 90-95% for CIN2+ while maintaining high sensitivity.^[81] Observational data from U.S. cohorts show hybrid approaches reduce colposcopies by 30-50% relative to untriaged co-testing without compromising cancer prevention efficacy.^[82] These methods, informed by natural history data emphasizing HPV persistence over six to 24 months as a precursor to CIN3+, support tailored intervals and are increasingly integrated into guidelines for vaccinated populations where low-grade lesions predominate.^[78] Recent analyses, however, question co-testing's net benefit versus primary hrHPV, citing a less favorable harm-benefit ratio due to excess interventions, prompting shifts toward HPV-centric hybrids in updated protocols.^[80] ^[78]

Empirical Evidence of Effectiveness

Impact on incidence and mortality rates

Organized cervical screening programs have significantly reduced cervical cancer mortality and incidence in high-income countries with sustained implementation and high participation rates. In Finland, the nationwide program launched in 1963 has achieved a 70–80% decrease in cervical cancer incidence through systematic cytological screening every five years for women aged 30–60.^[83] Similarly, in Sweden, organized screening expanded nationally between 1967 and 1973 resulted in a 60% decline in squamous cell carcinoma incidence by the late 1990s, with age-standardized rates dropping to 10.1 per 100,000 women during 1989–1993.^[84]^[85] These reductions stem from the detection and treatment of high-grade precancerous lesions, which prevents progression to invasive cancer, though incidence declines typically lag behind mortality improvements by several years due to the natural history of the disease.^[86] Population-based observational studies across Europe consistently demonstrate mortality reductions of 41–92% among women who attend screening compared to non-attendees, with stronger effects (66–92%) in more recent analyses from northern and western Europe.^[87] Invitation to screening yields smaller but significant reductions of 17–79% in mortality, reflecting partial uptake.^[87] In England, the NHS Cervical Screening Programme, introduced in 1988, currently prevents approximately 70% (95% CI: 66–73%) of cervical cancer deaths across all ages, with regular screening (every 5.5 years or less) in women aged 35–64 associated with a 92% reduction in mortality odds (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.07–0.09).^[86]^[88] If universal regular attendance were achieved, up to 83% (95% CI: 82–84%) of deaths could be averted, underscoring the causal link between screening coverage and outcomes.^[86] Shifts to primary HPV testing in programs like those in the UK and Nordic countries are projected to further amplify incidence and mortality declines, with modeling indicating superior prevention of invasive cancers compared to cytology alone.^[6] However, persistent disparities exist, as non-attendance accounts for a disproportionate share of preventable cases; for instance, in Finland, over 50% of cervical cancer deaths occur more than five years after the last screening invitation or among non-participants.^[89] These empirical patterns affirm that effectiveness depends on organized, population-wide delivery rather than opportunistic testing, with no randomized trials directly comparing organized versus unorganized approaches but strong corroboration from cohort and case-control designs.^[87]^[86]

Key trials and observational studies

The Finnish cervical cancer screening program, initiated in 1963, provides long-term observational evidence of cytology-based screening's impact, with population-based analyses showing a reduction in cervical cancer incidence by approximately 80% among regularly screened women compared to unscreened cohorts, attributed to detection and treatment of precancerous lesions.^[5] Similarly, Sweden's organized screening program, starting in the 1960s, has been linked to a 72% reduction in HPV16-related cervical cancers through historical attendance data analyzed in cohort studies spanning decades.^[90] Randomized controlled trials comparing HPV testing to cytology have demonstrated superior effectiveness of HPV-based screening. A pooled analysis of four European RCTs (involving Sweden, the Netherlands, England, and Italy) with over 170,000 women followed for up to 13 years found that HPV screening reduced the risk of invasive cervical cancer by 60-70% more than cytology alone, with hazard ratios indicating 86% protection against grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or worse versus 68% for cytology.62218-7/abstract) The ARTISTIC trial in England, randomizing 24,510 women to cytology alone versus cytology plus HPV triage, reported higher detection of CIN2+ lesions (relative risk 1.57) and longer negative predictive value for HPV testing over three-year intervals.^[91] The Finnish HPV screening trial, a cluster-randomized study of 131,316 women aged 30-60 screened between 2003 and 2006 with follow-up through 2020, observed 129 cervical cancers in the cytology arm versus fewer in the HPV arm, yielding a 74% lower incidence of invasive cancer with HPV primary screening (hazard ratio 0.26).^[92] A recent Swedish population-based RCT transitioning to HPV screening confirmed a 28% lower risk of invasive cervical cancer (hazard ratio 0.72) compared to cytology, based on over 300,000 participants tracked for a median of 7.5 years.00218-4/fulltext) Observational data from Nordic registries further support these findings, with age-specific analyses in Finland showing single-round cytology screening at age 25 associated with 92% reduction in subsequent cancers, diminishing to 47% overall but highlighting interval-dependent benefits.^[93] These trials and studies underscore HPV testing's greater sensitivity for high-grade lesions while noting cytology's historical role in reducing mortality, though direct RCTs against no screening remain infeasible due to ethical constraints.^[55]

Harms, Limitations, and Controversies

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment risks

Overdiagnosis in cervical screening involves the identification of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions that would spontaneously regress or remain indolent without progressing to invasive cancer, leading to unnecessary medical interventions. This phenomenon is driven by the transient nature of many human papillomavirus (HPV) infections, which underlie most CIN cases; low-grade lesions like CIN1 often resolve without harm. Studies report regression rates of approximately 80% for CIN1 within two years.^[46] For CIN2, regression occurs in 40-60% of cases overall, with rates up to 60% in women under 30 years.^[48]^[94] CIN3 lesions regress less commonly, at 15-30%.^[47]^[95] These natural history data indicate that screening detects many non-progressive abnormalities, inflating the burden of disease. Quantitative estimates from modeling in systematic reviews highlight the scale: overdiagnosis frequencies reach 74.8% for CIN1+, 68.0% for CIN2+, and 55.4% for CIN3+ in screened populations, primarily due to pre-invasive detections that would not impact lifetime cancer risk.^[96] In the United States, routine cytology-based screening in 2007 generated about 2.3 million abnormal results among 91 million women aged 21-65, many prompting further evaluation of regressive lesions.^[97] Such overdiagnosis contributes to resource strain and patient anxiety without proportional mortality benefits, as evidenced by the high proportion of treated CIN that modeling attributes to non-fatal trajectories.^[98] Overtreatment arises when overdiagnosed lesions trigger excisional or ablative procedures, such as loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) or cold knife conization, despite regression potential. These carry procedural risks including hemorrhage, infection, and cervical incompetence. A key concern is reproductive harm: meta-analyses link cervical treatment to elevated preterm birth odds (adjusted OR 1.59-2.50) in subsequent pregnancies, attributed to reduced cervical length and scarring.^[99] In "see-and-treat" protocols for high-grade cytology, overtreatment rates hit 29.3% when colposcopic findings indicate lower risk.^[100] Recent cohort data, however, show comparable preterm birth risks (around 6-7%) between immediate LEEP and active surveillance for CIN2, supporting observation in select cases to avoid iatrogenic harm.^[101] Balancing these risks requires triage via HPV genotyping or biomarkers to prioritize progressive lesions, though empirical validation remains limited.

