Literature DB >> 8611418

Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group.

P D Sasieni1, J Cuzick, E Lynch-Farmery.   

Abstract

The screening histories of all 348 women with invasive cervical cancer diagnosed in 1992 in 24 self-selected district health authorities and health boards in England, Wales and Scotland were compared with those of 677 age- and residency-matched controls. The controls were randomly selected from the family health services authority (FHSA) register. Screening histories, comprising the dates and results of all smears taken before the date of diagnosis of the patient's cancer, were determined from the FHSA computer and laboratory records. We estimate that the number of cases of cervical cancer in participating districts in 1992 would have been 57% (95% confidence interval 28-86%) greater if there had been no previous screening. In women under the age of 70 it would have been approximately 75% (31-115%) greater. Extrapolation of the results from this pilot suggests that screening prevented between 1100 and 3900 cases of invasive cervical cancer in the UK in 1992. Women with stage 1B cancer or worse were more likely to have no record of previous screening than controls: 47% of these women under the age of 70 had been adequately screened according to current (5 yearly screening) guidelines, compared with 75% of matched controls. Thirteen per cent of all patients under age 70 had screening histories indicative of inadequate follow-up of smears requiring colposcopy. The proportion of microinvasive cases with screening predating diagnosis was similar to the proportion of controls. There was a strong correlation between stage and age: 56% of cancers in women under 35 were microinvasive compared with just 9% in women 65 years or over. The 'relative protection' following a negative smear was greatest in the first 12 months and fell off towards the end of the fifth year. These data suggest that full adherence to current guidelines could perhaps have prevented another 1250 cases, but additional steps would have been required to prevent some of the 2300 remaining cases in women under the age of 70.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8611418      PMCID: PMC2075813          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1996.196

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  2 in total

1.  Attributable risk estimation from matched case-control data.

Authors:  S J Kuritz; J R Landis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Improving the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  R Ellman; J Chamberlain
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1984-10
  2 in total
  70 in total

1.  Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model.

Authors:  P Sasieni; J Adams
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-08

2.  Development of a breast and cervical cancer screening intervention for Vietnamese American women: a community-based participatory approach.

Authors:  Anh B Nguyen; Faye Z Belgrave; Barbara K Sholley
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2010-06-08

Review 3.  How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: think of screening as insurance.

Authors:  Peter D Sasieni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-05

5.  Evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees.

Authors:  Kevin Pottie; Christina Greenaway; John Feightner; Vivian Welch; Helena Swinkels; Meb Rashid; Lavanya Narasiah; Laurence J Kirmayer; Erin Ueffing; Noni E MacDonald; Ghayda Hassan; Mary McNally; Kamran Khan; Ralf Buhrmann; Sheila Dunn; Arunmozhi Dominic; Anne E McCarthy; Anita J Gagnon; Cécile Rousseau; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Increasing cervical cancer screening in the United States-Mexico border region.

Authors:  Beti Thompson; Hugo Vilchis; Crystal Moran; Wade Copeland; Sarah Holte; Catherine Duggan
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  Development of a sensitive and specific assay combining multiplex PCR and DNA microarray primer extension to detect high-risk mucosal human papillomavirus types.

Authors:  Tarik Gheit; Stefano Landi; Federica Gemignani; Peter J F Snijders; Salvatore Vaccarella; Silvia Franceschi; Federico Canzian; Massimo Tommasino
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Brief report: Housestaff adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations.

Authors:  Joseph S Ross; Beverly A Forsyth; Julie R Rosenbaum
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Human papillomavirus vaccines: Why the time is right to implement immunization and surveillance programs in Canada.

Authors:  Ameeta Singh; Tom Wong; Roberta I Howlett
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.471

Review 10.  The association of obesity and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nisa M Maruthur; Shari D Bolen; Frederick L Brancati; Jeanne M Clark
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2008-11-06       Impact factor: 5.002

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.