Introduction: Cervical screening has decreased the incidence of cervical carcinoma around the world primarily by preventing cervical squamous carcinoma, with significantly less measurable protective benefits in prevention of cervical adenocarcinoma. In this study, we apply Bayesian modeling of cervical clinical, screening, and biopsy data from a large integrated health system to explore the feasibility of calculating personalized risk assessments on screened system patients for subsequent histopathologic diagnoses of invasive cervical adenocarcinoma (AdCa) or cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). Materials and Methods: Diagnoses of cervical AIS or AdCa rendered between 2005 and 2018 were identified in our large health system database with 1,053,713 cytology results, 354,843 high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) test results, and 99,012 cervical histopathologic results. Using our continuously updated Bayesian cervical cancer screening model which includes clinical data, cervical screening results, and cervical biopsy results, we projected quantitative estimates of patients’ 5-year cumulative risk for cervical AIS or AdCa. Results: 161 patients were identified with AIS (ages 17–75, mean 37 years), and 99 patients had diagnoses of cervical AdCa (ages 26–91, mean 48 years). Quantitative Bayesian 5-year cumulative risk projections for diagnoses of cervical AdCa or AIS in patients with different cervical screening test and biopsy histories were determined. The highest patient risk projections for subsequent cervical AdCa and/or AIS histopathologic diagnoses were associated with prior cervical screening test results of HPV-positive atypical glandular cells. Prior squamous cytologic abnormalities were associated with lower risk estimates. Prior histopathologic diagnoses of squamous abnormalities also influenced quantitative risk. A prior histopathologic diagnosis of AIS was associated with a very low risk of subsequent AdCa, consistent with effective excisional treatment. AdCa risk was greatest in women aged 30–65 years with prior CIN3 biopsy results, whereas AIS risk was greatest in women <30. Conclusion: Prevention of cervical AdCa in screened patients remains a major challenge for cervical screening. Individualized risk projections for cervical glandular neoplasia reflecting patient age, prior cervical screening test results, and prior cervical biopsy history are feasible using Bayesian modeling of health system data.

1.
US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Screening for cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale
. In:
Guide to clinical preventive services
. 3rd ed.
Rockville, MD
:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
;
2003
.
2.
Jemal
A
,
Simard
EP
,
Dorell
C
,
Noone
AM
,
Markowitz
LE
,
Kohler
B
, et al
Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus(HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2013
;
105
(
3
):
175
201
.
3.
Smith
RA
,
Andrews
KS
,
Brooks
D
,
Fedewa
SA
,
Manassaram-Baptiste
D
,
Saslow
D
, et al
Cancer screening in the United States: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening
.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
2018
;
68
(
4
):
297
316
.
4.
International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer
.
Comparison of risk factors for invasive squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 8,097 women with squamous cell carcinoma and 1,374 women with adenocarcinoma from 12 epidemiological studies
.
Int J Cancer
.
2006
;
120
(
4
):
885
91
.
5.
Adegoke
O
,
Kulasingam
S
,
Virnig
B
.
Cervical cancer trends in the United States: a 35-year population-based analysis
.
J Womens Health
.
2012
;
21
(
10
):
1031
7
. .
6.
Islami
F
,
Fedewa
SA
,
Jemal
A
.
Trends in cervical cancer incidence rates by age, race/ethnicity, histological subtype, and stage at diagnosis in the United States
.
Prev Med
.
2019
;
123
:
316
23
. .
7.
Terry
G
,
Ho
L
,
Londesborough
P
,
Cuzick
J
,
Mielzynska-Lohnas
I
,
Lorincz
A
.
Detection of high-risk HPV types by the hybrid capture 2 test
.
J Med Virol
.
2001
;
65
(
1
):
155
62
. .
8.
Wright
TC
 Jr
,
Schiffman
M
.
Adding a test for human papillomavirus DNA to cervical-cancer screening
.
N Engl J Med
.
2003
;
348
(
6
):
489
90
. .
9.
Vizcaino
AP
,
Moreno
V
,
Bosch
FX
,
Muñoz
N
,
Barros-Dios
XM
,
Parkin
DM
, et al
International trends in the incidence of cervical cancer, I: adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinomas
.