Procedural and psychological harms

Cervical screening procedures, including speculum insertion and cervical sampling for cytology or HPV testing, commonly induce short-term physical discomfort or pain in a substantial minority of women. Approximately 13% of women report symptoms such as pain or discomfort persisting for 2–7 days following a Pap test.^[97] Across broader pelvic examinations associated with screening, the prevalence of reported pain or discomfort ranges from 11% to 60%, with a median of 35% in aggregated studies involving over 4,500 participants.^[102] Follow-up diagnostic procedures triggered by abnormal screening results, such as colposcopy-directed punch biopsies, entail higher rates of adverse effects: 53% of women experience pain (28% moderate or severe), 79% bleeding (21% moderate or severe), and 46% discharge (14% moderate or severe).^[97] Psychological harms arise primarily from abnormal or positive screening results, which can evoke acute and prolonged anxiety, fear of cancer progression, or death. In a large German survey of over 2,300 women, 69.3% expressed fear of developing cervical cancer, 49.4% feared dying from it, and 53.1% reported distress lasting over one year following screening events.^[103] Approximately 35% of women receiving abnormal test results experience anxiety persisting for at least 12 weeks.^[97] Borderline or mildly abnormal Pap smear results are linked to excess anxiety levels detectable from 6 to 24 months post-notification.^[104] Positive high-risk HPV test results, in particular, correlate with heightened psychological distress compared to abnormal cytology alone, including increased worry about sexual transmission and reduced sexual satisfaction, as evidenced in trial substudies like ARTISTIC and cross-sectional analyses.^[105] These effects are amplified by false-positive results, which necessitate invasive follow-up without underlying disease, potentially leading to iatrogenic anxiety or behavioral changes such as avoidance of future screening.^[106] In one cohort, 28% of women with screening-related experiences showed indicators of post-traumatic stress disorder.^[103] While some studies indicate that informational interventions may mitigate short-term distress without impeding compliance, persistent impacts underscore the need for balanced communication of screening risks.^[107] Empirical data from randomized trials and registries in the United States and Netherlands highlight that higher volumes of abnormal results and subsequent procedures in cytology-heavy systems exacerbate these burdens relative to HPV-primary approaches with triage.^[97]

Debates on screening intervals and target populations

Debates on screening intervals center on balancing reductions in cervical cancer incidence and mortality against risks of overdiagnosis and procedural harms. Cytology-based screening every three years has been shown to decrease incidence and mortality by at least 80% in population studies, but intervals shorter than this provide minimal additional benefit while substantially increasing false positives and unnecessary colposcopies.^[5] With primary high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing, evidence from randomized trials such as the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening (NTCC) Phase II and HPV FOCAL trials supports extending intervals to five years, as hrHPV testing detects persistent precancerous lesions earlier, allowing safer deferral without elevated interval cancer rates.^[61] A 2022 meta-analysis of longitudinal trials confirmed that hrHPV-based screening enables longer intervals by identifying high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with higher sensitivity, reducing the need for frequent cytology while maintaining protective efficacy.^[108] Critics argue that overly conservative three-year cytology intervals, recommended by some guidelines, contribute to overuse, with U.S. cohort data from 2019–2020 indicating that 78% of average-risk women aged 30–65 received more frequent screening than evidence supports, amplifying harms like anxiety and overtreatment of regressive lesions.^[109] For target populations, contention arises over starting ages, with empirical data showing cervical cancer incidence below 1% in women under 25, alongside high rates of transient abnormalities that regress spontaneously, arguing against routine screening before age 25 to avoid net harm from false positives.^[110] The American Cancer Society's 2020 guidelines shifted the start to age 25 based on modeling and observational evidence that earlier cytology yields negligible mortality reduction but increases interventions for low-risk youth.^[111] Conversely, proponents of starting at 21 cite historical U.S. data from high-burden eras, though recent analyses, including those accounting for HPV vaccination, indicate diminished rationale as vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV prevalence by over 80% in younger cohorts, permitting delayed onset without risk elevation.^[112] Stopping screening at age 65 for women with adequate prior negative tests remains debated, as U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence from 2018 modeling shows low subsequent cancer risk (less than 0.5% lifetime incidence post-adequate history), justifying cessation to curb overdiagnosis of indolent lesions in older women where comorbidities amplify treatment risks.^[61] However, a 2017 Swedish registry study estimated that continued five-yearly screening up to age 69 could prevent 73% of cancers in that group, challenging blanket cutoffs and highlighting needs for individualized risk assessment via HPV status.^[113] Overdiagnosis estimates from modeling reach 55–75% for CIN3+ in screened populations, disproportionately affecting low-risk elderly women, where detected lesions often lack progression potential, fueling arguments for stricter targeting to high-risk subsets like immunocompromised or unvaccinated individuals rather than universal protocols.^[96] HPV-vaccinated cohorts further complicate targeting, with projections indicating potential for starting at age 30 and triennial screening suffices for efficacy, as vaccination curtails disease burden by 90% in modeled scenarios.^[112]

Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations

World Health Organization and global standards

The World Health Organization (WHO) established a global strategy in 2020 to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, setting ambitious 90-70-90 targets to be achieved by 2030: 90% coverage of HPV vaccination among girls by age 15, 70% coverage of cervical screening among women aged 35-45 (with two lifetime screens ideally at ages 35 and 45), and 90% access to treatment for precancerous lesions and early invasive cancers.^[114] This strategy emphasizes integrated prevention through vaccination, screening, and treatment, tailored to resource availability, with HPV DNA testing preferred as the primary screening method where feasible due to its higher sensitivity for detecting high-risk HPV types responsible for nearly all cervical cancers.^[115] In low- and middle-income countries, WHO endorses simpler visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or cytology as alternatives when HPV testing is unavailable, prioritizing screen-and-treat approaches to minimize loss to follow-up.^[116] WHO guidelines recommend initiating routine cervical screening at age 30 for the general population, with intervals of 5-10 years using HPV DNA detection, as this balances detection of persistent infections leading to precancerous lesions while reducing unnecessary interventions compared to more frequent cytology-based screening.^[11] For women living with HIV, screening should begin at age 25 or earlier if sexually active, with 3-year intervals due to higher risk of rapid progression from HPV infection to cancer.^[117] If lifetime screening is limited to one occasion, WHO advises targeting ages 35-45, when the incidence of detectable precancerous lesions peaks in most populations.^[74] These recommendations, updated in the 2021 WHO guideline on screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions, distinguish between screen-and-treat (immediate treatment for HPV-positive cases without triage) starting at age 25 every 3-5 years, and screen-triage-treat (adding cytology or VIA for HPV positives) every 5 years, favoring the latter for resource-constrained settings to optimize equity and effectiveness.^[66] Global standards under WHO influence prioritize single-visit or simplified protocols to enhance coverage in underserved areas, integrating self-sampling for HPV testing to improve accessibility, though implementation varies by national capacity.^[116] The strategy projects that meeting the 90-70-90 targets could avert over 300,000 deaths by 2030 and 14.6 million by 2070, based on modeling of vaccination-screening-treatment synergies, but underscores the need for robust health systems to achieve these outcomes without overdiagnosis in low-prevalence settings.^[115] As of 2024, 194 countries have adopted the strategy, though progress lags in screening uptake due to infrastructural barriers rather than guideline efficacy alone.^[118]

United States and North American approaches

In the United States, cervical screening guidelines are issued by major organizations including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), with a consensus favoring primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing over cytology alone for women aged 30-65 due to its superior sensitivity in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher.^[78]^[119]^[29] The USPSTF's December 2024 draft recommendation specifies cytology every 3 years for ages 21-29, followed by primary hrHPV testing every 5 years for ages 30-65, explicitly advising against routine co-testing or cytology alone after age 30 to minimize overdiagnosis.^[78] In contrast, the ACS's 2020 guidelines (reaffirmed in 2023) recommend initiating screening at age 25 with primary hrHPV testing every 5 years through age 65 for average-risk individuals, permitting cytology every 3 years or co-testing every 5 years as alternatives but prioritizing HPV-based approaches to balance detection efficacy against harms like unnecessary colposcopies.^[119] ACOG aligns closely with ACS, endorsing primary hrHPV every 5 years, co-testing every 5 years, or cytology every 3 years for ages 30-65, while recommending cytology alone every 3 years for ages 21-29 but deferring routine screening until 25 in practice to avoid overtreatment of transient lesions common in younger women.^[29] All U.S. guidelines advise against screening before age 21 or after age 65 for those with adequate prior negative results (defined as three consecutive negative cytology or two negative hrHPV tests in the past 10 years), and recommend shared decision-making for higher-risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals or those with HIV, who may require more frequent testing starting earlier.^[78]^[119]^[29] These approaches reflect evidence from trials like the ATHENA study, which demonstrated hrHPV testing's negative predictive value exceeding 99% for ruling out precancer over 5 years, justifying extended intervals and reduced cytology use.^[78] In Canada, guidelines vary by province but are increasingly harmonized under the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, recommending cytology every 3 years for ages 30-69, with screening starting at age 25 or 30 depending on jurisdiction and transitioning to primary hrHPV testing every 5 years where implemented, such as in Ontario (as of March 2025) and British Columbia for ages 25-69.^[120]^[121] Provinces like Ontario and Saskatchewan advise against screening after age 74 absent symptoms or abnormalities, emphasizing HPV self-sampling to improve equity and uptake in underserved populations.^[122]^[123] This shift mirrors U.S. trends, supported by observational data showing HPV-primary strategies reduce invasive cancer incidence by enhancing detection of persistent infections while curbing false positives from low-grade cytology findings.^[124]

