WHO Cervical Cancer Guidelines PDF

WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention, second edition  WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer preventi...

WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention, second edition  WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention, second edition < Previous page Next page > WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention, second edition ISBN 978-92-4-003082-4 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-003083-1 (print version) © World Health Organization 2021 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules/). Suggested citation. WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention, second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing. Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user. General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use. Layout and design: Studio FFFOG. < Previous page Next page >  Contents iii Contents Acknowledgements  v Acronyms and abbreviations  vii Executive summary  viii Background  viii Methods  viii Summary of screening and treatment recommendations to prevent cervical cancer x 1. Introduction  1 1.1 Background  1 1.2 Approaches to screening and treatment  3 1.3 Rationale for this new edition of recommendations  4 1.4 Phased approach for the development of the recommendations  5 1.5 Target audience  6 2. Methods  7 2.1 Groups contributing to the guideline development process  7 2.2 Scoping review and appraisal of the existing recommendations  9 2.3 Priority questions for review of evidence  10 2.4 Priority algorithms  11 2.5 Outcomes  11 2.6 Syntheses of evidence  12 2.7 Development of the recommendations  18 2.8 Management of the external peer review  19 3. Important considerations for the recommendations  20 3.1 Programme considerations  20 3.2 Screening and triage tests considered in this guideline  21 3.3 Treatment considerations  23 < Previous page Next page >  Contents iv 4. Recommendations and good practice statements on screening and  24 treatment to prevent cervical cancer 4.1 Recommendations and good practice statements:  24 general population of women  4.2 Recommendations and good practice statements: women living with HIV  31 4.3 Additional recommendation and good practice statement  38 for treatment not covered in previous guidelines for the general population of women and women living with HIV  5. Research gaps and further considerations  39 6. Dissemination and updating of the guideline  41 6.1 Guideline dissemination and impact  41 6.2 Guideline update  42 References  43 Annexes  47 Annex 1: Guideline groups  48 Annex 2: Evidence-gathering teams and guideline task groups  58 Annex 3: Declarations of interests  60 Annex 4: Seven algorithms prioritized for Phase 1 of the guideline update  63 Annex 5: Standardized definitions used in this guideline  73 Annex 6: Additional information for screening and treatment  95 recommendations ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIALS AVAILABLE ONLINE: Web annex A: Syntheses of the evidence Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342366/9789240030886-eng.pdf (Includes IARC handbook materials and Supplementary materials 1–13) Web annex B: Evidence-to-decision (EtD) tables Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342367/9789240030893-eng.pdf (Includes EtD for PICO questions 1–10) < Previous page Next page >  Acknowledgements v Acknowledgements The Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research and the Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections Programmes at the World Health Organization (WHO) would like to thank members of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) for their consistent availability and commitment to making this guideline possible, and the members of the External Review Group (ERG) and all other external contributors for their work. The Departments are also grateful to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for the literature reviews performed in the context of the updating of the IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: cervical cancer screening, Vol. 18 (2021), which were extremely useful for this guideline development process. Special thanks to Nancy Santesso, the guideline methodologist from McMaster University, who also led the systematic review process, and thank you to all the members of the systematic reviews teams, coordinated by Nancy Santesso. The names of the members of the GDG, ERG and of the other contributors, in particular systematic reviewers, modellers and costing teams, are listed below, with full details provided in Annex 1. We appreciate the overall support of the WHO Guidelines Review Committee Secretariat during the guideline development process, with grateful thanks to Rebekah Thomas Bosco who is leading the GRC Secretariat. The WHO Steering Group was composed of Nathalie Broutet, Shona Dalal, Linda Eckert (who also supported the GDG, the workgroups, and the WHO Secretariat), Morkor Newman and Ajay Rangaraj. This group was assisted by Myriam Cortes and Jane Werunga-Ndanareh. Nathalie Broutet and Shona Dalal also led the guideline development process. The members of the GDG were Claire Achieng, Silvina Arrossi, Muhammad Atif Waqar, Ruth Awori, Ruanne Barnabas, Itamar Bento Claro, Neerja Bhatla, Marie-Claude Boily, Laia Bruni, Joanna Cain, Lameck Chinula, Mike Chirenje (GDG Co-Chair), Michael Chung, Flavia Miranda Correa, Miriam Cremer, Teresa Darragh, Lynette Denny, Silvia de Sanjose, Mamadou Diop, Wachara Eamratsameekool, Danielle Engel, Julia Gage, Ali Ghanbari-Motlagh, Patti Gravitt, Margaret Happy, Tarek Hashem, Rolando Herrero, Priscilla Ingbian, Ebony Johnson, Sharon Kapambwe, Bayarsaikhan Luvsandorj, Anne Mackie, Mauricio Maza, Sebitloane Motshedisi, Nelly Mugo, Raul Murillo, Laura Muzingwani, Ashrafun Nessa, Dorcas Obiri-Yeboah, Gina Ogilvie, Patrick Petignat, Maria Alejandra Picconi, Leeya Pinder, Walter Prendiville, Veronica Reis, Gracia Violetta Ross Quiroga, Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, Pete Sasieni, Anna Shakarishvili, Netsanet Shiferaw, Petra Tenhoope-Bender, Myint Myint Thinn, Julie Torode (GDG Co-Chair), Nicolas Wentzensen and Fanghui Zhao. The members of the ERG were Raveena Chowdhury, Heather Cubie, Suzanne Garland, Sarita Ghimire, Zaki El Hanchi, Ha Hyeong In, Oh Jin-Kyoung, Alejandra Meglioli, Mohammed Moawia, Lim Myong Cheol, Angélica Nogueira, Mark Schiffman, Saritha Shamsunder, Vanita Suri, Carolina Teran, Ted Trimble, Gino Venegas and Heather White. External contributors to the evidence profiles were Marc Arbyn, Ruanne Barnabas, Iacopo Baussano, Marie-Claude Boily, Veronique Bouvard, Karen Canfell, Michael Caruana, Ian Cree, Owen Demke, Cindy Gauvreau, Michaela Hall, Eva Herweijer, Iciar Indave, Adam Keane, Helen Kelly, < Previous page Next page >  Acknowledgements vi James Killen, Gigi Lui, Diep Nguyen, Bernardo Nuche, Catherine Sauvaget, Holger Schünemann, Kate Simms, Ronaldo Silva, Karin Sundström, Katayoun Thaghavi, Cari van Schalkwyk and Brian Williams. The following individuals acted as observers at the GDG meeting: Benjamin Anderson, J. (Hans) Berkhof, Smiljka de Lussigny, Eduardo Franco, Lisa Pei-Ching Huang, Krishna Jafa, Jose Jeronimo, Somesh Kumar, Ilana Lapidos-Salaiz, David Mesher, Jasantha Odayar, Groesbeck Parham, Carmen Pérez Casas, Felipe Roitberg and Heather Watts. The WHO Secretariat included Maribel Almonte Pacheco, Prebo Barango, Partha Basu, Paul Bloem, Nathalie Broutet, Gary Clifford, Marilys Corbex, Myriam Cortes, Shona Dalal, Jean-Marie Dangou, Maeve De Mello, Gampo Dorji, Linda Eckert, Fayad El Sheikh, Elena Fidarova, Massimo Ghidinelli, Karima Gholbzouri, Rodolfo Gomez Ponce de Leon, Sami Gottlieb, Joumana George Hermez, Raymond Hutubessy, Andre Ilbawi, Naoko Ishikawa, Chandani Anoma Jayathilaka, Rajat Khosla, Warrick Junsuk Kim, Stephanie Yetunde Kuku, Hugues Lago, Beatrice Lauby-Secretan, Silvana Luciani, Priya Mannava, Dara Masoud, Manjulaa Narasimhan, Morkor Newman, Leopold Ouedraogo, Tina Purnat, Neena Raina, Ajay Rangaraj, Leanne Margaret Riley, Anita Sands, Tshidi Sebitloane, Mukta Sharma, Hai-rim Shin, Slim Slama, Vitaly Smelov, Howard Sobel, Ute Ströher, Adriana Velazquez Berumen, Lara Vojnov and Hongyi Xu. Funding for the preparation, development and printing of the guideline was provided mainly by the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), with the support of the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and Unitaid. This guideline was edited and