Lack of regular clinical laboratory screenings in this age group at least partially to blame, researchers say
While cervical cancer rates have seen a 50-year decline overall, that trend is shifting among 30- to 40 year-olds who have experienced a near 2% increase from 2012-2019. This finding comes from a 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) report that is eyeing the timeline of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and the lack of clinical laboratory cancer screenings as possible contributors to this new trend.
Though a 2% increase is significant, the study, which was published in CA: ACancer Journal for Clinicians, titled “Cancer Statistics, 2024,” noted that these cancers were “mostly early, curable tumors,” epidemiologist Ahmedin Jemal DVM, PhD, Senior Vice President Surveillance and Health Equity Science at ACS, and senior author of the new report, told NBC News.
To understand how the increase in cancer rates impacts this age group, consider the numbers: “About 13,800 American women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 4,360 die from the disease,” NBC reported.
US vaccination programs for youths have lagged behind nations that have embraced HPV vaccination to positive results.
Australia, for example, has vaccinated a high proportion of its youth since the vaccine was first released in 2006. In 2023, the nation created its National Strategy for the Elimination of Cervical Cancer in Australia program and expects cervical cancer to be fully eliminated there by 2035.
For lab professionals, this demonstrates how new technologies like the HPV test and vaccine can alter how individuals are screened for diseases, and how vaccines can reduce and even eliminate diseases that were once common.
“We need to make sure we are not forgetting about that generation that was a little too old for HPV vaccination,” Jennifer Spencer, PhD (above), Assistant Professor, Department of Population Health and Department Internal Medicine, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, told NBC News. “The onus is on the healthcare system to think about who is slipping through the cracks,” she added. Lack of clinical laboratory screenings among the 30-40 age group may be contributing to the increase in cervical cancer rates. (Photo copyright: Dell Medical School.)
Lack of Clinical Laboratory Screenings
Research points to a lag in cervical cancer screenings as a possible cause for the recent rise in cases. Timely screening allows doctors to both identify and remove any worrisome lesions before they become cancerous, Jennifer Spencer, PhD, Assistant Professor of the Department of Population Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, told NBC News.
Screenings for women ages 21-65 have fallen 15% since 2000, according to data from the National Cancer Institute. Also, more than half of women with cervical cancer have “either never been screened or haven’t been screened in the past five years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” NBC reported.
The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends that women 21-29 years of age should receive Pap smears every three years. Women 30-65 years of age should do the same, or every five years with an HPV test or combo test.
Despite a decrease in cervical cancer, 29% of women in their 20s are overdue to get screening, NBC noted. This was the age group most likely to be lagging on getting screened. Spencer says that this delay in screening could explain the resulting increase in cervical cancer among the 30-40 age group.
Causes for Lack in Screenings
Regardless of age group, women who were uninsured, in a rural area, non-white, or identifying as lesbian, bisexual, or gay were also more likely to be overdue on screenings, according to Spencer’s study.
In addition, women who just moved to the United States may have missed their screenings, thus increasing risk, epidemiologist Nicholas Wentzensen, MD, PhD, Deputy Director, Senior Investigator, and Head of the Clinical Epidemiology Unit at the National Cancer Institute, told NBCNews.
Additionally, Spencer found in her research that confusion exists by both patients and doctors on when cervical screening should take place. Some participants in her study did not have screening recommended by their doctors, while others simply did not recognize it was necessary.
“When women in one of Spencer’s studies were asked why they hadn’t been screened recently, they commonly said that they didn’t know they needed to be screened or that a health provider hadn’t recommended it. Only 1% [of] women ages 21 to 29 said they had skipped screening because they had received the HPV shot,” NBC News reported.
A 2022 Journal of American Medicine (JAMA) report also looked at screenings as a possible cause. Those researchers found that “only 73% of women with abnormal screening results received follow-up care,” NBC reported.
“If the increase (in cases) is real, it could be a result of missed screening opportunities at earlier ages, as suggested by the increase in squamous cell carcinoma and localized disease. It may also stem from a decrease in screening at younger ages,” the JAMA study authors wrote.
HPV Vaccine and Cervical Cancer Prevention
The HPV vaccine is another important area of research to be considered. Approved in 2006, HPV vaccines were beneficial because HPV “causes six types of cancer, including cervical cancer,” NBC reported.
Women in their early 20s at that time were the first generation to benefit from HPV vaccines, NBC noted. It may be that they continue to benefit in a decrease in cervical cancer among their cohort.
Countries that have emphasized HPV vaccines and stringent screenings in their cancer prevention efforts are reaping the benefits of that policy.
Though cancer screening and the HPV vaccine are important first steps women should take to prevent cervical cancer, follow-through clinical laboratory testing and diagnosis is crucial, Spencer added. This would include additional testing and treatment for any abnormal results of the cancer screening.
However, according to Spencer, “only 73% of women with abnormal screening results received follow-up care,” NBC reported.
Healthcare policymakers today are emphasizing the need for providers to identify and close gaps in care as a way to improve patient outcomes and help control the cost of care. Women who are overdue for a cervical cancer screening test—whether an HPV test or Pap smear—have this care gap. This creates an opportunity for clinical labs to add value.