European and United Kingdom protocols

The NHS Cervical Screening Programme in England targets individuals registered with a general practitioner as female and aged 25 to 64 years with a cervix, with the first invitation issued around 24.5 years of age.^[125] As of 1 July 2025, all eligible individuals receive invitations every five years, reflecting a policy shift from the prior three-year interval for ages 25 to 49, enabled by primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing's demonstrated negative predictive value exceeding 99.9% for ruling out cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse over five years.^[126]^[125] The primary test detects high-risk HPV types; a negative result defers further action until the next scheduled screen, while a positive result triggers reflex liquid-based cytology triage, with abnormal findings leading to colposcopy referral.^[125] Transgender men registered as male must proactively request screening, as automatic invitations cease upon gender marker change.^[125] European Union protocols for cervical screening are decentralized to national or regional levels, resulting in heterogeneity despite harmonizing efforts via the European Commission's Joint Research Centre guidelines and the 2022 Council Recommendation on strengthening cancer screening.^[127]^[128] Primary high-risk HPV DNA testing is recommended over cytology or co-testing for organized, population-based programs targeting asymptomatic individuals with a cervix, due to HPV testing's higher sensitivity (approximately 95% versus 60-70% for cytology) in identifying persistent infections causally linked to precancerous lesions.^[127]^[129] Screening typically commences at age 30 and extends to 65, with intervals of at least five years for HPV-negative results, as shorter cytology-based cycles (e.g., three years) in some programs increase overdiagnosis of transient infections without proportional mortality benefits.^[127]^[130] Variations persist across member states: cytology remains primary in countries like Italy and Spain for ages 25-30 to address higher transient HPV prevalence in younger women, transitioning to HPV thereafter, while nations such as the Netherlands and Sweden have fully adopted HPV-only protocols from age 30 with five- to seven-year extensions for low-risk profiles.^[130]^[131] Guidelines explicitly advise against routine screening before age 25 or after 65 in average-risk populations, prioritizing resource allocation to peak incidence ages where persistent HPV carcinogenesis risk is elevated.^[129] The EU targets 70% coverage via high-precision HPV testing in the prior five years by 2030, integrated with vaccination to accelerate incidence reductions, though uptake disparities reflect implementation challenges in transitioning from legacy cytology systems.^[132]^[133]

Other regional variations

In Australia, the National Cervical Screening Program recommends primary high-risk HPV testing every five years for individuals with a cervix aged 25 to 74 who have ever been sexually active, with cytology reserved for triage of HPV-positive cases; this approach, renewed in 2017 and updated in 2025, emphasizes self-collection options to improve participation rates, which remain below 70% in some groups.^[134]^[135] Japan's guidelines, issued by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology, prioritize conventional or liquid-based cytology for opportunistic screening starting at age 20, with no routine recommendation for primary HPV testing in population-based programs due to concerns over specificity and over-referral in low-prevalence settings; screening intervals are typically annual or biennial, though uptake is low at around 40%, contributing to higher cervical cancer incidence compared to HPV-primary nations.^[136]^[137] In India, national guidelines under the National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Cervix Cancer advocate screening women aged 30 to 59 every three to five years using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Pap cytology, or HPV testing where feasible, reflecting resource constraints in rural areas where VIA predominates; the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) extends the starting age to 25 for high-risk populations, but coverage hovers below 5% nationally due to infrastructural and awareness barriers.^[138]^[139] Latin American countries exhibit heterogeneity, with nations like Argentina and Mexico transitioning to HPV primary screening every five years from age 30 to 65 under WHO-aligned frameworks, while others such as Brazil rely on cytology or VIA every three years starting at 25; the ESTAMPA trial across nine countries demonstrated HPV testing's superior detection of precancer, prompting pilots for screen-and-treat strategies, though implementation varies with coverage often under 50% amid economic disparities.^[140]00167-9/fulltext) Sub-Saharan African protocols, guided by WHO's 2021 recommendations, favor HPV DNA testing with screen-and-treat for women aged 30 to 49 (or up to 65 in higher-burden settings) at one- or three-visit intervals, but resource-limited contexts like Tanzania and South Africa predominantly use VIA every three to five years or three-yearly cytology for HIV-positive women; South Africa's strategy includes decennial screening for the general population regardless of test type, yet continent-wide uptake averages 20%, hampered by supply chain issues and competing health priorities.^[66]^[141]

Management of Screening Outcomes

Evaluation of abnormal results

Abnormal cervical screening results, including atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) with positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) on cytology, necessitate further diagnostic evaluation to identify precancerous lesions such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).^[142]^[143] Positive high-risk HPV without cytologic abnormalities in women aged 25 years and older also triggers triage, often via repeat testing or direct colposcopy depending on risk estimates.^[144] The 2019 ASCCP risk-based guidelines stratify management by calculating the 5-year risk of CIN grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), recommending colposcopy for risks exceeding 4% and repeat testing for lower risks to minimize unnecessary procedures while detecting significant pathology.^[143]^[145] Colposcopy serves as the cornerstone diagnostic procedure, involving magnified visualization of the cervix after application of 3-5% acetic acid to accentuate acetowhite epithelium indicative of abnormal vascular patterns or lesion margins.^[146]^[147] Performed in an outpatient setting, it typically lasts 10-20 minutes and may include Lugol's iodine staining to highlight non-glycogenated abnormal areas appearing iodine-negative.^[142] Directed biopsies are taken from the most suspicious transformation zone areas, with endocervical curettage if the squamocolumnar junction is not fully visualized, yielding histologic confirmation of dysplasia or neoplasia.^[148] Inadequate colposcopy, defined by incomplete visualization of the lesion or transformation zone, occurs in approximately 10-20% of cases and requires repeat evaluation or adjunctive methods like HPV genotyping for persistent high-risk types (e.g., HPV-16/18).^[143] Histopathologic examination of biopsies provides definitive grading: CIN1 (mild dysplasia, often regressive), CIN2 (moderate, with higher persistence risk), or CIN3 (severe, approaching carcinoma in situ).^[144] Discrepancies between cytologic and histologic findings arise in up to 30% of cases due to sampling errors or interobserver variability, underscoring the need for integrated risk assessment incorporating age, HPV status, and prior results.^[149] In resource-limited settings, the WHO endorses visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as an alternative triage for HPV-positive or abnormal cytology results, achieving sensitivity comparable to colposcopy (around 80%) but with lower specificity, followed by cryotherapy for eligible lesions.^[116]^[66] Endometrial sampling is pursued if atypical glandular cells are detected, given their association with higher malignancy risk independent of squamous abnormalities.^[2]