proofread by Green Ink. < Previous page Next page >  Acronyms and abbreviations vii Acronyms and abbreviations AIS adenocarcinoma in situ ART antiretroviral therapy CIN cervical intraepithelial neoplasia CKC cold knife conization DOI declaration of interest ERG External Review Group EtD evidence-to-decision GDG Guideline Development Group GRC Guidelines Review Committee GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation HPV human papillomavirus HRP UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer IPD-MA individual patient data meta-analysis LEEP loop electrosurgical excision procedure (also known as LLETZ) LLETZ large-loop excision of the transformation zone (also known as LEEP) NAAT nucleic acid amplification test PEPFAR The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief PICO population (P), intervention (I), comparator (C), outcome (O) SDG Sustainable Development Goal UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development VIA visual inspection with acetic acid WHO World Health Organization < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary viii Executive summary Background Cervical cancer is a leading cause of mortality among women. In 2020, an estimated 604 000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and about 342 000 women died from the disease. Cervical cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in 23 countries and is the leading cause of cancer death in 36 countries. The vast majority of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, Melanesia, South America, and South-Eastern Asia. In May 2018, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, issued a call to action for the elimination of cervical cancer. In November 2020, the Director-General launched the Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer, including the following targets for each of the three pillars for 2030: 90% human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage of eligible girls, 70% screening coverage with a high-performance test and 90% of women with a positive screening test or a cervical lesion managed appropriately. Following the launch of the global strategy, a large panel of experts met to define the key areas of focus to increase access to screening and treatment to reach the 2030 targets. One of the agreed areas of focus was to update the existing WHO recommendations for screening and treatment to prevent cervical cancer, and to simplify the algorithms. Methods This updated guideline for screening and treatment to prevent cervical cancer was developed in three steps: 1. Review the current guidelines and identify recommendations to update or to develop de novo. 2. Develop questions based on population (P), intervention (I), comparator (C) and outcomes (O) (PICO questions) for the recommendations and conduct new systematic reviews or update those conducted for the previous guideline, and model outcomes when primary research was not available. 3. Apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to assess the certainty of evidence and to develop recommendations using evidence-to-decision (EtD) tables. < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary ix The Guideline Development Group (GDG) for this guideline was formed in early 2019, and the GDG, WHO Secretariat, methodologists and technical groups (see Annex 1) met several times to establish the PICO questions, methodology and timeline. The WHO Secretariat led and coordinated the whole process to ensure recommendations were developed in line with the WHO handbook for guideline development, second edition (2014). The methods for evidence synthesis and mathematical modelling were used as applied in the previous edition of the guideline, WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. Based on clinical expertise, research and knowledge of tests in development, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) initially identified the screening tests and clinical algorithms for screening and treatment that could be evaluated. The GDG prioritized seven algorithms for evaluation, and these informed the systematic reviews. In 2020, the systematic review teams performed the systematic reviews for each of the PICO questions and, in parallel, the systematic reviews that had been prepared for the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: cervical cancer screening, Vol. 18 (2021) were integrated for the development of these recommendations. When relevant evidence was not available in primary research, a mathematical model was used to estimate the risk of important outcomes (e.g. recurrence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN], cervical cancer) associated with the use of different screening and treatment strategies. In addition, a modelling group was created to evaluate the impact and cost–effectiveness of the different screening and treatment algorithms. Furthermore, we searched the published literature for studies providing information on acceptability, feasibility and costing aspects of these algorithms, and conducted a survey on feasibility and values and preferences of people using these services. GDG meetings took place on a weekly basis between August 2020 and November 2020 to review and assess the evidence and agree on the final new and updated recommendations and good practice statements presented in this guideline. Screening and treatment approaches In the “screen-and-treat approach”, the decision to treat is based on a positive primary screening test only. In the “screen, triage and treat approach”, the decision to treat is based on a positive primary screening test followed by a positive second test (a “triage” test), with or without histologically confirmed diagnosis. < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary x Summary of screening and treatment recommendations to prevent cervical cancer In this present publication, there is a total of 23 recommendations and 7 good practice statements. Among the 23 recommendations, 6 are identical for both the general population of women and for women living with HIV and 12 are different and specific for each population. Among the 7 good practice statements, 3 are identical for both the general population of women and for women living with HIV and 2 are different and specific for each population. In Table 1 below we have grouped the recommendations and good practice statements in two columns for the general population of women (left column, nos. 1–14) and for women living with HIV (right column, nos. 21–34), while in Table 2, the populations are not separated (nos. 41 and 42).1 There are currently 11 recommendations and 3 good practice statements for each population in Table 1, and an additional recommendation and good practice statement for both populations in Table 2. 1 There are gaps in these numbers because WHO intends to issue additional recommendations soon on screening tests and implemen- tation, which will be numbered as needed (expected to be 15–20 for the general population of women and 35–40 for women living with HIV). < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary xi Table 1. Screening and treatment recommendations and good practice statements for the general population of women and women living with HIV Strength of Strength of Recommendations for the general population of recommendation recommendation Recommendations for women living with HIVa womena and level of and level of evidence evidence 1. WHO recommends using HPV DNA detection as the Strong 21. WHO recommends using HPV DNA detection as Strong primary screening test rather than VIA or cytology in recommendation, the primary screening test rather than VIA or cytology recommendation, screening and treatment approaches among both the moderate- in screening and treatment approaches among both moderate general population of women and women living with certainty evidence the general population of women and women living certainty of HIV. with HIV. evidence Remarks: Existing programmes with quality-assured Remarks: Existing programmes with quality-assured cytology as the primary screening test should be cytology as the primary screening test should be continued until HPV DNA testing is operational; existing continued until HPV DNA testing is operational; existing programmes using VIA as the primary screening programmes using VIA as the primary screening test should transition rapidly because of the inherent test should transition rapidly because of the inherent challenges with quality assurance. challenges with quality assurance. 