TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED)-based screening interventions for cervical cancer resulted in documented screening in 1 of 6 patients, with higher rates of abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) tests (12% vs 3.8%) and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infection (15% vs 11%) than national averages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a descriptive follow-up analysis of participants enrolled in a prior randomized controlled ED-based cervical cancer screening trial at a single academic medical center. The analysis included women aged 21-65 years (n = 181; mean age, 35.8 years; 67% White individuals) who completed screening within 365 days of enrollment.
• The primary outcomes were the rates of abnormal Pap test results or hrHPV test results.
• The secondary outcomes were the rates of follow-up testing (colposcopy and biopsy) and cervical cancer diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of abnormal results among participants who received Pap tests was significantly higher than the national average (12.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001).
• High-risk human papillomavirus infection was observed in 15% of participants tested for hrHPV, a rate higher than the estimated nationwide prevalence of 11% (P = .052).
• For every 33 ED patients who received the intervention, at least one abnormal cervical cancer screen was identified (28 positive results among 1089 total cases), with 25% of patients with abnormal results receiving colposcopy and 21% undergoing cervical biopsy.
• Nearly half of the patients who underwent colposcopy or biopsy lacked a routine women's health provider.

IN PRACTICE:

"[The results of the current study underscore the potential importance of targeting] patients in [the ED] setting, as the rates of abnormal Pap tests and hrHPV infections observed in this sample of the ED patient population are significantly elevated relative to overall national estimates," the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Beau Abar, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. It was published online on January 19, 2026, in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by missing results from tests performed outside the primary healthcare system, potentially leading to an underestimation of abnormal findings. The single-system setting limited generalizability. Additionally, the methodology limited the evaluation of shared decision-making discussions and provider recommendations for subsequent screening intervals and modes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute provided to one author. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.