Follow-up and intervention pathways

Abnormal cervical screening results, including atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), trigger risk-based triage to assess the immediate and future risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), a key precursor to invasive cancer.^[149] In guidelines such as those from the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP), management decisions hinge on quantified risks derived from screening history, HPV genotyping (e.g., HPV16/18), and cytology grade; for instance, an immediate CIN3+ risk of ≥4% prompts referral for colposcopy, while risks between 0.55% and <4% over five years may warrant repeat co-testing (HPV plus cytology) in one year.^[149] Lower risks (<0.55% five-year CIN3+) allow return to routine three-year screening intervals.^[149] Reflex HPV testing is standard for ASC-US cytology, with colposcopy recommended for HPV16/18-positive cases regardless of cytology normality due to elevated risk.^[149] Colposcopy serves as the primary diagnostic follow-up, involving magnified cervical examination after application of acetic acid or Lugol's iodine to highlight abnormal vascular patterns and acetowhite epithelium, often accompanied by directed biopsies of suspicious lesions and endocervical curettage (ECC) to sample the transformation zone.^[142] Biopsy-confirmed diagnoses guide intervention: CIN1 lesions, representing mild dysplasia, typically undergo active surveillance with repeat HPV testing or co-testing every 12 months, as spontaneous regression occurs in approximately 60-80% of cases within two years without progression to higher grades.^[142] CIN2, indicating moderate dysplasia, favors excisional treatment such as loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) to prevent progression (estimated 20-30% risk to CIN3+), though observation with serial colposcopy and cytology every six months for up to 24 months is acceptable in adolescents or pregnant individuals where reproductive concerns predominate.^[149] CIN3 or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) mandates therapeutic intervention, preferentially via diagnostic excisional procedures like LEEP or cold-knife conization to achieve clear margins and exclude occult invasion, with hysterectomy considered for persistent or multifocal disease.^[149] In high-risk scenarios, such as cytology-proven HSIL with HPV16 positivity yielding >60% CIN3+ risk, expedited treatment without initial colposcopy is permissible to minimize loss to follow-up.^[149] Post-treatment surveillance emphasizes HPV-based testing to detect persistence or recurrence, with co-testing (HPV plus cytology) at six and 12 months after excision; two consecutive negative results permit transition to routine screening every three years for at least 25 years or until age 65, whichever is longer, due to the 5-10% risk of recurrence or new lesions from persistent HPV infection.^[149] Cytology alone may substitute if HPV testing is unavailable, but with more frequent intervals (e.g., annually).^[149] In low-resource settings, World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines advocate a "screen-triage-treat" paradigm, where HPV-positive screens (starting age 30 for general populations) undergo visual triage methods like visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) followed by immediate thermal ablation or cryotherapy for eligible precancerous lesions, bypassing colposcopy to enhance equity and retention, with re-screening every three to five years post-treatment.^[66] For women living with HIV, earlier initiation (age 25) and more frequent follow-up (every three years) address elevated progression risks.^[66] These pathways reduce progression to invasive cancer by over 90% when adhered to, though adherence challenges, such as loss to follow-up, persist globally.^[142]

Emerging Developments

Self-sampling and accessibility improvements

Self-sampling for cervical cancer screening enables individuals to collect vaginal samples at home using provided kits, typically involving swabs or brushes for subsequent HPV DNA testing in laboratories. This method bypasses the need for clinician-performed speculum examinations, reducing barriers such as clinic visits, transportation challenges, and discomfort associated with pelvic exams. The World Health Organization endorses HPV self-sampling as an adjunct to improve screening coverage, particularly toward a global target of 70% participation among women aged 30-49, noting its potential to reach underserved populations in low- and middle-income countries where infrastructure limits traditional screening.^[150] Studies demonstrate that self-sampling yields HPV detection rates comparable to clinician-collected cervical samples, with meta-analyses reporting sensitivities of 85-95% and specificities around 90% for high-risk HPV types, though performance can vary by device type and population. For instance, a 2024 validation of vaginal self-sampling devices found agreement rates exceeding 90% with clinician samples for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia precursors. Participation rates increase significantly with self-sampling offers to screening non-attenders, with randomized trials showing uptake rises of 20-40% in diverse settings, including rural and low-resource areas. This enhancement stems from greater privacy, convenience, and reduced logistical hurdles, as evidenced by interventions mailed to overdue individuals that boosted screening compliance without compromising accuracy.^[151]^[152]^[153] Accessibility gains are pronounced in equity-focused applications, such as for unhoused or mobility-impaired populations, where self-sampling integrates with mailed kits and telehealth follow-up to address disparities in screening adherence. In low-income contexts, self-sampling has expanded coverage by 10-30% in pilot programs, facilitating earlier detection and reducing cervical cancer incidence through scalable, cost-effective distribution. However, guidelines caution against its use in cases of abnormal vaginal bleeding, immunosuppression, or prior abnormal results, recommending clinician confirmation for positives to ensure appropriate triage. Ongoing evaluations emphasize the need for robust laboratory infrastructure and education on proper collection to maintain efficacy.^[154]^[155]^[156]

Advanced technologies and integration with vaccination

Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has emerged as a more sensitive screening method than traditional cytology, detecting persistent infections that precede cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with superior performance in identifying women at risk for progression to cancer.^[157] In many guidelines, HPV testing is now recommended as the primary screening modality, performed every 5 years for women aged 30-65, as it identifies 95% of CIN3+ lesions compared to 60-70% with Pap smears alone.^[158] Liquid-based cytology combined with HPV assays further enhances specificity by reducing inadequate samples and enabling triage with genotyping for HPV16/18, which account for 70% of cervical cancers.^[159] Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms are being integrated into cytology and colposcopy to automate interpretation, reducing human error and inter-observer variability; for instance, deep learning models achieve over 90% accuracy in classifying cervical images, comparable to expert pathologists, and facilitate scalable screening in resource-limited settings.^[160] AI-assisted reading of liquid-based cytology slides has demonstrated cost-effectiveness by prioritizing high-risk cases, with studies showing a 20-30% improvement in detection rates for precancerous lesions while minimizing unnecessary colposcopies.^[161] Emerging point-of-care technologies, such as isothermal amplification for HPV detection and lateral flow assays, enable rapid, low-cost testing without laboratory infrastructure, supporting decentralized screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).^[162] HPV vaccination profoundly influences screening paradigms by reducing the prevalence of vaccine-targeted HPV types (e.g., 16, 18, 6, 11), leading to a 40-90% decline in CIN2+ lesions in vaccinated cohorts, as observed in population-based studies from Australia and the UK post-2006-2008 rollout.^[158]^[163] This decreased disease burden lowers the positive predictive value (PPV) of cytology from approximately 5-10% to under 3% in vaccinated populations, prompting shifts toward HPV-primary screening to maintain efficiency and avoid over-referral.^[164] In response, guidelines in high-vaccination coverage areas, such as England, have extended screening intervals or raised starting ages for fully vaccinated women, with modeling indicating that combined vaccination and triennial HPV testing from age 25 could reduce lifetime cancer risk by over 99% at lower costs than cytology-based programs.^[165]^[157] Integrated strategies combining vaccination with screening accelerate cervical cancer elimination, as outlined by the WHO's 90-70-90 targets: 90% of girls vaccinated by age 15, 70% of women screened by ages 35 and 45 with high-performance tests, and 90% of cervical diseases treated.^[115] In LMICs, bundled interventions—such as school-based vaccination campaigns followed by HPV self-sampling—have increased coverage by 20-50% compared to siloed programs, with economic analyses showing net savings from averted treatments.^[166] However, incomplete vaccination uptake (e.g., only 1-2 doses instead of 3) correlates with reduced screening participation, underscoring the need for policy alignment to sustain dual prevention.^[167] Ongoing surveillance in vaccinated eras reveals genotype shifts toward non-vaccine HPV types, necessitating adaptable screening that incorporates broader genotyping to monitor residual risk.^[168]