Int J Cancer
.
1998
;
75
(
4
):
536
45
.
10.
Hemminki
K
,
Li
X
,
Mutanen
P
.
Age-incidence relationships and time trends in cervical cancer in Sweden
.
Eur J Epidemiol
.
2001
;
17
(
4
):
323
8
. .
11.
Liu
S
,
Semenciw
R
,
Probert
A
,
Mao
Y
.
Cervical cancer in Canada: changing patterns in incidence and mortality
.
Int J Gynecol Cancer
.
2001
;
11
(
1
):
24
31
. .
12.
Chan
PG
,
Sung
HY
,
Sawaya
GF
.
Changes in cervical cancer incidence after three decades of screening US women less than 30 years old
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2003
;
102
(
4
):
765
73
. .
13.
Smith
HO
,
Tiffany
MF
,
Qualls
CR
,
Key
CR
.
The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States: a 24-year population-based study
.
Gynecol Oncol
.
2000
;
78
(
2
):
97
105
. .
14.
Bulk
S
,
Visser
O
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Verheijen
RH
,
Meijer
CJ
.
Incidence and survival rate of women with cervical cancer in the Greater Amsterdam area
.
Br J Cancer
.
2003
;
89
(
5
):
834
9
. .
15.
Bulk
S
,
Visser
O
,
Rozendaal
L
,
Verheijen
RH
,
Meijer
CJ
.
Cervical cancer in the Netherlands 1989–1998: decrease of squamous cell carcinoma in older women, increase of adenocarcinoma in younger women
.
Int J Cancer
.
2005
;
113
(
6
):
1005
9
. .
16.
Sasieni
P
,
Castanon
A
,
Cuzick
J
.
Screening and adenocarcinoma of the cervix
.
Int J Cancer
.
2009
;
125
(
3
):
525
. .
17.
Perkins
RB
,
Guido
RS
,
Castle
PE
,
Chelmow
D
,
Einstein
MH
,
Garcia
F
, et al
2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors
.
J Low Genit Tract Dis
.
2020
;
24
(
2
):
102
31
.
18.
Fontham
ETH
,
Wolf
AMD
,
Church
TR
,
Etzioni
R
,
Flowers
CR
,
Herzig
A
, et al
American Cancer Society (ACS) guideline for cervical cancer screening
.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
2020
;
70
.
Online ahead of print
.
19.
Austin
RM
,
Onisko
A
,
Druzdzel
MJ
.
The Pittsburgh cervical cancer screening model: a risk assessment tool
.
Arch Pathol Lab Med
.
2010
;
134
(
5
):
744
50
. .
20.
Onisko
A
,
Austin
RM
.
Dynamic Bayesian network for cervical cancer screening
. In:
Lucas
PJF
,
Hommersom
A
, editors.
Foundations of biomedical knowledge representations, methods and applications, lecture notes on artificial intelligence
.
Basel, Switzerland
:
Springer International Publishing
;
2015
. p.
207
18
.
21.
Austin
RM
,
Onisko
A
,
Druzdel
MJ
.
Increased cervical cancer risk associated with extended screening intervals after negative human papilloma virus (HPV) test results: Bayesian risk estimates using the Pittsburgh cervical cancer screening model
.
J Am Soc Cytopathol
.
2016
;
5
:
9
14
.
22.
Onisko
A
,
Druzdzel
MJ
,
Austin
RM
.
How to interpret the results of medical time series data analysis: classical statistical approaches versus dynamic Bayesian network modeling
.
J Pathol Inform
.
2016
;
7
:
50
. .
23.
Austin
RM
,
Onisko
A
,
Zhao
C
.
Enhanced detection of cervical cancer and precancer through use of imaged liquid-based cytology in routine cytology and HPV cotesting
.
Am J Clin Pathol
.
2018
;
150
(
5
):
385
92
. .
24.
Onisko
A
,
Druzdzel
MJ
,
Austin
RM
.
Application of Bayesian network modeling to pathology informatics
.
Diagn Cytopathol
.
