Research Interests

AKAruna Kamineni
Papers(2)
Assessing Management …Exposure Definition i…
Collaborators(10)
Claudia L. WernerDavid ChengJacquelyn M. LykkenJasmin A TiroJennifer S HaasMeghan L. Rieu-WerdenMichelle I. SilverSarah FeldmanSteven J. AtlasAlejandra Castanon
Institutions(8)
Kaiser Permanente Was…Southwestern Medical …Massachusetts General…Massachusetts General…University Of ChicagoWashington University…Brigham And Womens Ho…Lane Clark & Peacock …

Papers

Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings

Abstract Background: Follow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up. Methods: We identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology) among women of ages 25 to 65 years at three US healthcare systems during 2010 to 2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines. Results: Among 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/human papillomavirus–negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and 90% for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%, respectively. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese body mass index, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured. Conclusions: Adherence to the recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, although suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities. Impact: There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to the appropriate management of cervical abnormalities.

Exposure Definition in Case–Control Studies of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of cervical screening is defining exposure to screening. Our aim was to describe the spectrum of screening exposure definitions used in studies of the effectiveness of cervical screening. This systematic review included case-control studies in a population-based screening setting. Outcome was incidence of cervical cancer. Three electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2012 to December 6, 2018. Articles prior to 2012 were identified from a previous review. The qualitative synthesis focused on describing screening exposure definitions reported in the literature and the methodologic differences that could have an impact on the association between screening and cervical cancer. Forty-one case–control studies were included. Six screening exposure definitions were identified. Cervical cancer risk on average decreased by 66% when screening exposure was defined as ever tested, by 77% by time since last negative test, and by 79% after two or more previous tests. Methodologic differences included composition of the reference group and whether diagnostic and/or symptomatic tests were excluded from the analysis. Consensus guidelines to standardize exposure definitions are needed to ensure evaluations of cervical cancer screening can accurately measure the impact of transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus–based screening and to allow comparisons between programs.

2Papers
10Collaborators
Early Detection of CancerColorectal NeoplasmsPapillomavirus InfectionsNeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsDisease ProgressionLung Neoplasms