Literature DB >> 14561792

Risk of cervical cancer associated with extending the interval between cervical-cancer screenings.

George F Sawaya1, K John McConnell, Shalini L Kulasingam, Herschel W Lawson, Karla Kerlikowske, Joy Melnikow, Nancy C Lee, Ginny Gildengorin, Evan R Myers, A Eugene Washington.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although contemporary guidelines suggest that the intervals between Papanicolaou tests can be extended to three years among low-risk women with previous negative tests, the excess risk of cervical cancer associated with less frequent than annual screening is uncertain.
METHODS: We determined the prevalence of biopsy-proven cervical neoplasia among 938,576 women younger than 65 years of age, stratified according to the number of previous consecutive negative Papanicolaou tests. Using a Markov model that estimates the rate at which dysplasia will progress to cancer, we estimated the risk of cancer within three years after one or more negative Papanicolaou tests, as well as the number of additional Papanicolaou tests and colposcopic examinations that would be required to avert one case of cancer given a particular interval between screenings.
RESULTS: Among 31,728 women 30 to 64 years of age who had had three or more consecutive negative tests, the prevalence of biopsy-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 was 0.028 percent and the prevalence of grade 3 neoplasia was 0.019 percent; none of the women had invasive cervical cancer. According to our model, the estimated risk of cancer with annual Papanicolaou tests for three years was 2 in 100,000 among women 30 to 44 years of age, 1 in 100,000 among women 45 to 59 years of age, and 1 in 100,000 among women 60 to 64 years of age; these risks would be 5 in 100,000, 2 in 100,000, and 1 in 100,000, respectively, if screening were performed once three years after the last negative test. To avert one additional case of cancer by screening 100,000 women annually for three years rather than once three years after the last negative test, an average of 69,665 additional Papanicolaou tests and 3861 colposcopic examinations would be needed in women 30 to 44 years of age and an average of 209,324 additional Papanicolaou tests and 11,502 colposcopic examinations in women 45 to 59 years of age.
CONCLUSIONS: As compared with annual screening for three years, screening performed once three years after the last negative test in women 30 to 64 years of age who have had three or more consecutive negative Papanicolaou tests is associated with an average excess risk of cervical cancer of approximately 3 in 100,000. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14561792     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa035419

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  24 in total

1.  Use of electronic health record data to evaluate overuse of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Jason S Mathias; Dana Gossett; David W Baker
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Too much of a good thing?

Authors:  Brenda E Sirovich
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Performance of implementing guideline-driven cervical cancer screening measures in an inner-city hospital system.

Authors:  Daryl L Wieland; Laura L Reimers; Eijean Wu; Lisa M Nathan; Tammy Gruenberg; Maria Abadi; Mark H Einstein
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 4.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  What Australian women want and when they want it: cervical screening testing preferences, decision-making styles and information needs.

Authors:  Mbathio Dieng; Lyndal Trevena; Robin M Turner; Monika Wadolowski; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Inge M C M De Kok; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.911

7.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Negative predictive value of pap testing: implications for screening intervals for women with human immunodeficiency virus.

Authors:  L Stewart Massad; Gypsyamber DʼSouza; Fang Tian; Howard Minkoff; Mardge Cohen; Rodney L Wright; Christine Colie; Nancy A Hessol
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 9.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna M Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers; David Chelmow; Abbe Herzig; Jane J Kim; Walter Kinney; W Lawson Herschel; Jeffrey Waldman
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.925

10.  Cost is a barrier to widespread use of liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening in Korea.

Authors:  Hyun Hoon Chung; Jae Weon Kim; Soon-Beom Kang
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.