2. WHO suggests using an HPV DNA primary Conditional 22. WHO suggests using an HPV DNA primary Conditional screening test either with triage or without triage to recommendation, screening test with triage rather than without triage recommendation, prevent cervical cancer among the general population moderate- to prevent cervical cancer among women living with moderate of women. certainty evidence HIV. certainty of evidence a Rows shaded in blue indicate that the recommendation or good practice statement is identical for both the general population of women (left column) and women living with HIV (right column). In other rows, the wording of the recommendations differs for each population. < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary xii Strength of Strength of Recommendations for the general population of recommendation recommendation Recommendations for women living with HIVa womena and level of and level of evidence evidence 3a. In a screen-and-treat approach using HPV Conditional Conditional DNA detection as the primary screening test, WHO recommendation, recommendation, suggests treating women who test positive for HPV moderate- moderate- DNA among the general population of women. certainty evidence certainty evidence 3b. In a screen, triage and treat approach using 23. In a screen, triage and treat approach using HPV DNA detection as the primary screening test HPV DNA detection as the primary screening test among the general population of women, WHO among women living with HIV, WHO suggests using suggests using partial genotyping, colposcopy, VIA or partial genotyping, colposcopy, VIA or cytology to cytology to triage women after a positive HPV DNA triage women after a positive HPV DNA test (Annex 4). test (Annex 4). Remarks: The benefits, harms and programmatic costs Remarks: The benefits, harms and programmatic costs of the triage options are similar; therefore, the choice of the triage options are similar; therefore, the choice of triage method will be dependent on feasibility, of triage method will be dependent on feasibility, training, programme quality assurance and resources training, programme quality assurance and resources in countries. HPV16/18 genotyping could be integrated in countries. HPV16/18 genotyping could be integrated into the HPV DNA test (refer to Annex 4 for specific into the HPV DNA test (refer to Annex 4 for specific details of the algorithms). details of the algorithms). 4. When providing HPV DNA testing, WHO suggests Conditional 24. When providing HPV DNA testing, WHO suggests Conditional using either samples taken by a health-care provider recommendation, using either samples taken by a health-care provider recommendation, or self-collected samples among both the general low-certainty or self-collected samples among both the general low-certainty population of women and women living with HIV. evidence population of women and women living with HIV. evidence 5. WHO recommends starting regular cervical cancer Strong 25. WHO suggests starting regular cervical cancer Conditional screening at the age of 30 years among the general recommendation, screening at the age of 25 years among women living recommendation, population of women. moderate- with HIV. low-certainty certainty evidence evidence Remarks: Low-certainty evidence found that there are likely to be small numbers of women living with HIV with cervical cancer who are below the age of 25. This recommendation applies to women living with HIV regardless of when they first tested positive for HIV. < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary xiii Strength of Strength of Recommendations for the general population of recommendation recommendation Recommendations for women living with HIVa womena and level of and level of evidence evidence 6. After the age of 50 years, WHO suggests screening Conditional 26. After the age of 50 years, WHO suggests screening Conditional is stopped after two consecutive negative screening recommendation, is stopped after two consecutive negative screening recommendation, results consistent with the recommended regular low-certainty results consistent with the recommended regular very low-certainty screening intervals among both the general population evidence screening intervals among both the general population evidence of women and women living with HIV. of women and women living with HIV. Remarks: Neither VIA nor ablative treatment are Remarks: Neither VIA nor ablative treatment are suitable for screening or treatment of women in whom suitable for screening or treatment of women in whom the transformation zone is not visible. Inadequate the transformation zone is not visible. Inadequate visualization is typical after the menopause. visualization is typical after the menopause. 7. Priority should be given to screening women aged Good practice 27. Priority should be given to screening women living Good practice 30–49 years in the general population of women. statement with HIV aged 25–49 years. When tools are available statement When tools are available to manage women aged to manage women living with HIV aged 50–65 years, 50–65 years, those in that age bracket who have never those in that age bracket who have never been been screened should also be prioritized. screened should also be prioritized. 8. WHO suggests a regular screening interval of every Conditional 28. WHO suggests a regular screening interval of Conditional 5 to 10 years when using HPV DNA detection as the recommendation, every 3 to 5 years when using HPV DNA detection recommendation, primary screening test among the general population low-certainty as the primary screening test among women living low-certainty of women. evidence with HIV. evidence 9. Where HPV DNA testing is not yet operational, Conditional 29. Where HPV DNA testing is not yet operational, Conditional WHO suggests a regular screening interval of every recommendation, WHO suggests a regular screening interval of every recommendation, 3 years when using VIA or cytology as the primary low-certainty 3 years when using VIA or cytology as the primary low-certainty screening test, among both the general population of evidence screening test, among both the general population of evidence women and women living with HIV. women and women living with HIV. a Rows shaded in blue indicate that the recommendation or good practice statement is identical for both the general population of women (left column) and women living with HIV (right column). In other rows, the wording of the recommendations differs for each population. < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary xiv Strength of Strength of Recommendations for the general population of recommendation recommendation Recommendations for women living with HIVa womena and level of and level of evidence evidence 10. While transitioning to a programme with a Good practice 30. While transitioning to a programme with a Good practice recommended regular screening interval, screening statement recommended regular screening interval, screening statement even just twice in a lifetime is beneficial among both even just twice in a lifetime is beneficial among both the general population of women and women living the general population of women and women living with HIV. with HIV. 11. WHO suggests that the general population of Conditional 31. WHO suggests that women living with HIV who Conditional women who have screened positive on an HPV DNA recommendation, have screened positive on an HPV DNA primary recommendation, primary screening test and then negative on a triage low-certainty screening test and then negative on a triage test, are low-certainty test are retested with HPV DNA testing at 24 months evidence retested with HPV DNA testing at 12 months and, if evidence and, if negative, move to the recommended regular negative, move to the recommended regular screening screening interval. interval. 12. WHO suggests that women from the general Conditional 32. WHO suggests that women from the general Conditional population and women living with HIV who have recommendation, population and women living with HIV who have recommendation, screened positive on a cytology primary screening low-certainty screened positive on a cytology primary screening low-certainty test and then have normal results on colposcopy are evidence test and then have normal results on colposcopy are evidence retested with HPV DNA testing at 12 months and, if retested with HPV DNA testing at 12 months and, if negative, move to the recommended regular screening negative, move to the recommended regular screening interval. interval. 13. WHO suggests that women from the general Conditional 33. WHO suggests that women living with HIV who Conditional population who have been treated for histologically recommendation, have been treated for histologically confirmed CIN2/3 recommendation, confirmed CIN2/3 or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), low-certainty or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), or treated as a result low-certainty or treated as a result of a positive screening test evidence of a positive screening test are retested at 12 months evidence are retested at 12 months with HPV DNA testing with HPV DNA testing when available, rather than when available, rather than with cytology or VIA or with cytology or VIA or co-testing, and, if negative, are co-testing, and, if negative, move to the recommended retested again at 12 months and, if negative again, regular screening interval. move to the recommended regular screening interval. a Rows shaded in blue indicate that the recommendation or good practice statement is identical for both the general population of women (left column) and women living with HIV (right column). In other rows, the wording of the recommendations differs for each population. < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary xv Strength of Strength of Recommendations for the general population of recommendation recommendation Recommendations for women living with HIVa womena and level of and level of evidence evidence 14. As programmes introduce HPV DNA testing, use Good practice 34. As programmes introduce HPV DNA testing, use Good practice this test at the woman’s next routine screening date statement this test at the woman’s next routine screening date statement regardless of the test that was used at prior screening. regardless of the test that was used at prior screening. In existing programmes with cytology or VIA as the In existing programmes with cytology or VIA as the primary screening test, rescreening with the same primary screening test, rescreening with the same test should be continued until HPV DNA testing is test should be continued until HPV DNA testing is operational among both the general population of operational among both the general population of women and women living with HIV. women and women living with HIV. Table 2. Recommendation and good practice statement for treatment not covered in previous guidelines Strength of recommendation and For both the general population and women living with HIV certainty of evidence 41. Once a decision to treat a woman is made – whether from the general population of women or women living Good practice statement with HIV – it is good practice to treat as soon as possible within six months to reduce the risk of loss to follow-up. However, in women who are pregnant, good practice includes deferral until after pregnancy. In circumstances when treatment is not provided within this time frame, it is good practice to re-evaluate the woman before treatment. 42. WHO suggests large-loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) or cold knife conization (CKC) Conditional recommendation, for women from the general population and women living with HIV who have histologically confirmed low-certainty evidence adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). Remarks: Loop excision may be preferred in women of reproductive age, in settings with greater availability of LLETZ and by providers with greater expertise performing LLETZ. CKC may be preferred when interpretation of the margins of the histological specimen is imperative. HPV: human papillomavirus; VIA: visual inspection with acetic acid. a Rows shaded in blue indicate that the recommendation or good practice statement is identical for both the general population of women (left column) and women living with HIV (right column). In other rows, the wording of the recommendations differs for each population. < Previous page Next page >  Executive Summary xvi Summary recommendation for the general population of women WHO suggests using either of the following strategies for cervical cancer prevention among the general population of women: HPV DNA detection in a screen-and-treat approach starting at the age of 30 years with regular screening every 5 to 10 years. HPV DNA detection in a screen, triage and treat approach starting at the age of 30 years with regular screening every 5 to 10 years. Summary recommendation for women living with HIV WHO suggests using the following strategy for cervical cancer prevention among women living with HIV: HPV DNA detection in a screen, triage and treat approach starting at the age of 25 years with regular screening every 3 to 5 years. < Previous page Next page >  Introduction 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Cervical cancer is a leading cause of mortality among women. In 2020, an estimated 604 000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and about 342 000 women died from the disease. Cervical cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in 23 countries and is the leading cause of cancer death in 36 countries. The vast majority of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, Melanesia, South America, and South-Eastern Asia (1). In May 2018, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), issued a call to action for the elimination of cervical cancer. A WHO global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem was presented and unanimously endorsed by the Seventy-third World Health Assembly in August 2020. Subsequently, WHO officially launched the Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer on 17 November 2020. 2 The targets of the global strategy are, by 2030: to vaccinate 90% of eligible girls against HPV; to screen 70% of eligible women at least twice in their lifetimes; and to effectively treat 90% of those with a positive screening test or a cervical lesion, including palliative care when needed (2). In the context of this global strategy, countries are updating their protocols for the prevention of cervical cancer and for the care and treatment of affected women. Cervical cancer prevention also plays an integral role in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both for health (SDG 3) and gender equality (SDG 5). To prevent cervical cancer, women can be screened using various tests to identify those who have or are at risk of cervical pre-cancer (see Table 1.1). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is characterized by cellular changes in the transformation zone of the cervix. CIN is typically caused by infections with human papillomavirus (HPV), especially the high-risk HPV types such as strains 16 and 18 (these two strains cause more than 70% of cervical cancers) (3,4). CIN1 lesions – also referred to as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions– are morphological correlates of HPV infections. CIN2/3 lesions – also referred to as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions – are correlates of cervical pre-cancers that, if left untreated, may progress into cervical cancer (for further details, refer to Chapter 1 of WHO’s Comprehensive cervical cancer control guidance ). 2 Launch page: https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2020/11/17/default-calendar/launch-of-the-global-strategy-to-accelerate- the-elimination-of-cervical-cancer < Previous page Next page >  Introduction 2 Table 1.1 Three approaches to cervical cancer screening and future tests Molecular Cytologic Visual inspection Nucleic acid amplification Conventional Pap smeara Visual inspection with tests (NAAT)a acetic acid or with Lugol’s » high-risk HPV DNA/ Liquid-based cytology iodine (VIA/VILI)a NAAT (LBC)a » naked eye » mRNA » magnified by Dual staining to identify p16 colposcope or camera DNA methylation b and Ki-67a Automated visual Protein biomarkersb evaluation of digital » HPV antibodies imagesb » oncoproteins a Current tests b Tests under evaluation (future tests). The traditional method to screen women for cervical cancer has been cytology (the Papanicolaou test, also known as the Pap smear or smear test). When cytology results are positive, the diagnosis is confirmed by colposcopy, and appropriate treatment is informed by biopsy of suspicious lesions for histological diagnosis. In countries with effective cytology-based cervical cancer screening and treatment programmes, the mortality from cervical cancer has been reduced fivefold over the past 50 years (6). This screening approach has not been as successful in low- and middle-income countries (7). Newer screening tests introduced in the last 15 years include visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), and molecular tests, mainly high-risk HPV DNA-based tests,3 which are suitable for use in all settings (Table 1.1). More recently, even newer tests and techniques have been developed: (i) other molecular tests such as those based on HPV mRNA, oncoprotein detection or DNA methylation; (ii) more objective tests performed on cytological samples such as p16/Ki-67 dual staining; and (iii) more advanced visual inspection tests based on artificial intelligence/machine learning platforms (e.g. automated visual evaluation of digital images) (8–11). 3 In this guideline, “an HPV DNA test” refers to a high-risk HPV DNA test. An HPV DNA test is a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). < Previous page Next page >  Introduction 3 1.2 Approaches to screening and treatment In this document, two approaches to screening and treatment are distinguished: the screen-and-treat approach and the screen, triage and treat approach. Screening and treatment approaches In the “screen-and-treat approach”, the decision to treat is based on a positive primary screening test only. In the “screen, triage and treat approach”, the decision to treat is based on a positive primary screening test followed by a positive second test (a “triage” test), with or without histologically confirmed diagnosis. In a screen-and-treat approach, treatment is provided based on a positive primary screening test alone, without triage (i.e. no second screening test and no histopathological diagnosis). When the patient is eligible for ablative treatment, this should ideally be done immediately, at the same visit as the screening test (the single-visit approach). At some facilities, this is not feasible and a second visit is needed (the multiple-visit approach). Women who are not eligible for ablation can have excisional treatment on the same day if the clinic has the capacity for large-loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ).4 If LLETZ is not available on-site, women need to be referred for the excisional treatment or for further evaluation. In a screen, triage and treat approach, the triage test is done if the primary screening test is positive, and the decision to treat is made when both the primary test and the triage test are positive. A positive triage test can lead to colposcopy with biopsy and histopathological examination for diagnosis to determine the appropriate treatment. The implementation of colposcopy and biopsy can be challenging, however, so this guideline also considers triage strategies that are not dependent on the availability of colposcopy. When the primary screening test is positive, and the triage test is negative, women need appropriate follow-up evaluation at a specified date according to the recommendations. 4 In this guideline, the term LLETZ is used to refer to excision of the transformation zone. In some countries, this terminology was changed to LEEP (loop electrosurgical excision procedure), and the two terms are often used interchangeably. < Previous page Next page >  Introduction 4 1.3 Rationale for this new edition of recommendations Recommendations for screening and treatment to prevent cervical cancer, including for women living with HIV, can be found in four existing WHO guidelines – on screening and treatment of pre-cancer lesions, treatment for CIN2/3 and AIS, cryotherapy for CIN, and thermal ablation for pre-cancer lesions (12–15). These recommendations (except for those on thermal ablation, published later in 2019) were consolidated in the 2014 second edition of Comprehensive cervical cancer control: a guide to essential practice (5), which also includes the WHO recommendations for HPV vaccination, treatment of cervical cancer and palliative care. In 2020, WHO published guidance documents to support the introduction and scale-up of screening and treatment interventions, specifically relating to HPV testing and relevant medical devices (16,17). Guidelines should be updated when new knowledge or developments could materially influence existing recommendations. They should also be updated when the publication date, presentation, background text, evidence synthesis methods, or evidence-to-decision (EtD) considerations might threaten their credibility. In addition, end-user feedback might highlight recommendations that are conflicting, ambiguous, out-of-date or difficult to implement, thus also necessitating an update. The overwhelming approval of the WHO global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer by Member States during the World Health Assembly in 2020 underlined the urgent need to provide up-to-date WHO guidance on screening and treatment to prevent cervical cancer. The WHO guidance on the recommended algorithms and treatments for use in screening and treatment programmes for cervical cancer prevention, previously published in 2013, was assessed as in need of an update, to effectively guide and facilitate country-level decision-making for starting and scaling up programmes. The updating of this guideline began in 2019 and was informed by implementation experience and research findings, while ensuring that the new and updated recommendations are feasible and acceptable for both the health workers providing the screening and treatment services, and for the end-users of those services (see Chapter 2: Methods). This guideline will support efforts to reach the 2030 targets of the global strategy. Guideline objective: To improve national strategies for screening and treatment to prevent cervical cancer in all women, including women living with HIV. < Previous page Next page >  Introduction 5 Since the publication of the previous edition of this guideline in 2013 (12), HPV screening tests have been pre-qualified by WHO, and thermal ablation and cryotherapy have been added as recommended ablative treatment methods. Some interventions described in the 2013 guideline, such as cytology or the need for histological diagnosis, may no longer be relevant or commonly used in the screening and treatment protocols of many countries. Several high-quality studies have been published in the intervening years evaluating new tests, comparative recurrence rates after treatments and appropriate screening intervals. New information is also available concerning women living with HIV, on the type of screening and treatment and the age at which to start screening. This guideline also aims to clarify the optimal number of lifetime screens and, for countries with routine screening programmes, the recommended age for the first screening and the recommended frequency of subsequent screening following negative screening results and following treatment for signs of pre-cancer lesions. 1.4 Phased approach for the development of the recommendations The following are the four phases of the updates to WHO’s cervical cancer screening and treatment recommendations. This guideline delivers the output of Phase 1. Update the recommendations on screening and treatment and the clinical algorithms for the most commonly used Phase 1 screening and triage strategies for both women in general and those living with HIV. Evaluate the evidence for the clinical algorithms that were not Phase 2 prioritized in Phase 1. Develop recommendations for the implementation of these Phase 3 screening and treatment strategies. Establish a “living guideline” for screening and treatment tests Phase 4 and algorithms which will allow the recommendations to be updated as new evidence becomes available and is evaluated. < Previous page Next page >  Introduction 6 1.5 Target audience This document is intended primarily for policy-makers, programme managers, programme officers and other professionals in the health sector who have responsibility for choosing strategies for cervical cancer prevention, at country, regional and district levels. Health-care professionals – such as doctors, nurses and community health workers working in reproductive health programmes, antenatal and postnatal services, family planning services, HIV/AIDS control programmes and in clinics that care for women at the district and primary health care levels – may also consult this document to understand how recommendations are developed and why it is vitally important to select and implement evidence-based strategies to prevent cervical cancer. This document will also be informative in an adapted form for