Kirsten Rozemeijer1, Folkert J van Kemenade2, Corine Penning3, Suzette M Matthijsse3, Steffie K Naber3, Joost van Rosmalen4, Marjolein van Ballegooijen3, Inge M C M de Kok3. 1. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands k.rozemeijer@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands. 3. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands. 4. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Department of Biostatistics, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Over the last decade, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) detection has increased in the Netherlands. We investigated the underlying mechanism by quantifying the increase, and analyzing patterns of CIN and cervical cancer detection over time. METHODS: We observed annual CIN and cervical cancer detection rates (DRs) per 10,000 primary smears within the Dutch screening programme for 2000-2011. Joinpoint analyses were performed to determine changes in time trends, logistic regression analyses to assess the relative risk of calendar time on histological outcomes, adjusted for demographic factors and type of primary cytology test used. RESULTS: Trends of increased detection occurred for all CIN grades (ie. DRs increased from 17.8 to 36.1, from 21.0 to 35.5, and from 43.4 to 64.6 for CIN I, II, and III from 2003 to 2009). After adjusting for demographic factors, DRs were still 2.11 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.95, 2.29), 1.79 (95% CI: 1.66, 1.92) and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.50, 1.67) times larger in 2009. When also adjusting for the type of cytology test, DRs were 1.90 (95% CI: 1.62, 2.22), 1.48 (95% CI: 1.22, 1.79) and 1.55 (95% CI: 1.39, 1.73) times larger. No trends in cervical cancer DRs were found. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of liquid-based cytology contributed to the CIN increase. If some of these extra detected CIN are regressive this leads to overdiagnosis. Other factors, such as an increased cervical cancer risk, and implementation of imaging-assisted reading, could also have contributed.
OBJECTIVE: Over the last decade, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) detection has increased in the Netherlands. We investigated the underlying mechanism by quantifying the increase, and analyzing patterns of CIN and cervical cancer detection over time. METHODS: We observed annual CIN and cervical cancer detection rates (DRs) per 10,000 primary smears within the Dutch screening programme for 2000-2011. Joinpoint analyses were performed to determine changes in time trends, logistic regression analyses to assess the relative risk of calendar time on histological outcomes, adjusted for demographic factors and type of primary cytology test used. RESULTS: Trends of increased detection occurred for all CIN grades (ie. DRs increased from 17.8 to 36.1, from 21.0 to 35.5, and from 43.4 to 64.6 for CIN I, II, and III from 2003 to 2009). After adjusting for demographic factors, DRs were still 2.11 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.95, 2.29), 1.79 (95% CI: 1.66, 1.92) and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.50, 1.67) times larger in 2009. When also adjusting for the type of cytology test, DRs were 1.90 (95% CI: 1.62, 2.22), 1.48 (95% CI: 1.22, 1.79) and 1.55 (95% CI: 1.39, 1.73) times larger. No trends in cervical cancer DRs were found. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of liquid-based cytology contributed to the CIN increase. If some of these extra detected CIN are regressive this leads to overdiagnosis. Other factors, such as an increased cervical cancer risk, and implementation of imaging-assisted reading, could also have contributed.
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
Authors: Judith van der Horst; Albert G Siebers; Johan Bulten; Leon F Massuger; Inge McM de Kok Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Madleen Orumaa; Maarit K Leinonen; Suzanne Campbell; Bjørn Møller; Tor Åge Myklebust; Mari Nygård Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kirsten Rozemeijer; Corine Penning; Albert G Siebers; Steffie K Naber; Suzette M Matthijsse; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Folkert J van Kemenade; Inge M C M de Kok Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Clare A Aitken; Albert G Siebers; Suzette M Matthijsse; Erik E L Jansen; Ruud L M Bekkers; Jeroen H Becker; Bram Ter Harmsel; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Folkert J van Kemenade; Inge M C M de Kok Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 3.636