Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little information is known about how many countries have issued breast cancer screening guidelines and the differences among existing guidelines. We systematically reviewed current guidelines and summarized corresponding recommendations, to provide references for good clinical practice in different countries. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to March 27th, 2021 were conducted and supplemented by reviewing the guideline development organizations. The quality of screening guidelines was assessed from six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) instrument by two appraisers. The basic information and recommendations of the issued guidelines were extracted and summarized. A total of 23 guidelines issued between 2010 and 2021 in 11 countries or regions were identified for further review. The content and quality varied across the guidelines. The average AGREE Ⅱ scores of the guidelines ranged from 33.3% to 87.5%. The highest domain score was "clarity of presentation" while the domain with the lowest score was "applicability". For average-risk women, most of the guidelines recommended mammographic screening for those aged 40–74 years, specifically, those aged 50–69 years were regarded as the optimal age group for screening. Nine of 23 guidelines recommended against an upper age limit for breast cancer screening. Mammography (MAM) was recommended as the primary screening modality for average-risk women by all included guidelines. Most guidelines suggested annual or biennial mammographic screening. Risk factors of breast cancer identified in the guidelines mainly fell within five categories which could be broadly summarized as the personal history of pre-cancerous lesions and/or breast cancer; the family history of breast cancer; the known genetic predisposition of breast cancer; the history of mantle or chest radiation therapy; and dense breasts. For women at higher risk, there was a consensus among most guidelines that annual MAM or annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be given, and the screening should begin earlier than the average-risk group. The majority of 23 included international guidelines were issued by developed countries which contained roughly the same but not identical recommendations on breast cancer screening age, methods, and intervals. Most guidelines recommended annual or biennial mammographic screening between 40 and 74 years for average-risk populations and annual MAM or annual MRI starting from a younger age for high-risk populations. Current guidelines varied in quality and increased efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of guidance documents. Due to lacking clinical practice guidelines tailored to different economic levels, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) should apply and implement the evidence-based guidelines with higher AGREE Ⅱ scores considering local adaption.

High‐risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence has been shown to correlate well with cervical cancer incidence rates. Our study aimed to estimate the prevalence of HR‐HPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in China and indirectly informs on the cervical cancer burden in the country. A total of 30,207 women from 17 population‐based studies throughout China were included. All women received HPV DNA testing (HC2, Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD), visual inspection with acetic acid and liquid‐based cytology. Women positive for any test received colposcopy‐directed or four‐quadrant biopsies. A total of 29,579 women had HR‐HPV testing results, of whom 28,761 had biopsy confirmed (9,019, 31.4%) or assumed (19,742, 68.6%) final diagnosis. Overall crude HR‐HPV prevalence was 17.7%. HR‐HPV prevalence was similar in rural and urban areas but showed dips in different age groups: at age 25–29 (11.3%) in rural and at age 35–39 (11.3%) in urban women. In rural and urban women, age‐standardized CIN2 prevalence was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4–1.6%] and 0.7% (95% CI: 0.7–0.8%) and CIN3+ prevalence was 1.2% (95% CI: 1.2–1.3%) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5–0.7%), respectively. Prevalence of CIN3+ as a percentage of either all women or HR‐HPV‐positive women steadily increased with age, peaking in 45‐ to 49‐year‐old women. High prevalence of HR‐HPV and CIN3+ was detected in both rural and urban China. The steady rise of CIN3+ up to the age group of 45–49 is attributable to lack of lesion removal through screening. Our findings document the inadequacy of current screening in China while indirectly raising the possibility that the cervical cancer burden in China is underreported.

Worldwide, one-seventh of cervical cancers occur in China, which lacks a national screening program. By evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected cervicovaginal specimens tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA (Self-HPV testing) in China, we sought to determine whether Self-HPV testing may serve as a primary cervical cancer screening method in low-resource settings. We compiled individual patient data from five population-based cervical cancer–screening studies in China. Participants (n = 13 140) received Self-HPV testing, physician-collected cervical specimens for HPV testing (Physician-HPV testing), liquid-based cytology (LBC), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Screen-positive women underwent colposcopy and confirmatory biopsy. We analyzed the accuracies of pooled Self-HPV testing, Physician-HPV testing, VIA, and LBC to detect biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) and CIN3+. All statistical tests were two-sided. Of 13 004 women included in the analysis, 507 (3.9%) were diagnosed as CIN2+, 273 (2.1%) as CIN3+, and 37 (0.3%) with cervical cancer. Self-HPV testing had 86.2% sensitivity and 80.7% specificity for detecting CIN2+ and 86.1% sensitivity and 79.5% specificity for detecting CIN3+. VIA had statistically significantly lower sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ (50.3%) and CIN3+ (55.7%) and higher specificity for detecting CIN2+ (87.4%) and CIN3+ (86.9%) (all P values < .001) than Self-HPV testing, LBC had lower sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ (80.7%, P = .015), similar sensitivity for detecting CIN3+ (89.0%, P = .341), and higher specificity for detecting CIN2+ (94.0%, P < .001) and CIN3+ (92.8%, P < .001) than Self-HPV testing. Physician-HPV testing was more sensitive for detecting CIN2+ (97.0%) and CIN3+ (97.8%) but similarly specific for detecting CIN2+ (82.7%) and CIN3+ (81.3%) (all P values <.001) than Self-HPV testing. The sensitivity of Self-HPV testing compared favorably with that of LBC and was superior to the sensitivity of VIA. Self-HPV testing may complement current screening programs by increasing population coverage in settings that do not have easy access to comprehensive cytology-based screening.