Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV. In the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: Comprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies). Low-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake. One trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). The use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.

Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors.

BACKGROUND: Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) types is causally linked with the development of cervical precancer and cancer. HPV types 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the harms and protection of prophylactic human papillomaviruses (HPV) vaccines against cervical precancer and HPV16/18 infection in adolescent girls and women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase (June 2017) for reports on effects from trials. We searched trial registries and company results' registers to identify unpublished data for mortality and serious adverse events. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety in females offered HPV vaccines with placebo (vaccine adjuvants or another control vaccine). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane methodology and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for protection against cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and above [CIN2+], CIN grade 3 and above [CIN3+], and adenocarcinoma-in-situ [AIS]), and for harms. We distinguished between the effects of vaccines by participants' baseline HPV DNA status. The outcomes were precancer associated with vaccine HPV types and precancer irrespective of HPV type. Results are presented as risks in control and vaccination groups and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals in brackets. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 trials (73,428 participants). Ten trials, with follow-up of 1.3 to 8 years, addressed protection against CIN/AIS. Vaccine safety was evaluated over a period of 6 months to 7 years in 23 studies. Studies were not large enough or of sufficient duration to evaluate cervical cancer outcomes. All but one of the trials was funded by the vaccine manufacturers. We judged most included trials to be at low risk of bias. Studies involved monovalent (N = 1), bivalent (N = 18), and quadrivalent vaccines (N = 7). Most women were under 26 years of age. Three trials recruited women aged 25 and over. We summarize the effects of vaccines in participants who had at least one immunisation.Efficacy endpoints by initial HPV DNA statushrHPV negativeHPV vaccines reduce CIN2+, CIN3+, AIS associated with HPV16/18 compared with placebo in adolescent girls and women aged 15 to 26. There is high-certainty evidence that vaccines lower CIN2+ from 164 to 2/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0 to 0.05)) and CIN3+ from 70 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0.00 to 0.10). There is moderate-certainty evidence that vaccines reduce the risk of AIS from 9 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.10 (0.01 to 0.82).HPV vaccines reduce the risk of any CIN2+ from 287 to 106/10,000 (RR 0.37 (0.25 to 0.55), high certainty) and probably reduce any AIS lesions from 10 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.1 (0.01 to 0.76), moderate certainty). The size of reduction in CIN3+ with vaccines differed between bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines (bivalent: RR 0.08 (0.03 to 0.23), high certainty; quadrivalent: RR 0.54 (0.36 to 0.82), moderate certainty). Data in older women were not available for this comparison.HPV16/18 negativeIn those aged 15 to 26 years, vaccines reduce CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 113 to 6 /10,000 (RR 0.05 (0.03 to 0.10). In women 24 years or older the absolute and relative reduction in the risk of these lesions is smaller (from 45 to 14/10,000, (RR 0.30 (0.11 to 0.81), moderate certainty). HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN3+ and AIS associated with HPV16/18 in younger women (RR 0.05 (0.02 to 0.14), high certainty and RR 0.09 (0.01 to 0.72), moderate certainty, respectively). No trials in older women have measured these outcomes.Vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 231 to 95/10,000, (RR 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52)) in younger women. No data are reported for more severe lesions.Regardless of HPV DNA statusIn younger women HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 341 to 157/10,000 (RR 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57), high certainty). Similar reductions in risk were observed for CIN3+ associated with HPV16/18 (high certainty). The number of women with AIS associated with HPV16/18 is reduced from 14 to 5/10,000 with HPV vaccines (high certainty).HPV vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 559 to 391/10,000 (RR 0.70 (0.58 to 0.85, high certainty) and any AIS from 17 to 5/10,000 (RR 0.32 (0.15 to 0.67), high certainty). The reduction in any CIN3+ differed by vaccine type (bivalent vaccine: RR 0.55 (0.43 to 0.71) and quadrivalent vaccine: RR 0.81 (0.69 to 0.96)).In women vaccinated at 24 to 45 years of age, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the risks of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 and any CIN2+ are similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated women (RR 0.74 (0.52 to 1.05) and RR 1.04 (0.83 to 1.30) respectively). No data are reported in this age group for CIN3+ or AIS.Adverse effectsThe risk of serious adverse events is similar between control and HPV vaccines in women of all ages (669 versus 656/10,000, RR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.05), high certainty). Mortality was 11/10,000 in control groups compared with 14/10,000 (9 to 22) with HPV vaccine (RR 1.29 [0.85 to 1.98]; low certainty). The number of deaths was low overall but there is a higher number of deaths in older women. No pattern in the cause or timing of death has been established.Pregnancy outcomesAmong those who became pregnant during the studies, we did not find an increased risk of miscarriage (1618 versus 1424/10,000, RR 0.88 (0.68 to 1.14), high certainty) or termination (931 versus 838/10,000 RR 0.90 (0.80 to 1.02), high certainty). The effects on congenital abnormalities and stillbirths are uncertain (RR 1.22 (0.88 to 1.69), moderate certainty and (RR 1.12 (0.68 to 1.83), moderate certainty, respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 26. The effect is higher for lesions associated with HPV16/18 than for lesions irrespective of HPV type. The effect is greater in those who are negative for hrHPV or HPV16/18 DNA at enrolment than those unselected for HPV DNA status. There is moderate-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines reduce CIN2+ in older women who are HPV16/18 negative, but not when they are unselected by HPV DNA status.We did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects. Although the number of deaths is low overall, there were more deaths among women older than 25 years who received the vaccine. The deaths reported in the studies have been judged not to be related to the vaccine. Increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes after HPV vaccination cannot be excluded, although the risk of miscarriage and termination are similar between trial arms. Long-term of follow-up is needed to monitor the impact on cervical cancer, occurrence of rare harms and pregnancy outcomes.

Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial lesions and early invasive disease.

BACKGROUND: The mean age of women undergoing local treatment for pre-invasive cervical disease (cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia; CIN) or early cervical cancer (stage IA1) is around their 30s and similar to the age of women having their first child. Local cervical treatment has been correlated to adverse reproductive morbidity in a subsequent pregnancy, however, published studies and meta-analyses have reached contradictory conclusions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of local cervical treatment for CIN and early cervical cancer on obstetric outcomes (after 24 weeks of gestation) and to correlate these to the cone depth and comparison group used. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (up to June week 4, 2017) and Embase (up to week 26, 2017). In an attempt to identify articles missed by the search or unpublished data, we contacted experts in the field and we handsearched the references of the retrieved articles and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies reporting on obstetric outcomes (more than 24 weeks of gestation) in women with or without a previous local cervical treatment for any grade of CIN or early cervical cancer (stage IA1). Treatment included both excisional and ablative methods. We excluded studies that had no untreated reference population, reported outcomes in women who had undergone treatment during pregnancy or had a high-risk treated or comparison group, or both DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We classified studies according to the type of treatment and the obstetric endpoint. Studies were classified according to method and obstetric endpoint. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model and inverse variance. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. We assessed maternal outcomes that included preterm birth (PTB) (spontaneous and threatened), preterm premature rupture of the membranes (pPROM), chorioamnionitis, mode of delivery, length of labour, induction of delivery, oxytocin use, haemorrhage, analgesia, cervical cerclage and cervical stenosis. The neonatal outcomes included low birth weight (LBW), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, stillbirth, perinatal mortality and Apgar scores. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies (6,357,823 pregnancies: 65,098 pregnancies of treated and 6,292,725 pregnancies of untreated women). Many of the studies included only small numbers of women, were of heterogenous design and in their majority retrospective and therefore at high risk of bias. Many outcomes were assessed to be of low or very low quality (GRADE assessment) and therefore results should be interpreted with caution. Women who had treatment were at increased overall risk of preterm birth (PTB) (less than 37 weeks) (10.7% versus 5.4%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.57 to 1.96, 59 studies, 5,242,917 participants, very low quality), severe (less than 32 to 34 weeks) (3.5% versus 1.4%, RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.82), 24 studies, 3,793,874 participants, very low quality), and extreme prematurity (less than 28 to 30 weeks) (1.0% versus 0.3%, (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.22, 8 studies, 3,910,629 participants, very low quality), as compared to women who had no treatment.The risk of overall prematurity was higher for excisional (excision versus no treatment: 11.2% versus 5.5%, RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.64 to 2.12, 53 studies, 4,599,416 participants) than ablative (ablation versus no treatment: 7.7% versus 4.6%, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.52, 14 studies, 602,370 participants) treatments and the effect was higher for more radical excisional techniques (less than 37 weeks: cold knife conisation (CKC) (RR 2.70, 95% CI 2.14 to 3.40, 12 studies, 39,102 participants), laser conisation (LC) (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.54, 9 studies, 1509 participants), large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.81, 25 studies, 1,445,104 participants). Repeat treatment multiplied the risk of overall prematurity (repeat versus no treatment: 13.2% versus 4.1%, RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.65 to 5.39, 11 studies, 1,317,284 participants, very low quality). The risk of overall prematurity increased with increasing cone depth (less than 10 mm to 12 mm versus no treatment: 7.1% versus 3.4%, RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.18, 8 studies, 550,929 participants, very low quality; more than 10 mm to 12 mm versus no treatment: 9.8% versus 3.4%, RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.31, 8 studies, 552,711 participants, low quality; more than 15 mm to 17 mm versus no treatment: 10.1 versus 3.4%, RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.93, 4 studies, 544,986 participants, very low quality; 20 mm or more versus no treatment: 10.2% versus 3.4%, RR 4.91, 95% CI 2.06 to 11.68, 3 studies, 543,750 participants, very low quality). The comparison group affected the magnitude of effect that was higher for external, followed by internal comparators and ultimately women with disease, but no treatment. Untreated women with disease and the pre-treatment pregnancies of the women who were treated subsequently had higher risk of overall prematurity than the general population (5.9% versus 5.6%, RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.34, 15 studies, 4,357,998 participants, very low quality).pPROM (6.1% versus 3.4%, RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.17, 21 studies, 477,011 participants, very low quality), low birth weight (7.9% versus 3.7%, RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.07, 30 studies, 1,348,206 participants, very low quality), NICU admission rate (12.6% versus 8.9%, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.81, 8 studies, 2557 participants, low quality) and perinatal mortality (0.9% versus 0.7%, RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.03, 23 studies, 1,659,433 participants, low quality) were also increased after treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women with CIN have a higher baseline risk for prematurity. Excisional and ablative treatment appears to further increases that risk. The frequency and severity of adverse sequelae increases with increasing cone depth and is higher for excision than it is for ablation. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as they were based on low or very low quality (GRADE assessment) observational studies, most of which were retrospective.

Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening has traditionally been based on cervical cytology. Given the aetiological relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis, HPV testing has been proposed as an alternative screening test. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV testing for detecting histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), including adenocarcinoma in situ, in women participating in primary cervical cancer screening; and how it compares to the accuracy of cytological testing (liquid-based and conventional) at various thresholds. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of articles in MEDLINE and Embase (1992 to November 2015) containing quantitative data and handsearched the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included comparative test accuracy studies if all women received both HPV testing and cervical cytology followed by verification of the disease status with the reference standard, if positive for at least one screening test. The studies had to include women participating in a cervical cancer screening programme who were not being followed up for previous cytological abnormalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We completed a 2 x 2 table with the number of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives for each screening test (HPV test and cytology) used in each study. We calculated the absolute and relative sensitivities and the specificities of the tests for the detection of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ at various thresholds and computed sensitivity (TP/(TP + TN) and specificity (TN/ (TN + FP) for each test separately. Relative sensitivity and specificity of one test compared to another test were defined as sensitivity of test-1 over sensitivity of test-2 and specificity of test-1 over specificity of test-2, respectively. To assess bias in the studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. We used a bivariate random-effects model for computing pooled accuracy estimates. This model takes into account the within- and between-study variability and the intrinsic correlation between sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 40 studies in the review, with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old. Many studies were at low risk of bias. There were a sufficient number of included studies with adequate methodology to perform the following test comparisons: hybrid capture 2 (HC2) (1 pg/mL threshold) versus conventional cytology (CC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)+ and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL)+ thresholds) or liquid-based cytology (LBC) (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds), other high-risk HPV tests versus conventional cytology (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds) or LBC (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds). For CIN 2+, pooled sensitivity estimates for HC2, CC and LBC (ASCUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, and pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively. The results did not differ by age of women (less than or greater than 30 years old), or in studies with verification bias. Accuracy of HC2 was, however, greater in European countries compared to other countries. The results for the sensitivity of the tests were heterogeneous ranging from 52% to 94% for LBC, and 61% to 100% for HC2. Overall, the quality of the evidence for the sensitivity of the tests was moderate, and high for the specificity.The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 2+ was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.86) and the relative specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96), and versus LBC for CIN 2+ was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.26) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 3+ was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.91) and the relative specificity 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus LBC for CIN 3+ was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Whilst HPV tests are less likely to miss cases of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+, these tests do lead to more unnecessary referrals. However, a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative cytological test, as the cytological test has a greater chance of being falsely negative, which could lead to delays in receiving the appropriate treatment. Evidence from prospective longitudinal studies is needed to establish the relative clinical implications of these tests.

