OBJECTIVE: In The Netherlands, despite a national screening programme since 1996, invasive cervical cancers have been detected in screened and non-screened women. The aim of this study was to determine differences between Pap-smear history, tumour characteristics and survival of patients with a tumour detected by the screening programme (SP) or outside the screening programme (OSP) in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre Stedendriehoek Twente in the period 1992-2001. STUDY DESIGN: In this period, 263 cervical cancer cases in women aged 30-60 were selected from the regional cancer registry. Patient and tumour characteristics, treatment and follow-up data were extracted. Also, detection modality of the tumour and Pap score of the smear which led to the diagnosis ('diagnostic smear') and the 'previous smear' were registered. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent were SP tumours and 65% were OSP tumours. SP tumours had a lower stage (FIGO I) than OSP tumours: 84% versus 57%. The OSP group exhibited a twofold increase in risk of death (p<0.05) compared to the SP group. Subsequently 61 women (23%) and 46 (17%) women had an abnormal Pap smear (Pap II or higher) 5 and 3 years before the 'diagnostic smear', respectively. Furthermore, 37 women (14%) and 23 women (9%) had a normal smear 5 and 3 years before diagnosis, respectively. CONCLUSION: SP tumours have a lower stage and a better prognosis, probably due to the fact that the screening programme detects the slow growing tumours which in general have a better prognosis. Furthermore, detection and treatment of patients with suspicious smears have been suboptimal and attention should therefore be paid to prompt follow-up of suspicious smears.
OBJECTIVE: In The Netherlands, despite a national screening programme since 1996, invasive cervical cancers have been detected in screened and non-screened women. The aim of this study was to determine differences between Pap-smear history, tumour characteristics and survival of patients with a tumour detected by the screening programme (SP) or outside the screening programme (OSP) in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre Stedendriehoek Twente in the period 1992-2001. STUDY DESIGN: In this period, 263 cervical cancer cases in women aged 30-60 were selected from the regional cancer registry. Patient and tumour characteristics, treatment and follow-up data were extracted. Also, detection modality of the tumour and Pap score of the smear which led to the diagnosis ('diagnostic smear') and the 'previous smear' were registered. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent were SP tumours and 65% were OSP tumours. SP tumours had a lower stage (FIGO I) than OSP tumours: 84% versus 57%. The OSP group exhibited a twofold increase in risk of death (p<0.05) compared to the SP group. Subsequently 61 women (23%) and 46 (17%) women had an abnormal Pap smear (Pap II or higher) 5 and 3 years before the 'diagnostic smear', respectively. Furthermore, 37 women (14%) and 23 women (9%) had a normal smear 5 and 3 years before diagnosis, respectively. CONCLUSION:SP tumours have a lower stage and a better prognosis, probably due to the fact that the screening programme detects the slow growing tumours which in general have a better prognosis. Furthermore, detection and treatment of patients with suspicious smears have been suboptimal and attention should therefore be paid to prompt follow-up of suspicious smears.
Authors: Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Elizabeth Calhoun; Donald J Dudley; Kevin Fiscella; Electra Paskett; Peter C Raich; Richard G Roetzheim Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bengt Andrae; Therese M-L Andersson; Paul C Lambert; Levent Kemetli; Lena Silfverdal; Björn Strander; Walter Ryd; Joakim Dillner; Sven Törnberg; Pär Sparén Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-03-01
Authors: Madelief Mollers; Karin Lubbers; Symen K Spoelstra; Willibrord C M Weijmar-Schultz; Toos Daemen; Tjalke A Westra; Marianne A B van der Sande; Hans W Nijman; Hester E de Melker; Adriana Tami Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Michaela T Hall; Kate T Simms; Jie-Bin Lew; Megan A Smith; Marion Saville; Karen Canfell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kirsten Rozemeijer; Steffie K Naber; Corine Penning; Lucy I H Overbeek; Caspar W N Looman; Inge M C M de Kok; Suzette M Matthijsse; Matejka Rebolj; Folkert J van Kemenade; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-02-14