Clinical practice variation and overtreatment risk in women with abnormal cervical cytology in the Netherlands: two-step versus see-and-treat approach

Abstract

Only a few small studies have compared the 2-step method (biopsy followed by treatment) with a see-and-treat (immediate treatment) approach in women both low-grade or high-grade referral cytology. The clinical practice variation in the Netherlands has not been reviewed before. To determine overtreatment rates in the 2-step versus see-and-treat approach in women referred for colposcopy because of abnormal cytology results, and to evaluate clinical practice variation in the Netherlands. This was a population-based retrospective cohort study including 36,581 women with a histologic result of the cervix identified from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) between 2016 and 2017. Odds ratios for overtreatment, defined primarily as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less, were determined for the 2-step and see-and-treat approach in relation to age, high-risk human papillomavirus status, and referral cytology. Of the included women 10,713 women (29.3%) received the 2-step method; 6,851 women (18.7%) underwent see-and-treat; and 19,017 women (52.0%) received conservative management after colposcopy with histologic assessment with cytologic follow-up or another type of treatment. Despite the existence of a national guideline advising see-and-treat only in case of suspected high-grade disease in women who have completed their childbearing, there is a wide practice variation between the 2 strategies in the Netherlands, with 7.0-88.3% of the women receiving see-and-treat per laboratory. The median time between cytology and treatment was 1-2 months (range, 0-12 months) in women receiving see-and-treat and the 2-step method, respectively. A total of 4119 women (23.5%) were overtreated, with older women, high-risk human papillomavirus-negative women, and women with low-grade cytology results being more likely to be overtreated. Women with low-grade cytology results and see-and-treat were associated with a higher overtreatment rate than women receiving the 2-step method (65.0% [1414 of 2174] versus 32.1% [1161 of 3613], respectively; odds ratio, 3.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.92-3.82). However, in women with high-grade cytology results, see-and-treat was inversely associated with overtreatment (11.3% [529 of 4677] versus 14.3% [1015 of 7100], respectively; odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.81). A see-and-treat approach is justified only in women with high-grade cytology results who have completed their childbearing. There is a wide practice variation between the 2 strategies in the Netherlands, and gynecologists should adhere to the guideline to prevent overtreatment.