Fifty years of cervical and breast screening for one invented woman, each interval dated to its source: that is the timeline this NU576 schedule paper lays out, disagreements included. Searches like "nu 576 unit 3 assignment example", "nu576 unit 3 sample" and "nu576 unit 3 example" land here.
From 24 to 74 on One Page: A Screening Schedule Bent for Three Years by a Single HPV-Positive Result
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU576: NP II - Primary Care of Women's Health
Unit 3 Screening Schedule Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient is a composite; ages, results and dates are bracketed.
The Patient
Ms. [L.], 24, at average risk for cervical and breast cancer: no prior abnormal cervical results, HPV vaccination series completed at [13], no immune compromise, and no family history of breast or ovarian cancer; her mother, at [60], has had no breast cancer.
The Schedule
1. Age 24. Cervical: cytology every three years (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018). Source note: the American Cancer Society's 2020 update would instead begin primary HPV testing at 25 (Fontham et al., 2020).
2. Age 27. Cervical: cytology.
3. Age 30. Cervical: primary HPV testing every five years, or cotesting every five years, or cytology every three years (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018). Chosen: primary HPV testing.
4. Age 35. Cervical: primary HPV, negative.
5. Age 38. Cervical: HPV positive, cytology negative for intraepithelial lesion. Management under the 2019 ASCCP risk-based guidelines: repeat HPV testing in one year (Perkins et al., 2020).
6. Age 39. Cervical: HPV negative. Next test in three years.
7. Age 40. Breast: mammography every two years begins (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2024).
8. Age 42. Cervical: HPV negative. Return to five-year interval. Breast: mammogram; report notes dense breast tissue.
9. Ages 44 to 74. Breast: mammography every two years.
10. Ages 47, 52, 57, 62. Cervical: primary HPV every five years, all negative.
11. Age 65. Cervical: stop, after adequate negative prior screening.
12. Age 74. Breast: last scheduled mammogram.
Decision 1: Starting at 24 With Cytology
The USPSTF recommends cytology every three years from 21 to 29 and adds HPV-based options from 30 (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018). The American Cancer Society recommends starting at 25 with primary HPV testing every five years, citing the better sensitivity of HPV testing and the low risk of cervical cancer before 25 (Fontham et al., 2020). At 24, the two disagree. This paper follows the USPSTF for her first test, because she is under 25 and the ACS approach would not yet have started, and switches to primary HPV testing at 30, where both bodies accept it. Either path would be defensible; the note explains the choice so that the next clinician does not assume an error.
Decision 2: How One Result Replaces the Routine Interval
After an abnormal result, the ASCCP guidelines replace a fixed interval with an estimate of her immediate risk of a precancer, and that risk sets the next step. For an HPV-positive result with normal cytology and a prior negative HPV test, her immediate risk of CIN3 or worse is low enough that repeat testing in one year is recommended, rather than colposcopy now (Perkins et al., 2020). When the one-year test is HPV negative, her risk falls, and the next test is in three years. Only after that three-year test is negative does she return to the routine five-year interval. The single result at 38 bends the cervical line for three years, from 38 to 42, before it straightens.
Decision 3: Dense Breasts
At 42, her mammogram report states that she has dense breast tissue. Since September 2024, federal mammography quality rules require facilities to tell patients whether their breast tissue is dense and that dense tissue can make cancer harder to see (Mammography Quality Standards Act, 88 Fed. Reg. 15126, 2023). The USPSTF concluded that current evidence is insufficient to assess supplemental screening with ultrasound or MRI for women with dense breasts on an otherwise negative mammogram, an I statement (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2024). The paper therefore records a discussion rather than an order: what density means, that her risk is otherwise average, and that supplemental imaging is an option with uncertain benefit and a higher rate of false positives.
Decision 4: Biennial or Annual, and When to Stop Mammograms
The breast rows follow the USPSTF's 2024 recommendation of mammography every two years from 40 to 74. Other bodies differ on interval: some radiology and cancer organizations favor annual screening from 40, and the tradeoff is a modest gain in cancers found against more false positives and callbacks. The paper follows the biennial schedule for an average-risk woman and records that she was told annual screening is a reasonable alternative if she prefers it. The last scheduled mammogram at 74 reflects the Task Force's conclusion that evidence is insufficient to weigh benefits and harms at 75 and older (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2024). Beyond 74, the decision depends on her health and life expectancy, and the schedule leaves it open rather than ending it by default.
Decision 5: Stopping Cervical Screening at 65
Screening stops at 65 only after adequate negative prior screening, meaning, in the usual definition, three negative cytology results in a row or two negative HPV-based results in a row across the decade before stopping, the most recent within five years, and no history of CIN2 or worse in the previous 25 years (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2018; Perkins et al., 2020). Her HPV tests at 57 and 62 were negative, and her abnormal result at 38 was not CIN2 or worse, so she meets the definition.
Why One Schedule Serves Her Better Than Many Visits
Screening decisions are usually made one visit at a time, by different clinicians, each looking at the last result. A single schedule, written once and updated when something changes, shows the whole line: where a result bent it, when it straightened, and what comes next. It keeps the reasons attached to the dates, so a clinician meeting her at 52 can see that the five-year interval was restored at 42 and why. It also makes the sources visible, so that when she asks why her friend was offered a different test at the same age, the answer is on the page.
What Would Change the Schedule
1. A new family history of breast or ovarian cancer, prompting risk assessment and possible genetic evaluation.
2. A diagnosis of CIN2 or worse, which would extend cervical surveillance for 25 years.
3. Immune compromise, such as HIV, calling for more frequent cervical screening.
4. A hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for a benign reason, ending cervical screening.
5. A move to a practice that follows a different body's starting age, which would be noted rather than treated as a gap.
References
Fontham, E. T. H., Wolf, A. M. D., Church, T. R., Etzioni, R., Flowers, C. R., Herzig, A., Guerra, C. E., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y.-C. T., Walter, L. C., Kim, J. J., Andrews, K. S., DeSantis, C. E., Fedewa, S. A., Manassaram-Baptiste, D., Saslow, D., Wender, R. C., & Smith, R. A. (2020). Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 70(5), 321-346. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21628
Mammography Quality Standards Act, 88 Fed. Reg. 15126 (March 10, 2023).
Perkins, R. B., Guido, R. S., Castle, P. E., Chelmow, D., Einstein, M. H., Garcia, F., Huh, W. K., Kim, J. J., Moscicki, A.-B., Nayar, R., Saraiya, M., Sawaya, G. F., Wentzensen, N., & Schiffman, M. (2020). 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 24(2), 102-131. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 320(7), 674-686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.10897
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2024). Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 331(22), 1918-1930. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.5534
How this NU576 Unit 3 example is structured
An opening paragraph states the patient's relevant history in four lines: average risk, vaccination status, no prior abnormal results and a mother with no breast cancer. The schedule table follows and carries the argument. Below it, one short section per decision point explains the entry. The first reconciles the USPSTF and ACS starting ages and states which one the paper follows and why. The second shows how the ASCCP guidelines replace the routine interval with a risk estimate after the abnormal result. The third addresses dense breasts, noting that supplemental imaging received an I statement in 2024 and is discussed, not ordered by default. The fourth defines adequate prior screening before the paper stops cervical testing at 65. Closing the paper, one paragraph lists what would move her onto a different schedule, such as a new family history.
Get an NU576 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Screening prompts in NU576 name different ages and histories, so send the case exactly as written, plus the rubric used to grade it. Expect a schedule table with every interval dated and sourced, any abnormal result managed under current risk-based guidance, and conflicts between recommending bodies settled in prose. Your first paper costs nothing and reaches you within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
NU576 Unit 3 questions, answered
Which cervical screening recommendation should the paper follow?
Whichever your course names, and many sections accept either the USPSTF or the American Cancer Society if the choice is stated and justified. The two differ mainly in starting age and preferred test. What costs marks is mixing them without comment, or citing one body for an interval it does not recommend.
Does HPV vaccination change the screening schedule?
Not under current US recommendations. Vaccinated and unvaccinated patients follow the same schedule, because vaccines do not cover every high-risk type and many adults were vaccinated after exposure. A paper can note vaccination status in the history, but the intervals in the table should not change because of it.
How should an abnormal result appear in a schedule paper?
As a break in the routine table, with the management guideline named. The ASCCP 2019 guidelines assign follow-up by estimated risk, so the paper should state the result, the recommended next step and interval, and what result would return the patient to routine screening. A single sentence saying follow up as indicated rarely earns credit.