Cervical cancer screening among transgender and gender diverse individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Amelia Srajer, John M Hutchinson, Amy Metcalfe, Darren R Brenner, Kristin A Black, Fiona Mattatall, Ioana Nicolau, Paul E Ronksley
{"title":"Cervical cancer screening among transgender and gender diverse individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Amelia Srajer, John M Hutchinson, Amy Metcalfe, Darren R Brenner, Kristin A Black, Fiona Mattatall, Ioana Nicolau, Paul E Ronksley","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2026.104850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing cervical cancer screening participation and Pap cytology results between transgender/gender diverse individuals and cisgender female individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from database inception to January 7, 2026, by 2 independent reviewers. Primary observational studies reporting up-to-date cervical cancer screening and/or Pap test results in transgender/gender diverse individuals with a cervix compared with cisgender female individuals were included. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, data were independently extracted and critically appraised in duplicate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one studies were included, with sample sizes ranging from 116 to 238,036 participants or Pap tests. Twelve studies (57.1%) assessed up-to-date screening, and 9 (42.9%) reported un-satisfactory and abnormal Pap cytology. Compared with cisgender female individuals, transgender/gender diverse individuals had significantly lower odds of being up to date on cervical cancer screening (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.79). Estimates were similar when stratified by self-report versus medical record data. Transgender/gender diverse individuals had more than 9-fold higher odds of un-satisfactory cytology (odds ratio 9.92, 95% confidence interval 7.42 to 13.26). Overall, abnormal cytology did not differ between groups (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.49). In stratified analyses, lower odds of abnormal cytology for transgender/gender diverse individuals were observed among studies with mixed or unspecified testosterone use (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.60) and in studies using all-comer versus atrophic cisgender comparators (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.59). Findings for un-satisfactory cytology did not differ significantly across these strata. There was no evidence of small-study effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Transgender/gender diverse individuals with a cervix are less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening and more likely to have un-satisfactory Pap cytology. Abnormal cytology appears similar overall but varies across testosterone use and comparator strata. These findings underscore the need for anatomically inclusive, evidence-based screening guidelines and evaluation of alternative approaches, such as primary human papillomavirus testing, to improve cervical cancer screening equity and effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":"36 9","pages":"104850"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2026.104850","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing cervical cancer screening participation and Pap cytology results between transgender/gender diverse individuals and cisgender female individuals.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from database inception to January 7, 2026, by 2 independent reviewers. Primary observational studies reporting up-to-date cervical cancer screening and/or Pap test results in transgender/gender diverse individuals with a cervix compared with cisgender female individuals were included. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, data were independently extracted and critically appraised in duplicate.

Results: Twenty-one studies were included, with sample sizes ranging from 116 to 238,036 participants or Pap tests. Twelve studies (57.1%) assessed up-to-date screening, and 9 (42.9%) reported un-satisfactory and abnormal Pap cytology. Compared with cisgender female individuals, transgender/gender diverse individuals had significantly lower odds of being up to date on cervical cancer screening (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.79). Estimates were similar when stratified by self-report versus medical record data. Transgender/gender diverse individuals had more than 9-fold higher odds of un-satisfactory cytology (odds ratio 9.92, 95% confidence interval 7.42 to 13.26). Overall, abnormal cytology did not differ between groups (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.49). In stratified analyses, lower odds of abnormal cytology for transgender/gender diverse individuals were observed among studies with mixed or unspecified testosterone use (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.60) and in studies using all-comer versus atrophic cisgender comparators (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.59). Findings for un-satisfactory cytology did not differ significantly across these strata. There was no evidence of small-study effects.

Conclusions: Transgender/gender diverse individuals with a cervix are less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening and more likely to have un-satisfactory Pap cytology. Abnormal cytology appears similar overall but varies across testosterone use and comparator strata. These findings underscore the need for anatomically inclusive, evidence-based screening guidelines and evaluation of alternative approaches, such as primary human papillomavirus testing, to improve cervical cancer screening equity and effectiveness.

跨性别和性别多样化个体的宫颈癌筛查:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:对观察性研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较跨性别/性别多样化个体与顺性别女性个体宫颈癌筛查参与情况和巴氏细胞学检查结果。方法:由2位独立审稿人检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL自数据库建立至2026年1月7日的文献。报告最新宫颈癌筛查和/或巴氏试验结果的主要观察性研究包括跨性别/性别不同个体与顺性别女性个体的宫颈比较。根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,独立提取数据并对两份数据进行严格评价。结果:包括21项研究,样本量从116到238,036名参与者或巴氏试验。12项研究(57.1%)评估了最新的筛查,9项研究(42.9%)报告了不满意和异常的巴氏细胞学。与顺性女性个体相比,跨性别/性别多样化个体接受宫颈癌筛查的最新几率明显较低(优势比0.53,95%可信区间0.35 ~ 0.79)。当用自我报告和病历数据分层时,估计结果相似。跨性别/性别多样化个体细胞学不满意的几率高出9倍以上(优势比9.92,95%可信区间7.42 ~ 13.26)。总体而言,两组间异常细胞学没有差异(优势比0.75,95%可信区间0.37 ~ 1.49)。在分层分析中,在混合或未指定使用睾酮的研究中(优势比0.44,95%可信区间0.32至0.60)以及在使用全角与萎缩顺性比较者的研究中(优势比0.44,95%可信区间0.33至0.59),观察到跨性别/性别不同个体异常细胞学的几率较低。不满意的细胞学结果在这些阶层之间没有显着差异。没有证据表明有小规模研究的影响。结论:有子宫颈的跨性别/性别不同的个体不太可能及时接受宫颈癌筛查,更可能有不满意的巴氏细胞学检查。异常细胞学似乎是相似的整体,但不同的睾酮使用和比较层。这些发现强调需要制定解剖学上具有包容性的、以证据为基础的筛查指南和评估替代方法,如原发性人乳头瘤病毒检测,以提高宫颈癌筛查的公平性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书