Literature DB >> 11078121

The screening history of women with cervical cancer in the Rotterdam area.

F A Kreuger1, H Beerman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In order to gain insight into the diagnostic effectiveness of the screening program on cervical cancer in the Rotterdam area, the history of women with cervical cancer was studied. Three questions were asked: (1) What percentage of women were invited to the screening program, and what percentage participated. (2) What percentage of women had had a negative smear within 3 years before cancer was diagnosed, and (3) What percentage of women encountered inadequate follow-up.
METHODS: All the cytological and histological results of women who were diagnosed with cervical carcinoma between 1992-1994 were studied.
RESULTS: Within 3 years of the diagnosis, 42% of the 165 women with cervical cancer were invited for the cervical screening program. A total of 47% were too old to be invited and 10% were too young. A total of 37% of the women who were invited participated in the screening program. A total of 33 (20%) of 165 women with cervical carcinoma had had a negative smear within three years preceding the diagnosis. For women under 34 years of age this was 41% (n = 7), and for women over 56 years 8% (n = 6). A total of 7% of all women with cervical cancer encountered inadequate follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Many women with a diagnosis of cervical cancer are too old to be invited for the cervical screening program. Relatively few of the women with cervical cancer who were invited for the screening program actually participated in this program.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11078121     DOI: 10.1023/a:1007695001384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  13 in total

1.  Reasons for cervical cancer despite extensive screening.

Authors:  B Stenkvist; J Söderström
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  [Follow-up not according to guidelines after an abnormal cervix smear].

Authors:  F A Kreuger; H Beerman; H G Nijs; J A Wijnen
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  1996-04-13

3.  [Disappointing effectiveness of population screening for cervical cancer].

Authors:  R W Giard; J W Coebergh; J A Wijnen
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  1997-02-15

4.  Cervical cytology screening: a comparison of two call systems.

Authors:  A Wilson; A Leeming
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-07-18

5.  [Recommendations in aberrant findings of cytological studies of the cervix uteri].

Authors:  G P Vooijs
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  1987-09-19

6.  Pap smear screening and changes in cervical cancer mortality in Sweden.

Authors:  C G Mählck; H Jonsson; P Lenner
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 3.561

7.  Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for?

Authors:  A E Raffle; B Alden; E F Mackenzie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-06-10       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut.

Authors:  D T Janerich; O Hadjimichael; P E Schwartz; D M Lowell; J W Meigs; M J Merino; J T Flannery; A P Polednak
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Cervical cancers diagnosed after negative results on cervical cytology: perspective in the 1980s.

Authors:  H Mitchell; G Medley; G Giles
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-06-23

10.  Screening history of incident cases of invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Florence district 1988-1989.

Authors:  S Ciatto; G Grazzini; S Cecchini; A Iossa
Journal:  Tumori       Date:  1993-10-31
View more
  1 in total

1.  The family experiences of in-hospital care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI): a validation study.

Authors:  Audny Anke; Unn Sollid Manskow; Oddgeir Friborg; Cecilie Røe; Cathrine Arntzen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 2.655

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.