References

[1]
Screening for cervical cancer - World Health Organization (WHO)
Screening aims to detect precancerous lesions, that is, abnormalities in the cells of the cervix, which, if left untreated, can develop into cervical cancer.
[2]
Screening for Cervical Cancer - CDC
Feb 26, 2025 · The HPV test and the Pap test can help prevent cervical cancer or find it early. Both tests can be done in a doctor's office or clinic.Risk Factors · Nbccedp · Find out if you qualify.
[3]
The history of the Papanicolaou smear and the odyssey of ... - PubMed
The Papanicolaou smear, a routine screening test for cancer of the uterine cervix, was reported in 1928, and its efficacy was proved by 1941.
[4]
Screening for Cervical Cancer - PMC - NIH
Population-level, organized screening programs have reduced cervical cancer rates by 50% to 80%. In settings with robust screening programs, most cancers ...
[5]
Cervical Cancer Screening (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version
Apr 18, 2025 · Magnitude of Effect: Regular Pap screening decreases cervix cancer incidence and mortality by at least 80%. Study Design: Population-based and ...Screening With the... · Screening With the Pap Test... · Screening With the Human...
[6]
Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage ...
Dec 12, 2023 · We found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized ...
[7]
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection - STI Treatment Guidelines
Jul 22, 2021 · USPSTF screening recommendations apply to persons with a cervix at average risk, defined as those with no previous cervical cancer or high- ...
[8]
Cervical screening and overdiagnosis: continuation of Controversy ...
Cervical screening and overdiagnosis: continuation of Controversy and Debate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Nov:127:A8-A10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.043.
[9]
Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Often Overused, Study Finds
May 24, 2021 · Over-screening for cervical cancer can be harmful. The problem is that detection of HPV and mild abnormalities often lead to more invasive ...
[10]
Cancer overdiagnosis: A challenge in the era of screening - PMC
A report of harms associated with breast cancer screening in 29 studies showed overdiagnosis ranging widely, from 0% to 54%, although in randomized trials the ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[11]
Cervical cancer - World Health Organization (WHO)
Mar 5, 2024 · Screening from the age of 30 (25 years in women living with HIV) can detect cervical disease, which when treated, also prevents cervical cancer.
[12]
Cost-Effectiveness of HPV Self-Testing Options for Cervical Cancer ...
Oct 1, 2025 · This economic evaluation examines the cost-effectiveness of mailed human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits among members of a US ...
[13]
George Papanicolaou (1883–1962): Discoverer of the Pap smear
George Nicholas Papanicolaou was a pioneer in elucidating the physiology and cytologic characteristics of the female reproductive system.
[14]
The History of Cervical Screening I: The Pap. Test - JOGC
Abstract: the Pap. test is acknowledged world-wide as being the most successful cancer screen- ing test, yet women continue to die of carcinoma of the ...
[15]
Pathway to the Papanicolaou smear: The development of cervical ...
Papanicolaou first described the Pap smear in 1928. His findings were not recognized by the medical community until 1941.
[16]
The Woman Behind the PAP Smear - UTMB Health
Jan 2, 2024 · A century ago, one woman gave herself daily pap smears to help develop a life-saving test. Her name was Andromache “Mary” Papanicolaou, the wife of George ...
[17]
https://cancersupportcommunity.org/blog/the-war-against-cancer-started-earlier-than-you-might-think
[18]
George Papanicolaou: Development of the Pap Smear
Jun 29, 2011 · In the 1940s, when the Pap Smear was first introduced, cervical cancer was the number one killer of women. The Pap Smear, now a standard cancer ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[19]
Cervical Cancer Awareness Month: History of the First Cancer ...
Jan 3, 2022 · In 1939, he collaborated with gynecologists Drs. Herbert Traut and Andrew Marchetti on a clinical trial to study Papanicolaou's screening test.
[20]
Cervical screening in England: The past, present, and future - Albrow
Feb 24, 2012 · Cervical screening in England commenced in a disorganized fashion in 1964. The flaws of this approach became apparent in the mid-1980s.
[21]
Pap Smears And Progress: A Historical Overview - Women's Health
In 1928, Dr. George Papanicolaou, a Greek anatomist, developed the Pap smear to detect signs of cervical cancer early. Women's health has significantly improved ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[22]
Evolution of cervical cancer screening and prevention in United ...
Although the first HPV test was FDA-approved in 1988, the HC2 test was only FDA-approved in 1999 for follow-up of ASC-US cytology to identify women who may ...
[23]
The Changing Face of Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States
With the introduction of widespread Pap smear screening starting in the 1940s, the United States has seen at least a 50% reduction in the incidence and ...
[24]
Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus
Conclusions: HPV primary screening in women ≥25years is as effective as a hybrid screening strategy that uses cytology if 25-29years and cotesting if ≥30years.
[25]
Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus
ATHENA evaluated the cobas HPV Test as the primary screen for cervical cancer in women ≥ 25 years. This reports the 3-year end-of-study results comparing the ...
[26]
Primary human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer in the ...
Sep 16, 2014 · Cytology and HPV testing achieved only 42.6% sensitivity and 58.3% sensitivity, respectively, for ≥CIN3 lesions. Because these sensitivity rates ...<|separator|>
[27]
American Cancer Society signals transition in cervical cancer ...
Apr 7, 2021 · The 2020 American Cancer Society cervical cancer screening guidelines call for a shift to primary human papillomavirus testing every 5 years ...
[28]
Cervical Cancer Screening - NCI
Feb 13, 2025 · Updated cervical cancer screening guidelines from ACS recommend starting screening at age 25 with an HPV test and having HPV testing every 5 ...
[29]
Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines - ACOG
Apr 12, 2021 · There are now three recommended options for cervical cancer screening in individuals aged 30–65 years: primary hrHPV testing every 5 years, cervical cytology ...
[30]
Primary HPV testing versus cytology-based cervical screening in ...
Oct 17, 2024 · Primary HPV screening every 5 years with partial genotyping is predicted to be substantially more effective and potentially cost-saving compared ...
[31]
Shifting from cytology to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in ...
May 2, 2022 · A test for high-risk strains of HPV will replace the Papanicolaou (Pap) test for routine cervical cancer screening in Canada.
[32]
Transition from opportunistic cytological to organized screening ...
Sep 5, 2024 · Program flowchart is simple and current, indicating repetition of a negative test after five years. The first-round (October 2017-September 2022) ...Results · Discussion · Hpv Test Selection<|separator|>
[33]
Cervical cancer statistics | World Cancer Research Fund
There were 662,301 new cases of cervical cancer globally in 2022. The tables below give information about the countries with the highest rates, incidence and ...Cervical cancer incidence... · Cervical cancer age...
[34]
Global burden of cervical cancer: current estimates, temporal trend ...
Globally, an estimated 662,044 cases (ASIR: 14.12/100,000) and 348,709 deaths (ASMR: 7.08/100,000) from cervical cancer occurred in 2022, corresponding to the ...
[35]
Cancer Stat Facts: Cervical Cancer - SEER
Rate of New Cases and Deaths per 100,000: The rate of new cases of cervical cancer was 7.7 per 100,000 women per year. The death rate was 2.2 per 100,000 women ...
[36]
Cervical cancer incidence statistics - Cancer Research UK
Incidence rates for cervical cancer are highest in females aged 30 to 34 in the UK, with 3 in 20 (15%) of all new cervical cancer cases diagnosed in this ...
[37]
Cervical Carcinoma Rates Among Young Females in the United States
For women younger than age 40 years, 78% of the cervical cancer cases were diagnosed in women aged 30–39, 21% were diagnosed in women 20–29 years of age, and 1% ...
[38]
Human papillomavirus and cancer - World Health Organization (WHO)
Mar 5, 2024 · Persistent HPV infection with high-risk HPV types is the cause of cervical cancer and is associated with cancers of the vulva, vagina, mouth ...Overview · Scope Of The Problem · Treatment
[39]
HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUSES AND CERVICAL CANCER ... - NCBI
Today, it is well established that infection with high oncogenic risk HPV types is the central causal factor in cervical cancer (IARC, 1995; Koutsky et al., ...
[40]
Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer - PMC - NIH
Persistence of infection is more common with the high-risk oncogenic HPV types and is an important determinant in the development of cervical cancer. Detection ...
[41]
[PDF] IARC HANDBOOKS - IARC Publications
Each individual case of cervical cancer arises from persistent infection with a specific carcino- genic HPV genome (Schiffman et al., 2016). Although it is well ...
[42]
Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer - American Cancer Society
Jul 1, 2025 · Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection · Sexual history · Smoking · Having a weakened immune system · Chlamydia infection · Long-term use of oral ...
