Literature DB >> 18093720

Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001.

Maaike A van der Aa1, Eltjo M J Schutter, Monika Looijen-Salamon, Jolise E Martens, Sabine Siesling.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18093720     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.10.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  8 in total

1.  National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program: methods, protocol, and measures.

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

2.  Screening and cervical cancer cure: population based cohort study.

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

3.  Underscreened Women Remain Overrepresented in the Pool of Cervical Cancer Cases in Spain: A Need to Rethink the Screening Interventions.

Authors:  Raquel Ibáñez; María Alejo; Neus Combalia; Xavier Tarroch; Josefina Autonell; Laia Codina; Montserrat Culubret; Francesc Xavier Bosch; Silvia de Sanjosé
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Equity in human papilloma virus vaccination uptake?: sexual behaviour, knowledge and demographics in a cross-sectional study in (un)vaccinated girls in the Netherlands.

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

5.  Projected future impact of HPV vaccination and primary HPV screening on cervical cancer rates from 2017-2035: Example from Australia.

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

6.  Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study.

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

7.  Poor Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance and False Negatives. A Call for Organized Screening.

Authors:  Marta Castillo; Aurora Astudillo; Omar Clavero; Julio Velasco; Raquel Ibáñez; Silvia de Sanjosé
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Attendance at cervical cancer screening and use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the uterine cervix assessed from individual health insurance data (Belgium, 2002-2006).

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Valérie Fabri; Marleen Temmerman; Cindy Simoens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.