women, girls and their families in making decisions about cervical cancer screening and treatment. All individuals have the right to equality and non-discrimination in sexual and reproductive health care. In this guideline, we recognize that most of the available evidence on cervical cancer is based on study populations of cisgender women, and we also recognize that cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary, gender fluid and intersex individuals born with a female reproductive system require cervical cancer prevention services. However, to be concise and facilitate readability, we use the term “women” to refer to all gender diverse people at risk for cervical cancer. Sexual and reproductive health service providers and cervical cancer prevention services must consider the needs of – and provide equal care to – all individuals independently of gender identity or its expression. < Previous page Next page >  Methods 7 2. Methods This updated guideline was developed in accordance with the methods described in the WHO handbook for guideline development, second edition (18). A summary of the process is provided here. 2.1 Groups contributing to the guideline development process Lists of all members of the Guideline Development Group (GDG), External Review Group (ERG), systematic review teams, modelling teams and other contributors are provided in Annex 1, with details of their expertise and affiliations. The WHO Secretariat consisted of staff from various relevant WHO departments, and staff from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The Steering Group of the WHO Secretariat led the coordination of the development of this guideline. Members of the Secretariat who were not part of the Steering Group were kept informed of the guideline development process and participated in the discussions, in particular during meetings of the various teams. The GDG was established during the first half of 2019 to appraise the recommendations in the previous 2013 edition of the guideline (12), prioritize the key PICO questions for which systematic reviews needed to be updated or developed, provide feedback on the evidence reviews, and make recommendations to be presented in the final guideline. There were 52 GDG members (34 women, 18 men), representing all six WHO regions as well as civil society organizations and women’s groups, and women living with HIV. The members brought varied expertise on cervical screening and treatment. Two members acted as co-chairs and moderated the GDG meetings. The WHO Steering Group met regularly with the GDG chairs, the guideline methodologists, and the systematic review and modelling teams to review progress and to ensure evidence presentations and discussions were standardized. An External Review Group (ERG) was also established. Its 18 members, none of whom was also a member of the GDG, had expertise in research, policy development, programme implementation and clinical care. Once the GDG had agreed on the recommendations, the ERG reviewed the full draft of the guideline and provided feedback. There were multiple teams preparing evidence: five teams did the evidence reviews one team developed two mathematical models one team ran a survey about the feasibility of screening approaches one team surveyed women about their values and preferences (Annex 2). < Previous page Next page >  Methods 8 The teams were based at different institutions and worked independently to prepare and present evidence during the GDG meetings. A guideline methodologist with experience of using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (19) coordinated the presentation of evidence and decision-making processes that facilitated the development of the recommendations, as stipulated in the WHO handbook for guideline development (18). The WHO Steering Group maintained close communication with the GDG and systematic review teams using multiple platforms: Zoom Meetings; email; surveys and voting on the summaries of the evidence and recommendations using GRADEpro software; a SharePoint site for access to meeting materials, including slides and evidence summaries, and live documents for comment; a chat feature in SharePoint to encourage discussion among the GDG members. 2.1.1 Declarations and management of conflicts of interest After being invited to join the GDG by the WHO Secretariat at the beginning of the guideline development process, and in accordance with the WHO handbook for guideline development (18), each prospective GDG member completed a written declaration of interest (DOI) form. The DOIs were reviewed by two members of the WHO Secretariat and no conflicts of interest were identified (Annex 3). The GDG members’ names and curriculum vitae were subsequently published on the WHO website for the Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research and approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) in advance of participation in the process. At the beginning of every GDG meeting, members were asked to update the WHO Steering Group and other GDG members about any potential new conflicts of interest. 2.1.2 Confidentiality Each GDG member also signed a confidentiality agreement at the beginning of the GDG process, and the WHO Secretariat restated at the start of each GDG meeting that all discussions and draft recommendations were to remain confidential until publication. < Previous page Next page >  Methods 9 2.2 Scoping review and appraisal of the existing recommendations In October 2019, a subgroup of the GDG met in Geneva to review the previously published recommendations and decide which should be removed, validated, edited or updated based on new evidence, and whether any new recommendations should be made for new interventions. This process was informed by a scoping review of the literature and an assessment of changes in disease burden, practice and policy. These decisions were circulated to all members of the GDG for feedback, and agreement on which recommendations to keep, update and add was reached after additional virtual meetings and electronic correspondence. The scoping document was initially split between screening and treatment recommendations for women living with HIV (approved by the GRC in September 2019) and the general population of women (approved by the GRC in January 2020). The two scoping documents were then merged and subsequently approved by the GRC in August 2020. < Previous page Next page >  Methods 10 2.3 Priority questions for review of evidence The GDG identified 14 overarching questions, framed using the population (P), intervention (I), comparator (C), outcomes (O) (PICO) format, as a starting point for formulating recommendations applying to the general population of women and women living with HIV (Table 2.1). Table 2.1 PICO questions for the recommendations in women (the general population of women and women living with HIV) Should one screen-and-treat strategy versus another screen-and-treat strategy PICO 1 be used in women? Should one screen, triage and treat strategy versus another screen, triage and PICO 2 treat strategy be used in women? PICO Should women be followed up 12 and/or 24 months, or 3, 5 or 10 years after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 a negative or positive test result (and treatment) with the same or a different screening test? Should women first be screened for cervical pre-cancer lesions at a specific PICO 8i age (or following an HIV-positive test in women living with HIV)? PICO 8ii Should women be screened at least twice in a lifetime or once? Should treatment be within 6 or 12 months after a positive screening test, PICO 9 or after positive screen and triage tests (both positive), or after histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)? Should there be different treatments for women with histologically confirmed PICO 10 CIN 2/3 (including carcinoma in situ) or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)? What are the effects of health-system interventions to enable the adoption, PICO 11a implementation and scale-up of effective screening approaches? What are the effects of patient-targeted strategies to support uptake of PICO 12a screening approaches and follow-up care? What are the effects of provider-targeted strategies to support the adoption of PICO 13a screening approaches and follow-up care? a Next phase of guideline development (Phase 3). < Previous page Next page >  Methods 11 2.4 Priority algorithms Since screening and treatment can be done using different primary screening and triage tests, there