Literature DB >> 2586947

Papanicolaou smear screening interval and risk of cervical cancer.

K Shy1, J Chu, M Mandelson, B Greer, D Figge.   

Abstract

The efficacy of Papanicolaou smear screening intervals of longer than 1 year is uncertain. Ninety-two symptomatic cases of invasive cervical cancer diagnosed between 1978-1983 in western Washington were identified with a population-based tumor registry. Using a random-digit-dialing technique, 178 controls from the same geographic area were selected. A structured telephone interview was used to ascertain screening history and risk factors for cervical cancer. The mean interval between papanicolaou smears in the 10 years preceding diagnosis (cases) or the reference date (controls) was calculated. The risk of squamous cell cervical cancer was increased 3.9 times (95% confidence interval 1.2-12.3) for women with Papanicolaou smears at 3-year intervals compared with women with annual screening. For women who had not had a Papanicolaou smear in the preceding 10 years, this risk increased 12.3 times (95% confidence interval 2.5-60.6). For screening intervals of 2 years, the risk of cervical cancer (all cell types) was not increased (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.43-2.37). The presence of well-known risk factors for cervical cancer did not modify these results. These data suggest an increasing risk of cervical cancer if Papanicolaou smear screening intervals exceed 2 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2586947

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  5 in total

Review 1.  Abnormal cervical smear test results: old dilemmas and new directions.

Authors:  C Wilkinson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  The Papanicolaou smear.

Authors:  A King; K Clay; E Felmar; D G Heustis; R M Karns; P Krahl; W D Tench
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1992-02

3.  Invasive cervical cancer and screening: what are the rates of unscreened and underscreened women in the modern era?

Authors:  Akila Subramaniam; Janelle M Fauci; Kellie E Schneider; Jenny M Whitworth; Britt K Erickson; Kenneth Kim; Warner K Huh
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  Exposure Definition in Case-Control Studies of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Alejandra Castanon; Aruna Kamineni; K Miriam Elfström; Anita W W Lim; Peter Sasieni
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Cervical cytology reported as negative and risk of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: no strong evidence of benefit.

Authors:  H Mitchell; G Medley; I Gordon; G Giles
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.