[43]
HPV and Cervical Cancer: A Review of Epidemiology and ...
Feb 11, 2023 · Other factors have also been reported to increase cervical cancer risk, including smoking, immunosuppression, poor sexual health, and screening ...
[44]
Chapter 11: Human Papillomavirus | Pink Book - CDC
Apr 23, 2024 · High-risk HPV types are detected in 99% of cervical precancers. Type 16 is the cause of approximately 50% of cervical cancers worldwide, and ...Pathogenesis · Secular Trends In The United... · Hpv Secular Trends In The...
[45]
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30037-7/fulltext
[46]
Progression of CIN1/LSIL HPV Persistent of the Cervix - NIH
Mar 9, 2021 · The rate of regression for histologically confirmed CIN1 lesions was always elevated. The rate at 12 months was 54,8% and at 24 months 35,9%.
[47]
Spontaneous regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 in ...
Oct 18, 2022 · The natural history of CIN1 lesions is characterized by a high rate of spontaneous regression (80%) [12,13,14], follow-up data of meta-analyses ...
[48]
Predictors for regression and progression of actively surveilled ...
Feb 10, 2025 · In young women, however, spontaneous regression of CIN2 has been reported to be up to 50–60% and progression to invasion appears to be rare.
[49]
Pap Smear Collection and Preparation: Key Points - PMC
Mar 29, 2022 · A systematically collected smear from the SCJ, well fixed, and well stained is still the best method to detect abnormalities in the cervical ...Missing: variants | Show results with:variants
[50]
Abnormal Papanicolaou Smear - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Jan 2, 2023 · The primary cause of abnormal pap smears is associated with infection by human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV serotypes 16/18 are the most common ...
[51]
Conventional Pap Smear vs. Liquid-Based Cytology - AAFP
Feb 15, 2010 · However, liquid-based cytology rinses cervical cells in preservatives so that blood and other potentially obscuring material can be separated.
[52]
A Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based ... - NIH
The aim of this study is to compare liquid-based cytology (LBC) and conventional Pap on cervical smears. Materials and Methods: From July 2018 to June 2022, 600 ...
[53]
Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology With Conventional Cytology ...
Oct 28, 2009 · Conclusion This study indicates that liquid-based cytology does not perform better than conventional Pap tests in terms of relative sensitivity ...
[54]
A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid‐Based ...
Apr 23, 2025 · Conclusion. LBC outperforms the conventional Pap smear in cervical cancer screening by providing higher sample adequacy, better detection rates ...
[55]
The IARC Perspective on Cervical Cancer Screening
Nov 10, 2021 · Progression to precancer depends on the HPV type and time of persistence; most precancers will regress with time. Only a very small proportion ...
[56]
Patient vs. Clinician-Collected Cervical Cytology for Screening for CIN
Oct 5, 2025 · This systematic review and meta-analysis compares self-collected and clinician-collected cervical cytology for CIN screening, outlining the ...
[57]
Human Papillomavirus Testing with the Hybrid Capture 2 Assay and ...
The present study compared the performance of the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay with that of PCR for the detection of significant cervical lesions in 1,511 women ...
[58]
[PDF] HC.( Hybrid Capture® 2 - accessdata.fda.gov
The HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test is designed to augment existing methods for the detection of cervical disease and should be used in conjunction with clinical ...
[59]
Assessment of a new low-cost, PCR-based strategy for high-risk ...
Oct 15, 2019 · This novel strategy, combining two PCR-based techniques for HR-HPV detection, could be useful for cervical cancer screening in self-collected ...Pcr Gp · Hpv Genotyping And... · Discussion
[60]
Molecular tests potentially improving HPV screening and genotyping ...
This review presents current challenges to cervical cancer screening programs, focusing on recent molecular advances in HPV testing and potential improvements ...
[61]
Recommendation: Cervical Cancer: Screening - uspstf
Aug 21, 2018 · The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. For women aged 30 ...Screening · Screening, 1996 · Draft Recommendation
[62]
Point-Counterpoint: Cervical Cancer Screening Should Be ... - NIH
The verification bias-adjusted (VBA) sensitivities of cytology (42.6%) versus HPV primary algorithms (not tests, as in reference 17) at 58.3% seem low to some, ...
[63]
WHO recommends DNA testing as a first-choice screening method ...
Sep 11, 2021 · DNA-based testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to be more effective than today's commonly used screening methods aimed at detecting and ...
[64]
HPV Testing for Cervical Cancer Found Effective at Longer Intervals
After six years, longer than current five-year guidelines, HPV screens showed lower risk after both one (2.5/1,000) and two (2.3/1,000) negative tests. The risk ...
[65]
Effectiveness of Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) Screening ...
Feb 3, 2022 · Our review showed a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality and cervical cancer mortality after VIA screening. However, ...
[66]
New recommendations for screening and treatment to prevent ...
Jul 6, 2021 · WHO suggests using the following strategy for cervical cancer prevention among women living with HIV: HPV DNA detection in a screen, triage and ...
[67]
Effectiveness of Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) Screening ...
Feb 1, 2022 · We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of VIA screening on cervical cancer mortality and incidence.
[68]
Accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer ...
The result of visual inspection after a cervical application of a 3% to 5% solution of acetic acid is considered positive when acetowhite areas appear in the ...
[69]
[PDF] Visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI): Evidence to date
❚ Visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI), also known as Schiller's test, uses Lugol's iodine instead of acetic acid.
[70]
Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening Accuracy for Visual ...
Visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) are used to screen women for cervical cancer in low-resource settings. Little is known ...
[71]
and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Objective. To evaluate the performance of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) testing, visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI), primary HPV testing, ...
[72]
Review Article Accuracy of Several Cervical Screening Strategies for ...
Visual inspection with Lugol iodine had the highest sensitivity (91%; 95% CI, 89%–92%), the highest DOR (57.44), a slightly lower specificity (85%; 95% CI, 86%– ...Review Article · Characteristics Of All... · Discussion
[73]
Training health care providers to administer VIA as a screening test ...
Sep 28, 2023 · Implementing community-based cervical cancer screening programs using visual inspection with acetic acid in India: a systematic review.<|separator|>
[74]
Cervical cancer screening - World Health Organization (WHO)
Cervical cancer screening aims to detect precancerous changes, which, if not treated, may lead to cancer. In resource-poor settings, 30 to 49 year old women ...
[75]
Performance of alternative strategies for primary cervical cancer ...
Jul 3, 2015 · Objective To assess and compare the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI), and ...
[76]
Cervical cancer screening tests: Visual inspection methods
May 16, 2025 · Visual inspection of the cervix has reemerged as a screening tool for low-resource settings, despite its imprecise performance, since it is ...
[77]
[PDF] Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus
... hybrid screening strategy that uses cytology if 25–29 years and cotesting if ≥30 years. However, HPV primary screening requires less screening tests.<|separator|>
[78]
Draft Recommendation: Cervical Cancer: Screening - uspstf
Dec 10, 2024 · Starting at age 30 years and until age 65 years, self-collected or clinician-collected HPV testing alone (primary HPV screening) every 5 years ...
[79]
Cervical Cancer Risk for 330,000 Women Undergoing Concurrent ...
In particular, guidelines discourage screening of women testing HPV-negative with normal cytology (Pap-negative) before three years to avoid detection of new ...
[80]
Primary human papillomavirus testing vs cotesting - Oxford Academic
These data suggest that cotesting confer an unfavorable benefit-to-harm ratio over primary HPV testing.Abstract · Author contributions
[81]
Comparison of primary cytology, primary HPV testing and co ... - NIH
Oct 17, 2022 · Compared with co-testing, HPV primary screening had comparable sensitivity and higher specificity for CIN2+ detection, and both of them showed ...
[82]
The Clinical and Economic Benefits of Co-Testing Versus Primary ...
Conclusions: Model results demonstrate that co-testing has the potential to provide improved clinical and economic outcomes when compared with HPV primary.
[83]
Cervical cancer screening programme in Finland
In Finland, the organised screening programme for the prevention of cervical cancer has been run for over 30 years and has contributed to a 70–80% decrease ...
[84]
Cervical cancer screening in Sweden - PubMed
A marked decline in cervical cancer incidence could be attributed to the time-point of start of screening. Squamous cell carcinoma has declined by 60%, whereas ...
[85]