Immediate referral to colposcopy versus cytological surveillance for minor cervical cytological abnormalities in the absence of HPV test.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of women are diagnosed with minor cytological abnormalities on cervical screening. Many authorities recommend surveillance as spontaneous regression might occur. However, attendance for cytological follow-up decreases with time and might put some women at risk of developing invasive disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the optimum management strategy for women with minor cervical cytological abnormalities (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance - ASCUS or low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions - LSIL) at primary screening in the absence of HPV (human papillomavirus) DNA test. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2 2016) and Embase (1980 to 2016 week 16). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate colposcopy to cytological surveillance in women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS/borderline) or low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions (LSIL/mild dyskaryosis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measure studied was the occurrence of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN). The secondary outcome measures studied included default rate, clinically significant anxiety and depression, and other self-reported adverse effects.We classified studies according to period of surveillance, at 6, 12, 24 or 36 months, as well as at 18 months, excluding a possible exit-examination. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five RCTs with 11,466 participants that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 18 cases of invasive cervical cancer, seven in the immediate colposcopy and 11 in the cytological surveillance groups, respectively. Although immediate colposcopy detects CIN2+ and CIN3+ earlier than cytology, the differences were no longer observed at 24 months (CIN2+: 3 studies, 4331 women; 17.9% versus 18.3%, RR 1.14, CI 0.66 to 1.97; CIN3+: 3 studies, 4331 women; 10.3% versus 11.9%, RR 1.02, CI 0.53 to 1.97). The inter-study heterogeneity was considerable (I2 greater than 90%). Furthermore, the inclusion of the results of the exit examinations at 24 months, which could inflate the CIN detection rate of cytological surveillance, may have led to study design-derived bias; we therefore considered the evidence to be of low quality.When we excluded the exit examination, the detection rate of high-grade lesions at the 18-month follow-up was higher after immediate colposcopy (CIN2+: 2 studies, 4028 women; 14.3% versus 10.1%, RR 1.50, CI 1.12 to 2.01; CIN3+: 2 studies, 4028 women, 7.8% versus 6.9%, RR 1.24, CI 0.77 to 1.98) both had substantial inter-study heterogeneity (I2 greater than 60%) and we considered the evidence to be of moderate quality).The meta-analysis revealed that immediate referral to colposcopy significantly increased the detection of clinically insignificant cervical abnormalities, as opposed to repeat cytology after 24 months of surveillance (occurrence of koilocytosis: 2 studies, 656 women; 32% versus 21%, RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence) incidence of any CIN: 2 studies, 656 women; 64% versus 32%, RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.08, low-quality evidence; incidence of CIN1: 2 studies, 656 women; 21% versus 8%, RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.94, moderate-quality evidence).Due to differences in trial designs and settings, there was large variation in default rates between the included studies. The risk for default was higher for the repeat cytology group, with a four-fold increase at 6 months, a six-fold at 12 and a 19-fold at 24 months (6 months: 3 studies, 5117 women; 6.3% versus 13.3%, RR 3.85, 95% CI 1.27 to 11.63, moderate-quality evidence; 12 months: 3 studies, 5115 women; 6.3% versus 14.8%, RR 6.39, 95% CI 1.49 to 29.29, moderate-quality evidence; 24 months: 3 studies, 4331 women; 0.9% versus 16.1%, RR 19.1, 95% CI 9.02 to 40.43, moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- or moderate-quality evidence using the GRADE approach and generally low risk of bias, the detection rate of CIN2+ or CIN3+ after two years does not appear to differ between immediate colposcopy and cytological surveillance in the absence of HPV testing, although women may default from follow-up. Immediate colposcopy probably leads to earlier detection of high-grade lesions, but also detects more clinically insignificant low-grade lesions. Colposcopy may therefore be the first choice when good compliance is not assured. These results emphasize the need for an accurate reflex HPV triage test to distinguish women who need diagnostic follow-up from those who can return safely to routine recall.

Adjuvant progestagens for endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is the most common genital tract carcinoma among women in developed countries, with most women presenting with stage 1 disease. Adjuvant progestagen therapy has been advocated following primary surgery to reduce the risk of recurrence of disease. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant progestagen therapy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Specilaised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2009. MEDLINE and EMBASE up to April 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of progestagen therapy in women who have had surgery for endometrial cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) comparing survival in women who did and did not receive progestagen were pooled in random effects meta-analyses. . MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials assessing 4556 women were identified. Three trials included women with stage one disease only, whereas four included women with more advanced disease. Meta-analysis of four trials showed that there was no significant difference in the risk of death at five years between adjuvant progestagen therapy and no further treatment (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.18). This conclusion is also robust to single trial analyses at 4 and 7 years and in one trial across all points in time using a hazard ratio (HR). There was also no significant difference between progestagen therapy and control in terms of the risk of death from endometrial cancer, cardiovascular disease and intercurrent disease. Relapse of disease appeared to be reduced by progestagen therapy in one trial (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97 and 5 year RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but there was no evidence of a difference in disease recurrence in another trial at 7 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.27). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the use of adjuvant progestagen therapy in the primary treatment of endometrial cancer.