are numerous possible combinations or algorithms. In December 2019, GDG members were surveyed to prioritize the screening and/or triage tests and the treatments that should be evaluated. Following this prioritization exercise, a subgroup of GDG members met to review the results from the survey and to agree on the algorithms to be prioritized. They reached a consensus to address seven priority algorithms in this first phase of the guideline update (Table 2.2; for detailed algorithms please refer to Annex 4). Table 2.2. The seven algorithms considered Screen-and-treat approaches: 1 VIA as the primary screening test, followed by treatment 2 HPV DNA detection (self- or clinician-collected) as the primary screening test, followed by treatment Screen, triage and treat approaches: 3 Cytology as the primary screening test, followed by colposcopy triage, followed by treatment 4 HPV DNA detection as the primary screening test, followed by HPV16/18 triage (when already part of the HPV test), followed by treatment, and using VIA triage for those who screen negative for HPV16/18 5 HPV DNA detection as the primary screening test, followed by VIA triage, followed by treatment 6 HPV DNA detection as the primary screening test, followed by colposcopy triage, followed by treatment 7 HPV DNA detection as the primary screening test, followed by cytology triage, followed by colposcopy and treatment HPV: human papillomavirus; VIA: visual inspection with acetic acid. 2.5 Outcomes The GDG agreed that the outcomes previously identified in the 2013 screening and treatment guideline (12) would also be the critical outcomes for the new PICO questions; the critical outcomes are listed in Table 2.3. To ensure coherence in the systematic reviews and modelling, a working group (subgroup of the GDG) developed standardized definitions for these outcomes (see Annex 5). After reviewing the evidence and modelling a limited number of outcomes, the GDG agreed to consider all outcomes together. Adverse events were defined as outcomes that were a direct consequence of pre-cancer treatment and were grouped as one category, with the exception of preterm birth, which was considered a critical outcome (see Table 2.3). < Previous page Next page >  Methods 12 Table 2.3 Critical outcomes for the screening and treatment recommendations Critical outcomes Cervical cancer Mortality High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+) HPV infection Preterm birth Acceptability Pre-cancer treatments Adverse events (direct consequence of pre-cancer treatment): – major infections or bleeding – procedure-associated pain – cervical stenosis – infertility – spontaneous abortion – perinatal deaths – premature rupture of membrane – unnecessary interventions – increased viral shedding in women living with HIV Costs Feasibility Equity See Annex 5 for additional details. 2.6 Syntheses of evidence Evidence was synthesized for each PICO question according to the methods in the WHO handbook for guideline development and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (18,20). The literature review performed for the development of the IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: cervical cancer screening, Vol. 18 (to be published in 2021; referred to in brief throughout this guideline as “IARC handbook”) (21) was also part of the evidence synthesized for the development of this guideline. We used a hierarchical approach to avoid the duplication of reviews that had been previously published. First, we searched for pre-existing systematic reviews to update (including the < Previous page Next page >  Methods 13 systematic reviews published at the time of the previous guideline), and then searched for primary studies (including randomized and non-randomized studies) when no systematic reviews were available. New systematic reviews or updates of systematic reviews were conducted to determine the effects of interventions (including screening tests) on outcomes, and the accuracy of screening tests in the general population of women and in women living with HIV. These systematic reviews and associated details are listed in Table 2.4. Table 2.4 PICO questions with corresponding systematic reviews and reports, evidence-to-decision (EtD) tables and recommendations or good-practice statements PICO List of systematic Syntheses of Evidence- Recommendation questions reviews the evidence to-decision or good practice (Web tables (Web statement annex A)a annex B)b (as numbered in this guideline)c 1, 2, 8ii Evidence reviews for IARC EtD PICO 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 interventions for the handbook and 2 for general population of materials the general women population of Supplementary women Evidence reviews of material (SM) 1 accuracy of triage tests EtD PICO 1 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, for the general population and 2 for 29, 30 of women women living SM 2 with HIV Evidence reviews for interventions and accuracy of tests for women living with HIV 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Review of reviews of SM 3 EtD PICO 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31, 32, follow-up strategies after 4, 5, 6, 7 33, 34 screening or treatment Evidence review of IARC follow-up strategies after handbook screening or treatment materials AIS: adenocarcinoma in situ; CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; EtD: evidence-to-decision; IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer; PICO: population (P), intervention (I), comparator (C), outcome (O). a Web annex A is available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342366/9789240030886-eng.pdf b Web annex B is available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342367/9789240030893-eng.pdf c Number as listed in Tables 1 and 2 in the Executive Summary and as used throughout this guideline. < Previous page Next page >  Methods 14 Table 2.4 (continued) PICO List of systematic Syntheses of Evidence- Recommendation questions reviews the evidence to-decision or good practice (Web tables (Web statement annex A)a annex B)b (as numbered in this guideline)c 8i Review of reviews of age SM 4 EtD PICO 8 5 to start and end screening age at in the general population initiation for of women the general population of A systematic literature SM 5 women review and narrative synthesis: age at initiation EtD PICO 8 25 and frequency of cervical age at cancer screening in initiation for women living with HIV women living with HIV Individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA): SM 6 EtD PICO 8 6, 7, 26, 27 age at initiation and end age to end of screening in women screening living with HIV 9 Systematic review for SM 7 - 41 treatment within 6 to 12 months 10 Reviews for treatment of SM 8 EtD PICO 10 42 histologically confirmed CIN2/3 and AIS 11, 12, 13 Next phase of guideline - - - development All Understanding SM 9 - - acceptability and client preferences for screening and treating cervical pre-cancer lesions: preliminary results of a WHO online survey SM 10 Report on values, preferences, acceptability and feasibility: results of a systematic review of qualitative literature AIS: adenocarcinoma in situ; CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; EtD: evidence-to-decision; IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer; PICO: population (P), intervention (I), comparator (C), outcome (O). a Web annex A is available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342366/9789240030886-eng.pdf b Web annex B is available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342367/9789240030893-eng.pdf c Number as listed in Tables 1 and 2 in the Executive Summary and as used throughout this guideline. < Previous page Next page >  Methods 15 Table 2.4 (continued) PICO List of systematic Syntheses of Evidence- Recommendation questions reviews the evidence to-decision or good practice (Web tables (Web statement annex A)a annex B)b (as numbered in this guideline)c All Survey report: feasibility SM 11 - - concerns with priority algorithms Review of reviews of SM 12 acceptability, feasibility, resources and equity 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Report of modelling SM 13 - - 6, 7, 8 AIS: adenocarcinoma in situ; CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; EtD: evidence-to-decision; IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer; PICO: population (P), intervention (I), comparator (C), outcome (O). a Web annex A is available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342366/9789240030886-eng.pdf b Web annex B is available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342367/9789240030893-eng.pdf c Number as listed in Tables 1 and 2 in the Executive Summary and as used throughout this guideline. 