Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 1;145(5):461-468.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005877. Epub 2025 Mar 6.

Guideline-Concordant Surveillance After Treatment for High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia

Affiliations

Guideline-Concordant Surveillance After Treatment for High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia

Victoria Wang et al. Obstet Gynecol. .

Abstract

Objective: To quantify how many patients treated for high-grade cervical dysplasia completed guideline-concordant surveillance.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients aged 30-65 treated for high-grade cervical dysplasia (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse) at two PROSPR II METRICS (Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations sites) (Massachusetts General Brigham, Parkland Health) from 2010 to 2019. The primary outcome was receipt of two negative co-tests after treatment within 30 months (allowing 6-month scheduling leeway).

Results: Among 3,146 patients treated for high-grade dysplasia, most were aged 30-39 years (Massachusetts General Brigham 58.9%, Parkland Health 60.9%) and had no or few known comorbidities (Massachusetts General Brigham 81.2%, Parkland Health 85.6%). Race and ethnicity, insurance status, and socioeconomic status reflected broader patient population demographics. Only half of the patients (45.5%) completed two surveillance co-tests after treatment within 30 months (Massachusetts General Brigham 55.3%, Parkland Health 40.6%), among whom a third received at least one subsequent abnormal co-test result (Massachusetts General Brigham 30.9%, Parkland Health 31.6%). Patients who completed two co-tests were under observation longer than those who did not complete two co-tests (median Massachusetts General Brigham 64.9 months vs 33.1 months, median Parkland Health 63.9 months vs 41.8 months). Among patients who completed two co-tests, the timing of surveillance co-testing was largely concordant with guidelines (median [interquartile range] time to first co-test: Massachusetts General Brigham 6.4 [5.1-9.2] months, Parkland Health 10.1 [6.6-12.6] months; median [interquartile range] time between first and second co-test: Massachusetts General Brigham 8.5 [6.0-12.6] months, Parkland Health 12.0 [8.0-13.5] months). Overall, 16 patients (0.5%) were diagnosed with cervical cancer after treatment for high-grade dysplasia (median [interquartile range] time from treatment to cancer diagnosis 14.9 [3.8-45.9] months).

Conclusion: Approximately half of patients did not receive guideline-concordant surveillance after treatment for high-grade dysplasia, and one-third had a subsequent abnormal co-test result. Patients with high-grade cervical dysplasia are at elevated risk of subsequent abnormalities and should continue to be closely monitored. Additional systematic monitoring is needed to ensure guideline-compliant surveillance after dysplasia treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Financial Disclosure Sara Feldman reports receiving payment from UpToDate and a grant from the Foundation for Women’s Cancer. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Group USCSW. 2023. January 8. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, based on 2022 submission data (1999–2020). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; <https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz>. Accessed 2024 January 8.
    1. Skinner SR, Wheeler CM, Romanowski B, Castellsague X, Lazcano-Ponce E, Del Rosario-Raymundo MR, et al. Progression of HPV infection to detectable cervical lesions or clearance in adult women: Analysis of the control arm of the VIVIANE study. Int J Cancer 2016;138(10):2428–38 doi 10.1002/ijc.29971. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, Baranyai J, Medley G, Jones RW, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9(5):425–34 doi 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17(5 Suppl 1):S1–S27 doi 10.1097/LGT.0b013e318287d329. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, Chelmow D, Einstein MH, Garcia F, et al. 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2020;24(2):102–31 doi 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms