BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to find out whether bleeding symptoms are predictive factors of subsequent gynecological or urinary cancers among women screened negative. METHODS: The data stemmed from the Finnish Mass Screening Registry, and were linked to the National Cancer Registry: 37,596 screening negative women in the nationwide population-based mass screening program for cervical cancer were classified by their bleeding symptom (bloody discharge, coital bleeding, irregular bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding) at the time of screening (1985-1990) and followed up (1985-1994) in order to assess the subsequent risk of cancer. RESULTS: Bleeding symptoms with prevalence of 5.9% were more likely to be signs of preinvasive than invasive cervical cancer with the exception of coital bleeding, nevertheless relative risk of cervical cancer (SIR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8-1.4) was not significantly increased during the total follow-up of maximum 10 years. Women with any bleeding symptom had increased risk of cancer of the corpus uteri (SIR 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.6), postmenopausal bleeding was the strongest symptom (RR 3.6, 95% CI 2.0-6.0). None of the bleeding symptoms increased subsequent risk of ovarian, vaginal or vulvar carcinoma. The risk of kidney cancer was increased (SIR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of bleeding symptoms was small and relative risks for cancers were low for them to be suitable as predictive factors of cancer neither in clinical practice nor for public health purposes, e.g. in developing selective screening based on this high risk group. Only 34 gynecological cancers during 220,000 person-years in women with bleeding symptoms were attributable to bleeding. Relative risks remained increased only for a short time after screening. Therefore, short term surveillance is important, but due to the fact that relative risks approached unity during the follow-up, reassurance of a woman that she is cancer-free should be emphasized more in the long term after the bleeding symptoms.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to find out whether bleeding symptoms are predictive factors of subsequent gynecological or urinary cancers among women screened negative. METHODS: The data stemmed from the Finnish Mass Screening Registry, and were linked to the National Cancer Registry: 37,596 screening negative women in the nationwide population-based mass screening program for cervical cancer were classified by their bleeding symptom (bloody discharge, coital bleeding, irregular bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding) at the time of screening (1985-1990) and followed up (1985-1994) in order to assess the subsequent risk of cancer. RESULTS: Bleeding symptoms with prevalence of 5.9% were more likely to be signs of preinvasive than invasive cervical cancer with the exception of coital bleeding, nevertheless relative risk of cervical cancer (SIR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8-1.4) was not significantly increased during the total follow-up of maximum 10 years. Women with any bleeding symptom had increased risk of cancer of the corpus uteri (SIR 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.6), postmenopausal bleeding was the strongest symptom (RR 3.6, 95% CI 2.0-6.0). None of the bleeding symptoms increased subsequent risk of ovarian, vaginal or vulvar carcinoma. The risk of kidney cancer was increased (SIR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of bleeding symptoms was small and relative risks for cancers were low for them to be suitable as predictive factors of cancer neither in clinical practice nor for public health purposes, e.g. in developing selective screening based on this high risk group. Only 34 gynecological cancers during 220,000 person-years in women with bleeding symptoms were attributable to bleeding. Relative risks remained increased only for a short time after screening. Therefore, short term surveillance is important, but due to the fact that relative risks approached unity during the follow-up, reassurance of a woman that she is cancer-free should be emphasized more in the long term after the bleeding symptoms.
Authors: Anita W W Lim; Lindsay J L Forbes; Adam N Rosenthal; Kantipati S Raju; Amanda-Jane Ramirez Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 2.809