Cervical cancer screening in Sweden - ScienceDirect.com
Subsequent to the introduction of organised screening, there has been a regular decline and during 1989–1993 the incidence was 10.1/100 000. The entire ...Missing: organized | Show results with:organized
[86]
Impact of cervical screening on cervical cancer mortality - NIH
Sep 15, 2016 · It is estimated that in England screening currently prevents 70% (95% CI: 66–73%) of cervical cancer deaths (all ages).
[87]
Review Effect of organised cervical cancer screening on cervical ...
Observational studies show a 41%–92% mortality reduction after attending cervical screening. •. Inviting women for screening was found to result in a 17%–79% ...
[88]
Cervical screening: the evolving landscape
The NHS Cervical Screening Programme has reduced deaths from cervical cancer by up to 70% since its introduction over three decades ago.Vaginal Self-Sampling · Embedding New Approaches In... · Notes
[89]
Mortality audit of the Finnish cervical cancer screening program
Sep 14, 2012 · A decrease in cervical cancer mortality in Finland has been observed in the ages considerably above the last invitation for screening.
[90]
Impact of cervical screening by human papillomavirus genotype
Oct 27, 2023 · Historical screening attendance was associated with a 72% reduction of cervical cancer incidence caused by HPV16 (71.6%, 95% confidence interval ...
[91]
ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing ...
ARTISTIC was a randomised trial of cervical cytology versus cervical cytology plus HPV testing, evaluated over two screening rounds, 3 years apart.Missing: trials | Show results with:trials
[92]
Long-term follow-up of randomized cervical cancer screening trial
Dec 12, 2023 · Results: During a total of 3.5 million person-years of follow-up, we observed 129 cervical cancers and 32 cervical cancer deaths in the cytology ...
[93]
Age-Specific Effectiveness of the Finnish Cervical Cancer Screening ...
Results: Participation in a single screen was associated with a 47% decrease in cervical cancers, but this effect was age-dependent. Screening at 25 showed ...<|separator|>
[94]
Regression of high-grade squamous intraepithelial cervical lesions ...
A recent large meta-analysis reported a 50% regression rate for CIN 2 lesions, increasing up to 60% in women aged under 30 years. However, the primary issue is ...
[95]
A Prospective Study on the Progression, Recurrence, and ... - MDPI
For CIN 2, the overall rates of regression were 55%, persistence—23%, and progression—19%. Lastly, with regard to CIN 3, the corresponding percentages were 28%, ...
[96]
92 Systematic review of overdiagnosis in cervical cancer screening
In the modelling approach, the frequencies of overdiagnosis in the screening period were estimated to be 74.8% for CIN1+, 68.0% for CIN2+, and 55.4% for CIN3+.
[97]
HARMS OF CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING IN THE UNITED ...
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, ...
[98]
The role of pre-invasive disease in overdiagnosis - Sage Journals
Apr 11, 2016 · For cervical cancer, the frequency of overdiagnosis in screening is high, because of detection of pre-invasive disease, but the consequences per ...
[99]
Association Between Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and ...
Jul 21, 2023 · The risk of preterm birth following treatment for precancerous changes in the cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2011;118 ...
[100]
Overtreatment in the see-and-treat approach for high-grade ...
A recent meta-analysis [8] found that women with high-grade cytology and low-grade colposcopic impression were associated with an overtreatment rate of 29.3%.
[101]
Preterm Birth Following Surveillance vs Loop Excision for CIN2
Mar 14, 2024 · The risk of preterm birth was comparable between active surveillance and immediate loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for CIN2.
[102]
Screening Pelvic Exams in Average-Risk Adult Women
The percentage of women endorsing pain or discomfort during the pelvic exam ranged from 11% to 60% (median 35%, 8 studies, N=4,576). Women who endorsed pain or ...
[103]
Psychological distress in cervical cancer screening - NIH
Jun 27, 2020 · These studies have highlighted that abnormal Pap smear findings evoke negative emotions ranging from anxiety to fear of developing or even ...
[104]
Anxiety and borderline PAP smear results - ScienceDirect.com
BMD smears were consistently associated with considerable excess anxiety in the period of 6–24 months after the original BMD Pap smears had been taken.
[105]
Screening for Cervical Cancer With High-Risk Human ...
Aug 21, 2018 · Four RCTs offered consistent evidence that primary hrHPV screening will detect higher rates of CIN 3+ at an initial screening round compared ...
[106]
False positive cervical HPV screening test results - PubMed Central
Apr 25, 2019 · Most HPV infections are benign, and over-reacting clinically to HPV positivity can cause psychological and possible iatrogenic physical (e.g., ...
[107]
Alleviating psychological distress associated with a positive cervical ...
Feb 12, 2021 · Information provision might help reduce psychological distress but not hinder further examination among women who screen positive for cervical cancer.
[108]
Extension of cervical screening intervals with primary human ...
May 31, 2022 · A meta-analysis of these longitudinal trials showed that by increasing the detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN grade ...
[109]
Overuse of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Average-Risk ...
Apr 29, 2021 · This cohort study examines the frequency of overuse of cervical cancer screening tests in women with average risk in the United States.
[110]
Cervical Cancer Screening: Updated Guidelines from the American ...
Less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed in patients younger than 25 years, and early screening does not prevent these cancers. Many abnormal findings in ...Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
[111]
Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 ...
Jul 30, 2020 · Randomized trials and observational studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in women up to age 65 years, ...
[112]
Optimal Cervical Cancer Screening in Women Vaccinated Against ...
Oct 17, 2016 · Conclusions: This model-based analysis suggests screening can be modified to start at later ages, occur at decreased frequency, and involve ...
[113]
Effectiveness of cervical screening after age 60 years according to ...
Oct 24, 2017 · A British study found that cervical cancer at age 55–69 could be reduced by 73% with previous 5-yearly screening [15]. Another British study ...
[114]
Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a ...
Nov 17, 2020 · This global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer proposes the following 90–70–90 targets that must be met by 2030 for countries to be on the path towards ...
[115]
Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative
WHO recommends adolescent girls to receive 1 or 2 doses of HPV vaccine between 9 and 14 years of age. · Get screened: all adult women should undergo periodic ...Regional And Country News · Stories From Countries · Infographics
[116]
WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer ...
Jul 6, 2021 · This WHO and HRP guideline is designed to help countries make faster progress, more equitably, on the screening and treatment of cervical cancer.
[117]
New WHO recommendations on screening and treatment to prevent ...
Jul 15, 2021 · This policy brief highlights the key features of the new recommendations on screening and treatment for cervical pre-cancer among women living with HIV.
[118]
Global leaders unite to accelerate cervical cancer elimination efforts
One hundred and ninety-four countries have adopted WHO's global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer, and 75 countries globally have adopted the single ...<|separator|>
[119]
Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines - American Cancer Society
The American Cancer Society recommends HPV vaccination for boys and girls between ages 9 and 12. Children and young adults age 13 through 26 who have not been ...
[120]
Cervical Cancer - Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
For women aged 30 to 69 we recommend routine screening for cervical cancer every 3 years. (Strong recommendation; high quality evidence); For women aged ≥ 70 ...
[121]
Cervical screening in Canada, 2023-24
Provinces and territories recommend that cervical screening begin at age 21 or 25, continue until age 65-70, and occur every two to three years.
[122]
Cervical Screening Recommendations Summary - Ontario Health
The OCSP does not recommend cervical screening for people age 75 and older. People age 75 and older with any visible cervical abnormalities or abnormal symptoms ...
[123]
[PDF] Cervical Cancer Screening Clinical Practice Guideline 2023
These revised cervical cancer screening recommendations have been adapted from the Alberta clinical practice guidelines.
[124]
Cervix Screening - BC Cancer
Cervix self-screening is recommended every five years for women and people with a cervix ages 25-69 (or every three years for those who are recommended to have ...
[125]
Cervical screening: programme overview - GOV.UK
Information on the NHS Cervical Screening Programme, including commissioning, quality assurance, education and training.Target population · Condition screened for · Screening tests
[126]
NHS rolls out more personalised cervical screening for millions
Jun 10, 2025 · Only those who attend cervical screening on or after 1 July, and meet the clinical criteria, will have their next test due date set at 5 years.
[127]
European guidelines on cervical cancer screening and diagnosis
