K Miriam Elfström1, Pär Sparén2, Peter Olausson2, Pouran Almstedt2, Björn Strander3,4, Joakim Dillner5,6. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Swedish Cervical Screening Registry, Regional Cancer Center, West Sweden, Sweden. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Science, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden joakim.dillner@karolinska.se. 6. Swedish Cervical Screening Registry, Center for Cervical Cancer Prevention, Department of Pathology, Karolinska University Laboratory, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive nationwide monitoring and evaluation of screening through registry-based review of key indicators is necessary for programme optimization, especially as new tests and strategies are introduced. We aimed to investigate and report on the use of these key indicators in the Swedish programme. SETTING AND METHODS: Organized population-based cervical screening targeting women aged 23-50 and 51-60 every three and five years, respectively, is regionally implemented in Sweden. All cytological and histopathological test results and invitations are exported to the National Cervical Screening Registry. We describe the methods to obtain registry-based quality indicators by age, region, and calendar period. RESULTS: In 2013, there were 633,592 cervical smears in Sweden, of which 69% were organized smears resulting from an invitation. Screening test coverage for women aged 23-60 was 80% and similar for the previous decade, but varied greatly between and within counties over-time. Among women aged 23-25, test coverage increased dramatically during the previous six years, reaching 87% in 2013. The proportion of women with cytological high-grade cervical lesions found in cytology that had been followed-up with biopsy within one year was 97%. Major variations in cervical cancer incidence between counties were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Registry-based analyses of key quality indicators provided the basis for prioritizing improvements of the organized cervical screening programme.
OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive nationwide monitoring and evaluation of screening through registry-based review of key indicators is necessary for programme optimization, especially as new tests and strategies are introduced. We aimed to investigate and report on the use of these key indicators in the Swedish programme. SETTING AND METHODS: Organized population-based cervical screening targeting women aged 23-50 and 51-60 every three and five years, respectively, is regionally implemented in Sweden. All cytological and histopathological test results and invitations are exported to the National Cervical Screening Registry. We describe the methods to obtain registry-based quality indicators by age, region, and calendar period. RESULTS: In 2013, there were 633,592 cervical smears in Sweden, of which 69% were organized smears resulting from an invitation. Screening test coverage for women aged 23-60 was 80% and similar for the previous decade, but varied greatly between and within counties over-time. Among women aged 23-25, test coverage increased dramatically during the previous six years, reaching 87% in 2013. The proportion of women with cytological high-grade cervical lesions found in cytology that had been followed-up with biopsy within one year was 97%. Major variations in cervical cancer incidence between counties were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Registry-based analyses of key quality indicators provided the basis for prioritizing improvements of the organized cervical screening programme.
Authors: Susanne K Kjaer; Mari Nygård; Karin Sundström; Joakim Dillner; Laufey Tryggvadottir; Christian Munk; Sophie Berger; Espen Enerly; Maria Hortlund; Ágúst Ingi Ágústsson; Kaj Bjelkenkrantz; Katrin Fridrich; Ingibjorg Guðmundsdóttir; Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye; Oliver Bautista; Thomas Group; Alain Luxembourg; J Brooke Marshall; David Radley; Yi Shen Yang; Cyrus Badshah; Alfred Saah Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2020-06-20
Authors: Bogdan Pop; Bogdan Fetica; Mihaiela Luminita Blaga; Adrian Pavel Trifa; Patriciu Achimas-Cadariu; Catalin Ioan Vlad; Andrei Achimas-Cadariu Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2019-01-15
Authors: Roxana Merino Martinez; Heimo Müller; Stefan Negru; Alex Ormenisan; Laila Sara Arroyo Mühr; Xinyue Zhang; Frederik Trier Møller; Mark S Clements; Zisis Kozlakidis; Ville N Pimenoff; Bartlomiej Wilkowski; Martin Boeckhout; Hanna Öhman; Steven Chong; Andreas Holzinger; Matti Lehtinen; Evert-Ben van Veen; Piotr Bała; Martin Widschwendter; Jim Dowling; Juha Törnroos; Michael P Snyder; Joakim Dillner Journal: Environ Epidemiol Date: 2021-12-03
Authors: Mari Nygård; Bo T Hansen; Susanne K Kjaer; Maria Hortlund; Laufey Tryggvadóttir; Christian Munk; Camilla Lagheden; Lara G Sigurdardottir; Suzanne Campbell; Kai-Li Liaw; Joakim Dillner Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 3.452