Clinical laboratories could be helpful during this period by looking at patient files to note which patients are overdue for screenings and then alerting their doctors. Medical labs also could work directly with doctors to establish a program to reach out to patients. Labs would thus be adding value as well as benefitting patients.
New studies show number of Americans who are unwilling to reveal private health information is growing, hindering medical technology developers
Healthcare consumers appear not only to be raising their expectations of the quality of care they receive, but also in the privacy and security of their protected health information (PHI) as well. This is an important development for clinical laboratories and pathology groups, since they hold large quantities of patient test data.
News reports indicate that, due to the increase in patient distrust about privacy and security, developers of health information technology (HIT) products that collect and transmit patient data are struggling to insert their products into the broader healthcare market.
However, there is a positive side to this trend for medical laboratory professionals. Patients’ interest in tighter security and privacy protections provides pathology groups and clinical laboratory leaders with an invaluable opportunity to inform patients on their lab’s use of cybersecurity measures and to reiterate their commitment to protecting their patients’ data.
Clinical Laboratories Can Ease Patient Fears
It’s not enough that medical laboratories promote their services and efficiencies. They also must tout the capability of their laboratory information management systems (LIMS) to protect a patient’s PHI. That’s critical because recent studies indicate high proportions of healthcare consumers are becoming increasingly wary of how their healthcare data are protected.
The graphic above taken from a 2017 Accenture survey may indicate why healthcare consumer trust in an organization’s ability to secure protected health data (PHI) has eroded so deeply. (Graphic copyright: Accenture.)
Numerous reports of data hacking and security breaches have eroded healthcare consumers’ trust. Patients are more skeptical than ever about the benefits of HIT, such as:
The poll aimed at exploring consumers’ adoption and acceptance of HIT. It found:
87% of consumers are unwilling to divulge all their medical information (up from 66% in 2013);
70% of Americans distrust health technology (a significant increase from 10% in 2014);
And 57% of people who underwent actual encounters with providers’ technology (including ancillary providers, such as clinical laboratories) remain skeptical of HIT.
Even with all the bells and whistles, HIT cannot penetrate the healthcare system if people don’t adopt it, a Black Book news release pointed out.
89% of Patients Withhold Information During Office Visits
Respondents to Black Book’s poll reported being especially alarmed by their data being shared (without their acknowledgement or consent) beyond their hospital and physician. This includes:
Pharmacy prescriptions (90%);
Mental health notes (99%); and
Chronic conditions (81%).
Other key findings from the Black Book poll include the fact that:
89% of consumers withheld health information during their 2016 provider visits;
93% are concerned about security of their personal financial information;
69% say their primary care doctor does not have the technological expertise necessary for them to feel safe divulging extensive personal information.
Missing Data Compromises Care, Analytics
An article in Healthcare IT News reported that fear of breaches is translating to consumers’ reticence to share information. And, the Black Book survey states that data analytics and population health efforts by healthcare providers could be compromised due to consumer distrust, according to a FierceHealthcare article.
“Incomplete medical histories and undisclosed conditions, treatment, or medications raises obvious concerns on the reliability and usefulness of patient health data in application of risk-based analytics, care plans, modeling, payment reforms, and population health programming,” stated Doug Brown, President, Black Book, in the news release.
“This revelation should force cybersecurity solutions to the top of the technology priorities in 2017 to achieve tangible trust in big data dependability,” he concluded.
Patients/Doctors at Odds Over Use of Patient Data
According to the Black Book poll, 91% of people surveyed who use wearable medical tracking devices believe their physician’s EHR should be able to store any health-related data they wish. However, physicians responding to the provider section of the survey stated they have all the information they need. In fact, 94% of the doctors stated patient-generated data (generated by wearables) are “overwhelming, redundant, and unlikely to make a clinical difference.”
The disconnect has led to miscommunication and frustration in the doctor/patient relationship, noted a HealthITSecurity article.
People who struggle to find and understand medical information tend to also be wary of health technologies, such as wearables, patient portals, and mobile apps, noted a UT news release.
Conversely, Americans with a high degree of health literacy are more likely to use fitness trackers and online portals and view them as useful and trustworthy, UT researchers stated.
This study of nearly 5,000 Americans also explored patients’ perceptions of privacy and trust in institutions. Researchers found lower health literacy was associated with more distrust and less adoption of HIT tools.
“There is a pressing need to further the understanding of how health literacy is related to HIT app adoption and usage. This will ensure that all users receive the full health benefits from these technologies in a manner that protects health information privacy, and that users engage with organizations and providers they trust,” the researchers wrote.
Another Dark Daily e-briefing summarized accounts of ransomware and cyberattacks on hospitals and medical labs in 2016. Clinical laboratory leaders are reminded to work with provider teams and appropriate experts to determine the lab’s ability to prevent and withstand cyberattacks.
Labs may glean some ideas from these cybersecurity “2017 must-haves” shared (along with others) in a Healthcare IT News article:
Invest in a risk assessment that makes clear exactly what needs to be protected;
Recognize that beyond medical and billing information, high tech equipment (such as lab analyzers) need to be addressed in planning.
Medical laboratory leaders should not be shy about communicating their lab’s cybersecurity priority, investment, and actions taken to keep their patient’s PHI private and secure. That message could be just what skeptical consumers need to hear and could be well received by the lab’s patients.
