Literature DB >> 12714468

Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented.

A E Raffle1, B Alden, M Quinn, P J Babb, M T Brett.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of different outcomes in women participating in cervical screening.
DESIGN: Analysis of screening records from 348 419 women, and modelling of cases of cervical cancer and deaths with and without screening.
SETTING: Cervical screening programme in Bristol.
RESULTS: For every 10 000 women screened from 1976 to 1996, 1564 had abnormal cytology, 818 were investigated, and 543 had abnormal histology. One hundred and seventy six had persistent abnormality for two years or more. In the absence of screening 80 women would be expected to develop cancer of the cervix by 2011, of whom 25 would die. With screening 10 of these deaths would be avoided. Comparison of cumulative abnormality rates with numbers expected to develop cancer in the absence of screening suggests that at least 80% of high grade dyskaryosis and of high grade dysplasia would not progress to cancer. The lifetime risk of having abnormal cytology detected could be as high as 40% for women born since 1960.
CONCLUSIONS: Screening is labour and resource intensive. It involves treatment for many women not destined to develop invasive cancer. The increased intervention rate for cervical abnormality in England is due to change in practice, not a cohort effect, and is probably the reason for the marked fall in incidence and mortality during the 1990s. For other cancers there is scope for major iatrogenic harm from screening because of invasive tests and treatments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12714468      PMCID: PMC153831          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7395.901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  17 in total

1.  How long will screening myths survive?

Authors:  A E Raffle
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-07-31       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Bridging the knowledge gap and communicating uncertainties for informed consent in cervical cytology screening; we need unbiased information and a culture change.

Authors:  C M Anderson; J Nottingham
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.073

3.  Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model.

Authors:  P Sasieni; J Adams
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-08

4.  Are women sufficiently well informed to provide valid consent for the cervical smear test?

Authors:  D N Slater
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.073

5.  Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Authors:  A E Raffle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 6.  Trends over time in the incidence of cervical neoplasia in comparison to trends over time in human papillomavirus infection.

Authors:  J Dillner
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.168

7.  Anxieties in women undergoing colposcopy.

Authors:  T M Marteau; P Walker; J Giles; M Smail
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1990-09

8.  Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

Authors:  D M Evans; E A Hudson; C L Brown; M M Boddington; H E Hughes; E F Mackenzie; T Marshall
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 9.  Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review.

Authors:  A G Ostör
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.762

10.  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

View more
  30 in total

Review 1.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

Review 2.  Women need better information about routine mammography.

Authors:  Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards; Michael Baum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-12

3.  Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: think of screening as insurance.

Authors:  Peter D Sasieni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-05

4.  Cervical screening.

Authors:  Angela E Raffle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-29

Review 5.  Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Lyndal Trevena; Heather M Davey; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-28

6.  The predictive value of cancer symptoms in primary care.

Authors:  Kevin Barraclough
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Informed participation in cancer screening: the facts are changing, and GPs are going to feel it.

Authors:  Linn Getz; John Brodersen
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.581

Review 8.  Challenges of implementing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination policy.

Authors:  Angela E Raffle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-08-25

9.  Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable?

Authors:  Linn Getz; Johann A Sigurdsson; Irene Hetlevik
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-08-30

10.  [Status of care for prostate cancer in 2008].

Authors:  B Arndt; M Kwiatkowski; F Recker
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.