The EC-CvC Working Group (WG) recommends using HPV detection test for primary screening in asymptomatic populations with cervix aged 30–50 years in the ...
[128]
Cancer screening in the European Union - Research and innovation
This scientific opinion focuses on improving the participation in existing screening programmes for cervical, colorectal and breast cancers.
[129]
IARC collaborates with the JRC to release the first set of ...
Jul 28, 2025 · The EC-CvC Expert Working Group recommends against cervical cancer screening in asymptomatic populations with a cervix aged younger than 25 ...
[130]
Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Europe: The Transition ...
Based on these facts, the European Guidelines recommend a five-year screening interval for HPV testing, which may be extended up to 10 years depending on the ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[131]
Primary HPV-based cervical cancer screening in Europe
Therefore, the recommended screening interval for HPV-negative women in Europe is at least 5 years and may be extended up to 10 years depending on age and ...Missing: Pap timeline
[132]
Recommendations on Screening - European Cancer Organisation
By 2030, at least 70% of women in Europe should have been screened for cervical cancer with an appropriate high-precision HPV test within the last five years.Missing: Union | Show results with:Union
[133]
Cervical cancer screening programmes and age-specific coverage ...
Estimated worldwide coverage in women aged 30–49 years in 2019 was 15% in the previous year, 28% in the previous 3 years, and 32% in the previous 5 years, and ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[134]
National Cervical Screening Program
Women and people with a cervix aged 25 to 74 years of age are invited to have a Cervical Screening Test every 5 years through their healthcare provider.Providing cervical screening · Getting a cervical screening test · National Strategy
[135]
[PDF] 2025 UPDATES TO THE NATIONAL CERVICAL SCREENING ...
National Cervical Screening Program Guidelines 2025. Previous. Updated. Recommendation. • Annual co-tests until 2 x consecutive negative tests (negative ...
[136]
Japanese Guideline for Cervical Cancer Screening - Oxford Academic
Apr 30, 2010 · Cervical cancer screening using conventional and liquid-based cytology is recommended for population-based and opportunistic screening due to sufficient ...<|separator|>
[137]
The Japanese guideline for cervical cancer screening - PubMed
Cervical cancer screening using either human papillomavirus testing alone or two combination methods is not recommended for population-based screening due to ...
[138]
[PDF] Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening Programme
There are various limitations in undertaking organized population based Cervical Cancer. Screening Programmes in India. The resources and infrastructure vary ...
[139]
[PDF] FOGSI GCPR
Recognising that the bulk of cervical cancer in india manifests after the age of 30 years, fogsi recommends that screening should be started at 25 years for ...
[140]
Cervical cancer screening programs in Latin America - PubMed
Jul 8, 2022 · Objective: To describe current cervical cancer screening program guidelines in Latin America. Materials and methods: We searched official ...Missing: protocols | Show results with:protocols
[141]
Cervical cancer prevention in Southern Africa: A review of national ...
South Africa recommended 10 yearly screening for the general population of women regardless of screening test used, and three yearly screening for WLWH.
[142]
HPV and Pap Test Results: Next Steps after an Abnormal Test - NCI
Jun 6, 2024 · However, if you have an abnormal test result, it's important to get the follow-up care that your health care provider recommends.
[143]
2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for...
Patients with symptoms such as abnormal uterine or vaginal bleeding or a visibly abnormal-appearing cervix require appropriate diagnostic testing as this may be ...
[144]
Updated Guidelines for Management of Cervical Cancer Screening ...
Oct 9, 2020 · The new consensus guidelines follow a risk-based approach to determine the need for surveillance, colposcopy, or treatment.
[145]
2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines
Jan 1, 2024 · This Research Letter summarizes all updates to the 2019 Guidelines through September 2023, including: endorsement of the 2021 Opportunistic Infections ...
[146]
Colposcopy: Biopsy, Purpose, Procedure, Risk & Results
A colposcopy can check for precancerous or cancerous cells. Your healthcare provider may recommend one if you have abnormal Pap or HPV test results. You may be ...
[147]
Colposcopy - Mayo Clinic
May 11, 2024 · A healthcare professional may recommend colposcopy if a Pap test or pelvic exam finds something concerning. Colposcopy can help diagnose:.
[148]
My Pap Test Was Abnormal: Now What? | Johns Hopkins Medicine
If your Pap test results are abnormal, your doctor may recommend a colposcopy. If you're told that you need a colposcopy, don't panic, says Coleman. “Women ...
[149]
2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for ...
Guidelines apply to asymptomatic patients that require management of abnormal cervical screening test results. Patients with symptoms such as abnormal ...
[150]
human papillomavirus (‎HPV)‎ self-sampling as part of cervical cancer ...
Apr 17, 2023 · HPV self-sampling offers an additional option to improve cervical cancer screening coverage. Self-sampling can help reach a global target of 70% coverage of ...
[151]
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of self ...
Jan 4, 2024 · This study aims to compare different types of HPV self-sampling devices for cervical cancer screening to identify the most accurate and acceptable device(s).
[152]
Enhancing cervical cancer screening: the promise and future of self ...
Sep 24, 2024 · 11 Studies have shown that self-sampling has comparable performance with clinician-collected samples for detecting high-risk HPV infection, with ...
[153]
Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical ...
Jul 28, 2025 · Offering self-sampling to non-attenders increases cervical screening uptake, but the optimal approach for offering kits remains unclear.
[154]
HPV Self-Sampling Options to Promote Equity | ClinicalTrials.gov
By testing this approach, we hope to find a way to make cervical cancer screening more accessible and effective for unhoused individuals. Detailed Description.
[155]
Why Consider Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in Low
HPV self-sampling is an innovative technique for cervical cancer screening that empowers women by allowing them to collect their own specimen in private.
[156]
[PDF] New Guidelines Released for Self- Collected HPV Screening - ASCCP
Feb 21, 2025 · Self-collection is not recommended for those who experience abnormal bleeding or discharge, take medication that suppresses the immune system, ...
[157]
The impact of alternate HPV vaccination and cervical screening ...
Combined human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical screening programmes are safe, effective, and cost-effective strategies for preventing cervical ...
[158]
Eliminating Cervical Cancer: the Impact of Screening and ... - CDC
Jul 24, 2025 · This test has become the standard in cervical cancer screening in developed countries and has led to a 70% decrease in incidence and mortality ...HPV Vaccination · Barriers to HPV Vaccination... · Initiatives to Increase HPV...
[159]
Cervical Cancer Screening in the HPV-Vaccinated and Digital Era
Sep 30, 2025 · AI is increasingly being explored as a transformative tool in cervical cancer screening, promising enhanced diagnostic accuracy, automation, and ...
[160]
Advanced AI-based technologies for early detection and ...
Moving forward, mobile screening devices have been shown to be effective in improving cervical cancer treatment services in low- and middle-income countries. ...
[161]
Artificial intelligence strengthenes cervical cancer screening
Sep 19, 2024 · AI-assisted liquid-based cytology testing may facilitate the rapid expansion of cervical cancer screening, while also being more cost-effective.
[162]
Advancing Cervical Cancer Prevention Equity: Innovations in Self ...
New technologies like isothermal amplification and lateral flow detection enable low-cost, sample-to-answer HPV testing suitable for decentralised screening [20] ...
[163]
HPV vaccine impact: genotype-specific changes in cervical pre ...
HPV16-related CIN2/CIN3/AIS incidence decreased from 951.1 per 100 000 individuals with cervical screening tests in 2006 to 566.4 in 2008, and then to 123.5 and ...
[164]
Impact of HPV vaccination on cervical screening performance - Nature
May 4, 2020 · Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is predicted to lower the positive predictive value (PPV) of cytology.
[165]
Association between HPV vaccination and cervical screening policy ...
Dec 10, 2024 · Our findings confirm that the HPV vaccination programme has had a substantial effect on CIN3 and cervical cancer rates in England. The data are ...
[166]
Integrating HPV vaccination programs with enhanced cervical ...
Mar 31, 2022 · This review aims to describe integrated approaches that combine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income ...
[167]
Effect of number of human papillomavirus vaccine doses on ...
Women who received 1 or 2 doses of the HPV vaccine were less likely that those who received 3 doses to be screened for cervical cancer 3 years following ...
[168]
Cervical Cancer Screening, HPV Vaccination, and ... - JAMA Network
Aug 12, 2025 · Meaning These findings suggest that implementing high-risk HPV testing and increasing HPV vaccination rates could accelerate cervical cancer ...