Literature DB >> 27864938

Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

Dik Habbema1, Sheila Weinmann2, Marc Arbyn3, Aruna Kamineni4, Andrew E Williams5, Inge M C M de Kok1, Folkert van Kemenade6, Terry S Field7, Joost van Rosmalen8, Martin L Brown9.   

Abstract

We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen-positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age-standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21-65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two- to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations.
© 2016 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pap test; United States; cervical cancer; harms; health problems; screening; the Netherlands

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27864938      PMCID: PMC5423652          DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30524

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  44 in total

Review 1.  Accuracy of self-reports of Pap and mammography screening compared to medical record: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michelle Howard; Gina Agarwal; Alice Lytwyn
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  Effects of streamlining cervical cancer screening the Dutch way: consequences of changes in the Dutch KOPAC-based follow-up protocol and consensus-based limitation of equivocal cytology.

Authors:  Martijn C Briët; Thomas H D Berger; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Mathilde E Boon; Matejka Rebolj
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.319

3.  Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Inge M C M De Kok; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  Adverse obstetrical outcomes after treatment of precancerous cervical lesions: a Belgian multicentre study.

Authors:  C Simoens; F Goffin; P Simon; P Barlow; J Antoine; J-M Foidart; M Arbyn
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 6.531

5.  Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes.

Authors:  E Lăără; N E Day; M Hakama
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1987-05-30       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Cervical cancer screening and follow-up in 4 geographically diverse US health care systems, 1998 through 2007.

Authors:  Sheila Weinmann; Andrew E Williams; Aruna Kamineni; Diana S M Buist; Erin E Masterson; Natasha K Stout; Azadeh Stark; Tyler R Ross; Christopher L Owens; Terry S Field; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-04-11       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  After-effects reported by women following colposcopy, cervical biopsies and LLETZ: results from the TOMBOLA trial.

Authors:  Linda Sharp; Seonaidh Cotton; Claire Cochran; Nicola Gray; Julian Little; Keith Neal; Maggie Cruickshank
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2009-07-07       Impact factor: 6.531

Review 9.  Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Arbyn; M Kyrgiou; C Simoens; A O Raifu; G Koliopoulos; P Martin-Hirsch; W Prendiville; E Paraskevaidis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-09-18

10.  Cancer screening test use - United States, 2013.

Authors:  Susan A Sabatino; Mary C White; Trevor D Thompson; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 17.586

View more
  16 in total

1.  Excess Cost of Cervical Cancer Screening Beyond Recommended Screening Ages or After Hysterectomy in a Single Institution.

Authors:  Deanna Teoh; Gretchen Hultman; McKenzie DeKam; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Levi S Downs; Melissa A Geller; Chap Le; Genevieve Melton; Shalini Kulasingam
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  HIV-positive women have higher risk of human papilloma virus infection, precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer.

Authors:  Gui Liu; Monisha Sharma; Nicholas Tan; Ruanne V Barnabas
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 4.177

3.  HPV-based cervical cancer screening- facts, fiction, and misperceptions.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Marc Arbyn
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Implementation considerations using HPV self-collection to reach women under-screened for cervical cancer in high-income settings.

Authors:  H N Pedersen; L W Smith; C Sarai Racey; D Cook; M Krajden; D van Niekerk; G S Ogilvie
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Inefficiencies of over-screening and under-screening for cervical cancer prevention in the U.S.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Role of Colposcopy after Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.

Authors:  Annu Heinonen; Maija Jakobsson; Mari Kiviharju; Seppo Virtanen; Karoliina Aro; Maria Kyrgiou; Pekka Nieminen; Ilkka Kalliala
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Assessing Physician Adherence to Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Screening Results.

Authors:  Caroline J Min; L Stewart Massad; Rebecca Dick; Matthew A Powell; Lindsay M Kuroki
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.842

8.  Management and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the Netherlands after referral for colposcopy.

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

9.  Cancer cases detected in the prevention and control service of a private cancer clinic in Peru.

Authors:  José Revilla-López; Andrea Anampa-Guzmán; Luis Casanova Marquez; Katrina Weeks; Suzanne Pollard; Adriel Olórtegui-Yzú; María Ruiz-Velazco; Alba Davila-Edquen; Daniel Castro-Dorer; Juan Wong-Barrenechea; Jossira Abad-Seminario; Pamela Gonzáles-Ramos; Fiorella Rivera-Sandoval; Carlos Carracedo-Gonzáles
Journal:  Infect Agent Cancer       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 2.965

Review 10.  Defining benchmarks for tolerable risk thresholds in cancer screening: Impact of HPV vaccination on the future of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Joseph E Tota; Sandra D Isidean; Eduardo L Franco
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 7.316

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.