2.6.1 Methods used for systematic literature reviews The detailed methods for each review are reported in the Annex A, Supplementary Materials (Table 2.4). In brief, the systematic review teams applied the following key methods across all systematic reviews for this guideline: develop a systematic review protocol with inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies based on the finalized PICO questions; search multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library Epistemonikos) and clinical trial registries, contact investigators in the field for potentially relevant systematic reviews, and look at randomized and non-randomized trials to identify studies for new reviews or to update existing reviews; select literature reviews or studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (in duplicate or by one reviewer and verified by a second); extract data (in duplicate or by one reviewer and verified by another) on the benefits and harms (effects) of screening and treatment, the accuracy of screening tests used, end-user values and preferences, equity, feasibility, resources and acceptability; < Previous page Next page >  Methods 16 contact study authors for missing data or individual patient data when appropriate; assess the risk of bias in individual studies when available (in duplicate or by one reviewer and verified by another) using an appropriate risk-of-bias tool (e.g. Cochrane Risk of Bias for randomized controlled trials, ROBINS-I tools for non-randomized studies and QUADAS for diagnostic studies); synthesize the results (narratively or quantitatively) or analyse individual patient data when available; assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology (19); the levels of certainty used are summarized in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 Interpretation of the GRADE levels of certainty of evidence We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate High of the effect We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely Moderate to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different We have limited confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect may be Low substantially different from the estimate of the effect We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely Very low to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Source: GRADE handbook, GRADEpro, 2021 (19). 2.6.2 Individual patient data meta-analysis We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to analyse age-specific data for cervical cancer and CIN in women living with HIV. We contacted the authors of the studies identified in the systematic review of screening-initiation age (Web annex A, Supplementary material 5) that included at least 40 women living with HIV with CIN2+. All the data sets they provided were first reviewed individually, then discrepancies were resolved with investigators, and the aligned data sets were then combined. The IPD-MA used one-stage (22) random study intercept models to take into account heterogeneity among studies. Generalized linear mixed models were fitted for binomial or multinomial cervical screening test responses using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., United States). Random effects models were used to calculate predicted probabilities for cervical screening results by age categories, HIV status and other factors of interest (see Web annex A, Supplementary material 6). < Previous page Next page >  Methods 17 2.6.3 Mathematical modelling We used the Policy1-Cervix platform, an extensively validated dynamic model of HPV transmission, vaccination, type-specific natural history, cancer survival, screening, diagnosis and treatment (23–31), to predict outcomes in women across all 78 low- and middle-income countries. The Policy-Cervix HIV-HPV model for cervical cancer among women living with HIV was used to evaluate outcomes for women living with HIV in the United Republic of Tanzania (32), as there was sufficient local data available on cervical cancer control activities and HIV disease burden and control activities (including historical data). The United Republic of Tanzania has endemic HIV and is a suitable example country for evaluating optimal screening strategies for women living with HIV. The Policy1-Cervix model was one of three models used by the Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) to evaluate the impact of cervical cancer prevention interventions in 78 low- and middle-income countries (23,24). We evaluated the impact of the seven algorithms considering different ages and screening intervals, as informed by the GDG (see Table 2.2). For the baseline analysis, we assumed that 70% of women attended screening at each routine screening event and 90% of women complied with follow-up. Outcomes were assessed over the lifetime of birth cohorts eligible for screening in 2030 onwards and included cervical cancer incidence and mortality, pre-cancer treatments, additional preterm deliveries as a result of pre-cancer treatment and cost-effectiveness. A range of sensitivity analyses were considered, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness. The detailed methods and results of the modelling work are available in Web annex A, Supplementary material 13. 2.6.4 Values and preferences A search for studies and systematic reviews was conducted that addressed, among other considerations, the values and preferences of end-users, health-care providers and other stakeholders. The literature was organized by study design and methodology, location and population, and presented to the GDG. For primary data, all women and girls aged 15 years and older, regardless of their prior cervical cancer screening or treatment status, were eligible to participate in an anonymous, voluntary survey distributed via SurveyMonkey. The survey received approval from the WHO Ethics Review Committee and was run in English and French from 22 June to 18 September 2020. Awareness of the survey had been raised among a wide range of civil society groups through a webinar. The survey was also promoted through the Union for International Cancer Control and the WHO advisory group of women living with HIV, and shared through WHO regional focal points for the Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative. The survey responses from the 561 respondents, including their qualitative responses to open-ended questions, were analysed. The detailed methods and results are available in Web annex A, Supplementary materials 9 and 10. < Previous page Next page >  Methods 18 2.6.5 Feasibility, acceptability, resources and equity considerations A survey of the GDG members was administered via SurveyMonkey to assess the implementation considerations for each priority algorithm. The survey was developed using the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework (33). Each GDG member was asked about their level of concern about each algorithm being able to sustainably meet the large-scale goal of cervical cancer elimination. The following components of cervical cancer screening and management service delivery were queried separately according to the priority algorithm: demand generation, access to screening and the follow-up management of positives, workforce training, infrastructure development and maintenance, development and maintenance of the screening registry, and cost and integration with other priority health services. The considerations of the GDG members were assessed for the following eight stakeholder groups: health authorities at the national level, health authorities at the regional level, professional societies, providers at both the hospital and primary care levels, community health workers, clients (screened women) and the community. The detailed methods and results of the survey from the 29 respondents are provided in Web annex A, Supplementary materials 11 and 12. 2.7 Development of the recommendations All the GDG meetings that focused on formulation of recommendations were held virtually. Tables to facilitate decision-making for recommendations – evidence-to-decision (EtD) tables – were produced by the guideline methodologist for each recommendation and circulated to the GDG members before each meeting. These tables included a summary of the evidence (benefits and harms), relevant values and