2019
;
47
(
1
):
41
7
. .
25.
Pearl
J
.
Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference
.
San Mateo, CA
:
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
;
1988
.
26.
Martínez-Bello
DA
,
López-Quílez
A
,
Torres-Prieto
A
.
Bayesian dynamic modeling of time series of dengue disease case counts
.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis
.
2017
;
11
(
7
):
e0005696
.
Published 2017 Jul 3
. .
27.
Wong
RS
,
Ismail
NA
.
An application of Bayesian approach in modeling risk of death in an intensive care unit
.
PLoS One
.
2016
;
11
(
3
):
e0151949
.
Published 2016 Mar 23
. .
28.
Tietze
A
,
Nielsen
A
,
Klærke Mikkelsen
I
,
Bo Hansen
M
,
Obel
A
,
Østergaard
L
, et al
Bayesian modeling of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI data in cerebral glioma patients improves the diagnostic quality of hemodynamic parameter maps
.
PLoS One
.
2018
;
13
(
9
):
e0202906
.
Published 2018 Sep. 26
. .
29.
Gustaffson
L
,
Ponten
J
,
Zack
M
,
Adami
HO
.
International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytologic screening
.
Cancer Causes Control
.
1997
;
8
(
5
):
755
63
.
30.
Andrae
B
,
Andersson
TM
,
Lambert
PC
,
Kemetli
L
,
Silfverdal
L
,
Strander
B
, et al
Screening and cervical cancer cure: population-based cohort study
.
BMJ
.
2012
;
344
:
e900
.
31.
Landy
R
,
Pesola
F
,
Castañón
A
,
Sasieni
P
.
Impact of cervical screening on cervical cancer mortality: estimation using stage-specific results from a nested case-control study
.
Br J Cancer
.
2016
;
115
(
9
):
1140
6
. .
32.
Hakama
M
,
Pokhrel
A
,
Malila
N
,
Hakulinen
T
.
Sensitivity, effect and overdiagnosis in screening for cancers with detectable pre-invasive phase
.
Int J Cancer
.
2015
;
136
(
4
):
928
35
. .
33.
McCredie
MR
,
Sharples
KJ
,
Paul
C
,
Baranyai
J
,
Medley
G
,
Jones
RW
, et al
Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cervical cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2008
;
9
:
425
34
.
34.
Malila
N
,
Leinonen
M
,
Kotaniemi-Talonen
L
,
Laurila
P
,
Tarkkanen
J
,
Hakama
M
.
The HPV test has similar sensitivity but more overdiagnosis than the Pap test: a randomised health services study on cervical cancer screening in Finland
.
Int J Cancer
.
2013
;
132
(
9
):
2141
7
. .
35.
Kinney
W
,
Sawaya
GF
,
Sung
HY
,
Kearney
KA
,
Miller
M
,
Hiatt
RA
.
Stage at diagnosis and mortality in patients with adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix diagnosed as a consequence of cytologic screening
.
Acta Cytol
.
2003
;
47
(
2
):
167
71
. .
36.
Kim
JJ
,
Burger
EA
,
Regan
C
,
Sy
S
.
Screening for cervical cancer in primary care: a decision analysis for the US preventive services task force
.
JAMA
.
2018
;
320
(
7
):
706
14
. .
37.
Farkoukh
L
,
Onisko
A
,
Austin
RM
.
Individualized Bayesian risk assessment for cervical squamous neoplasia
.
Mod Pathol
.
2019
;
32
(
S2
):
31A
. (
Abstract 541
).
38.
Farchoukh
LF
,
Onisko
A
,
Austin
RM
.
Individualized Bayesian risk assessment for cervical squamous neoplasia
.
J Pathol Inform
.
2020
;
11
:
9
. .
39.
Austin
RM
,
Zhao
C
.
Type 1 and type 2 cervical carcinomas: some cervical carcinomas are more difficult to prevent with screening
.
Cytopathology
.
2012
;
23
:
6
12
.
40.
Austin
RM
,
Zhao
C
.
Observations from Pap litigation consultations
.
Pathol Case Rev
.
2011
;
16
(
2
):
73
82
. .
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.