Human Papilloma virus, (HPV). It causes cervical cancer. Image taken with transmission electron microscopy. Photo: BSIP/UIG via Getty Images

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on Tuesday issued its latest recommendations for cervical cancer screening, which now say women 30 and older can drop the traditional Pap tests every 3 years in favor of testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) every 5 years, if they choose to.

Why it matters: There's been some debate in the medical field if Pap tests (also called cytology tests) should be dropped completely from the roster for women of that age group, as recent studies increasingly show HPV tests can be more sensitive and are valid for a longer period of time.

However, the task force says it's important to offer the three options: the pap test, the HPV test and a combination.

The recommendations, as published in JAMA:

  • Women 21-29 should receive a pap test every 3 years to check the cervical lining for abnormal cells.
  • Women 30-65 should receive either a pap test every 3 years, an HPV test every 5 years, or a combination of both every 5 years.
  • Healthy women younger than 21 most likely don't need any screening.
  • Women older than 65 who've had normal testing in recent prior years likely don't need any screening.
  • Healthy women who've had a hysterectomy with cervix removal likely do not need screening.
Varied reactions

Mark Stoler, professor emeritus of pathology and clinical gynecology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, says he believes the optimal test is HPV alone and that the numbers behind the task force's recommendations show this.

  • The number of women without any screening who are estimated to die from cervical cancer — 8.34 out of every 1,000 women — drops to 0.76 deaths/1,000 with pap testing, 0.29 deaths/1,000 with HPV testing, and 0.3 deaths/1,000 with joint testing, per a USPSTF chart.
  • "I was surprised [they didn't select solely HPV testing] since given the equivalent performance, one would expect the USPSTF to choose the strategy that has the best impact on a patient's case," he says.
  • While running co-tests has a slim chance of catching a case that HPV testing alone would not have caught, Stoler says the HPV test catches almost all cases and would be more efficient and less burdensome in the long run.

Mark Spitzer, medical director of The Center for Colposcopy and past president of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, says he commends USPSTF for recommending all three types of tests.

  • He says American women and their health care providers want the three options.
  • "Multiple large U.S. studies have shown that co-testing identifies more cases of cervical pre-cancer and cancer than either test alone, and co-testing is the gold standard recommended by U.S. medical societies," Spitzer says.
  • "In discussing the issue with my patients, they place the greatest value on the incremental benefit co-testing offers over either test alone. I also explain that the experience with all screening options are the same and involve just one swab," he adds.

Kathleen Schmeler, gynecologic oncologist at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, tells Axios that she's glad USPSTF is including sole HPV testing amongst its recommendations for a "completely preventable" cancer.

However, the main issue that needs to be tackled is helping the medically underserved receive more screening plus followup appointments when necessary, she says.

  • As the USPSTF points out, cervical cancer incidences and death rates are higher amongst certain populations, such as African American women (10.1 deaths/100,000 women), American Indian/Alaska Native women (3.2 deaths/100,000 women) and Hispanic women (2.6 deaths/100,000 women) particularly along the Texas/Mexico border.
  • "Cervical cancer is more prevalent in the medically underserved," Schmeler says. "The most important thing is to allow people to have access to the screening... and to have supportive followup appointments."

Go deeper:

Go deeper

Congress' next moves to rein in Big Tech

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

After grilling the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple last week, members of Congress are grappling with whether to accuse any of the firms of illegal anticompetitive behavior, to propose updating federal antitrust laws — or both.

The big picture: Congress is just one arm of government making the case against these companies. Google is expected to be the first of the firms to face possible antitrust litigation from the Justice Department before summer's end, but all four face a full-court press of investigations by DOJ, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general.

Fauci: Coronavirus task force to examine aerosolized spread


A sneeze. Photo: Maartje van Caspel/Getty Images

The White House coronavirus task force will examine more closely just how much SARS-CoV-2 might be transmitted via aerosols, and not just from droplets, NIAID director Anthony Fauci said Wednesday at an online forum sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Why it matters: The longer the coronavirus can remain infectious in the air, the more likely it can infect people, particularly indoors — leading to the possible need to alter air filtration and circulation within buildings.

The next wave to hit Main Street

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

Call it the great retail wash. A wave of defaults, bankruptcies and evictions expected in cities across the U.S. is poised to remake the retail landscape across the country, but there may be some upside for consumers and small businesses.

Why it matters: Rather than an overnight descent into a collection of urban wastelands full of Starbucks, Amazon fulfillment centers, Chase bank branches and nothing else, the coronavirus pandemic and resulting retail apocalypse may just mean that, in major U.S. cities, less is more.