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

BACKGROUND: World-wide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Increasing the uptake of screening, alongside increasing informed choice is of great importance in controlling this disease through prevention and early detection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical cancer screening. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 1, 2009. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to March 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical cancer screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, counselling, risk factor assessment and procedural interventions. Heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, however, invitations appear to be effective methods of increasing uptake. In addition, there is limited evidence to support the use of educational materials. Secondary outcomes including cost data were incompletely documented so evidence was limited. Most trials were at moderate risk of bias. Informed uptake of cervical screening was not reported in any trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. There is limited evidence to support educational interventions but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies are from developed countries and so the relevance to developing countries is unclear.

Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the immunogenicity, clinical efficacy, and safety of prophylactic HPV vaccines in females. The assessment of clinical efficacy will address protection against HPV infection (for homologous and heterologous HPV types), against re-infection, against cervical cancer and its precursors (high-grade CIN (grade 2 or grade 3), adenocarcinoma in situ) in women previously not exposed to HPV infection (negative at enrolment for both HPV DNA and antibodies against the vaccine HPV types). We will assess clinical effectiveness by evaluating outcomes in all women, irrespective of the HPV DNA or serology status at enrolment. Evaluation by fine age and time since sexual debut categories is also planned.

Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is the most common pre-malignant lesion. Atypical squamous changes occur in the transformation zone of the cervix with mild, moderate or severe changes described by their depth (CIN 1, 2 or 3). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is treated by local ablation or lower morbidity excision techniques. Choice of treatment depends on the grade and extent of the disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative surgical treatments for CIN. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to April 2009). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of alternative surgical treatments in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risks of bias. Risk ratios that compared residual disease after the follow-up examination and adverse events in women who received one of either laser ablation, laser conisation, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), knife conisation or cryotherapy were pooled in random-effects model meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials were included. Seven surgical techniques were tested in various comparisons. No significant differences in treatment failures were demonstrated in terms of persistent disease after treatment. Large loop excision of the transformation zone appeared to provide the most reliable specimens for histology with the least morbidity. Morbidity was lower than with laser conisation, although the trials did not provide data for every outcome measure. There were not enough data to assess the effect on morbidity when compared with laser ablation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that there is no obvious superior surgical technique for treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in terms of treatment failures or operative morbidity.

Interventions for preventing blood loss during the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is the most common pre-malignant lesion. Surgical treatments for CIN are commonly associated with blood loss. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing blood loss during the treatment of CIN. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to April 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vasopressin, tranexamic acid, haemostatic sutures, Amino-Cerv or Monsel's solution in women undergoing surgery for CIN. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios comparing adverse events in women who received one of the interventions were pooled in a random-effects meta-analyses or included in single trial analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (N = 1602, of whom 1512 were assessed) were included.Vasopressin significantly reduced perioperative bleeding (mean difference (MD) = -100.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -129.48 to -72.12) and was associated with a decreased risk of bleeding that required haemostatic sutures or further vasopressin, compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) = 0.39, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.56).Tranexamic acid significantly reduced risk of secondary haemorrhage (RR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50), but not primary haemorrhage (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 38.23) after knife and laser cone biopsy, compared with placebo. There was also a statistically significant reduction in postoperative blood loss compared with placebo (MD = -55.60, 95% CI -94.91 to -16.29).Packing with Monsel's solution resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD = -22.00, 95% CI -23.09 to -20.91) and decreased the risk of dysmenorrhoea (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.84), unsatisfactory colposcopy (RR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.63) and cervical stenosis (RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.49) compared to routine suturing, but was not statistically different to sutures for risk of primary and secondary haemorrhages.Amino-Cerv antibiotic gel failed to make a difference on secondary haemorrhage but was associated with significantly less vaginal discharge at 2 weeks compared with routine care (RR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.86).There was no significant difference in blood loss between women who received ball electrode diathermy and those who received Monsel's paste (MD = 4.82, 95% CI -3.45 to 13.09). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding associated with surgery of the cervix appears to be reduced by vasopressin, used in combination with local anaesthetic. Tranexamic acid appears to be beneficial after knife and laser cone biopsy. There are insufficient data to assess the effects on primary haemorrhage. There is some evidence that haemostatic suturing has an adverse effect on blood loss, cervical stenosis and satisfactory colposcopy.