| Literature DB >> 30061804 |
Azra Lukac1, Nenad Sulovic2, Sonja Smiljic3, Aleksandra N Ilic4, Orhan Saban5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/ GOALS: The aim of our study was to point out the importance of the risk factors associated with cervical cancer in an asymptomatic population.Entities:
Keywords: cervical cancer; pap test
Year: 2018 PMID: 30061804 PMCID: PMC6029895 DOI: 10.5455/msm.2018.30.131-135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mater Sociomed ISSN: 1512-7680
Characteristics of subjects in relation to Pap II results
| Characteristics of subjects | PAP II | |
|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |
| Total number n (%) | 17 (2%) | 843 (98%) |
| Years of age | ||
| 16-21 years of age n(%) | 1 (7.7) | 12 (92.3) |
| 22-27 years of age n(%) | 0 (0.0) | 78 (100.0) |
| 28-33 years of age n(%) | 2 (1.8) | 112 (98.2) |
| 34-39 years of age n(%) | 1 (0.6) | 166 (99.4) |
| 40-45 years of age n(%) | 16 (11.3) | 125 (88.7) |
| 46-51 years of age n(%) | 4 (3.0) | 129 (97.0) |
| 52-57 years of age n(%) | 5 (4.3) | 112 (95.7) |
| 58-63 years of age n(%) | 0 (0.0) | 66 (100.0) |
| 64-69 years of age n(%) | 1 (3.2) | 30 (96.8) |
| Type of delivery | ||
| No delivery n(%) | 0 (0.0) | 22 (100.0) |
| Vaginal n(%) | 29 (4.4) | 635 (95.6) |
| Caesarean n(%) | 1 (0.6) | 173 (99.4) |
| Number of children | ||
| No children n(%) | 0 (0.0) | 22 (100.0) |
| Up to two n(%) | 4 (1.6) | 250 (98.4) |
| More than two n(%) | 26 (4.5) | 558 (95.5) |
| Women without children | ||
| No n(%) | 30 (3.6) | 814 (96.4) |
| Yes n(%) | 0 (0.0) | 16 (100.0) |
| Sexual intercourse before the age of 18 | ||
| No n(%) | 15 (1.9) | 767 (98.1) |
| Yes n(%) | 15 (19.2) | 63 (80.8) |
| Oral contraception | ||
| No n(%) | 21 (2.6) | 793 (97.4) |
| Yes n(%) | 9 (19.6) | 37 (80.4) |
| Intrauterine device | ||
| No n(%) | 27 (3.5) | 752 (96.5) |
| Yes n(%) | 3 (3.7) | 78 (96.3) |
| Smoking | ||
| No n(%) | 13 (2.0) | 629 (98.0) |
| Yesn(%) | 17 (7.8) | 201 (92.2) |
| Colposcopy | ||
| Not done | 2 (0.2) | 843 (99.8) |
| Satisfactory | 3 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Low-grade | 12 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Grade of vaginal cleanliness | ||
| Group I | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) |
| Group II | 9 (1.4) | 655 (98.6) |
| Group III | 20 (10.3) | 174 (89.7) |
| Group VI | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Characteristics of subjects in relation to Pap III results
| Characteristics of subjects | PAP II | |
|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |
| Total number n (%) | 844 (98%) | 16 (2%) |
| Years of age | ||
| 16-21years of age n(%) | 13 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| 22-27 years of age n(%) | 78 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| 28-33 years of age n(%) | 112 (98.2) | 2 (1.8) |
| 34-39 years of age n(%) | 166 (99.4) | 1 (0.6) |
| 40-45 years of age n(%) | 125 (88.7) | 16 (11.3) |
| 46-51 years of age n(%) | 129 (97.0) | 4 (3.0) |
| 52-57 years of age n(%) | 112 (95.7) | 5 (4.3) |
| 58-63 years of age n(%) | 66 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| 64-69 years of age n(%) | 30 (96.8) | 1 (3.2) |
| Type of delivery | ||
| No delivery n(%) | 22 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Vaginal n(%) | 635 (95.6) | 29 (4.4) |
| Caesarean n(%) | 174 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Number of children | ||
| No children n(%) | 22 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Up to twon(%) | 251 (98.8) | 3 (1.2) |
| More than two n(%) | 558 (95.5) | 26 (4.5) |
| Women without children | ||
| No n(%) | 815 (96.5) | 29 (3.4) |
| Yes n(%) | 16 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Sexual intercourse before the age of 18 | ||
| No n(%) | 768 (98.2) | 14 (1.8) |
| Yes n(%) | 63 (80.8) | 15 (19.2) |
| Oral contraception | ||
| No n(%) | 794 (97.5) | 20 (2.5) |
| Yes n(%) | 37 (80.4) | 9 (19.6) |
| Intrauterine device | ||
| No n(%) | 753 (96.7) | 26 (3.3) |
| Yes n(%) | 78 (96.3) | 3 (3.7) |
| Smoking | ||
| No n(%) | 630 (98.1) | 12 (1.9) |
| Yes n(%) | 201 (92.2) | 17 (7.8) |
| Colposcopy | ||
| Not done | 831 (99.9) | 1 (0.1) |
| Satisfactory | 0 (0.0) | 10 (100.0) |
| Low-grade | 0 (0.0) | 18 (100.0) |
| Grade of vaginal cleanliness | ||
| Group I | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Group II | 656 (98.8) | 8 (1.2) |
| Group III | 174 (89.7) | 20 (10.3) |
| Group IV | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) |
Figure 1.The distribution of colposcopic findings in subjects with Pap III results
Figure 2.The distribution of low-grade colposcopic findings in subjects with Pap III results