Literature DB >> 9933195

Withdrawing low risk women from cervical screening programmes: mathematical modelling study.

C Sherlaw-Johnson1, S Gallivan, D Jenkins.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of policies for removing women before the recommended age of 64 from screening programmes for cervical cancer in the United Kingdom.
DESIGN: A mathematical model of the clinical course of precancerous lesions which accounts for the influence of infection with the human papillomavirus, the effects of screening on the progression of disease, and the accuracy of the testing procedures. Two policies are compared: one in which women are withdrawn from the programme if their current smear is negative and they have a recent history of regular, negative results and one in which women are withdrawn if their current smear test is negative and a simultaneous test is negative for exposure to high risk types of human papillomavirus.
SETTING: United Kingdom cervical screening programme. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the use of resources.
RESULTS: Early withdrawal of selected women from the programme is predicted to give rise to resource savings of up to 25% for smear tests and 18% for colposcopies when withdrawal occurs from age 50, the youngest age considered in the study. An increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer, by up to 2 cases/100 000 women each year is predicted. Testing for human papillomavirus infection to determine which women should be withdrawn from the programme makes little difference to outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: This model systematically analyses the consequences of screening options using available data and the clinical course of precancerous lesions. If further audit studies confirm the model's forecasts, a policy of early withdrawal might be considered. This would be likely to release substantial resources which could be channelled into other aspects of health care or may be more effectively used within the cervical screening programme to counteract the possible increase in cancer incidence that early withdrawal might bring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9933195      PMCID: PMC27721          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7180.356

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  24 in total

1.  Decision analysis in the selection, design and application of clinical and health services research.

Authors:  R Lilford; G Royston
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1998-07

2.  An evaluation of screening policies for cervical cancer in England and Wales using a computer simulation model.

Authors:  D M Parkin; S M Moss
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Assessing the effectiveness of a screening campaign: who is missed by 80% cervical screening coverage?

Authors:  S Orbell; I Crombie; A Robertson; G Johnston; M Kenicer
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Modelling issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  G J van Oortmarssen; R Boer; J D Habbema
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  Cervical cytology screening in two Yorkshire areas: results of testing.

Authors:  D M Parkin; K Leach; P Cobb; A D Clayden
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 2.427

6.  Simulation applied to health services: opportunities for applying the system dynamics approach.

Authors:  K Taylor; D Lane
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1998-10

7.  Use of a mathematical model to evaluate breast cancer screening policy.

Authors:  R D Baker
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  1998-10

8.  Evaluating screening policies for the early detection of retinopathy in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes.

Authors:  S C Brailsford; R Davies; C Canning; P J Roderick
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  1998-10

9.  A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection.

Authors:  L A Koutsky; K K Holmes; C W Critchlow; C E Stevens; J Paavonen; A M Beckmann; T A DeRouen; D A Galloway; D Vernon; N B Kiviat
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-10-29       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Clinical implications of screening for cervical cancer under Medicare. The natural history of cervical cancer in the elderly: what do we know? What do we need to know?

Authors:  J Mandelblatt; C Schechter; M Fahs; C Muller
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  12 in total

1.  Withdrawing low risk women from cervical screening programmes. Conclusions cannot yet be drawn.

Authors:  M E van den Akker-van Marle; M van Ballegooijen; R Boer; G J van Oortmarssen; J D Habbema
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-03

Review 2.  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

3.  Challenging the role of calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis in relation to models of health care processes.

Authors:  Steve Gallivan
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2008-06

Review 4.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Effects of screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in New South Wales implied by influences of period of diagnosis and birth cohort.

Authors:  R J Taylor; S L Morrell; H A Mamoon; G V Wain
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Cervical human papillomavirus screening among older women.

Authors:  Matthew J Grainge; Rashmi Seth; Li Guo; Keith R Neal; Carol Coupland; Paul Vryenhoef; Jane Johnson; David Jenkins
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 6.883

7.  Estimating the long-term impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine on the burden of cervical cancer in the UK.

Authors:  M Kohli; N Ferko; A Martin; E L Franco; D Jenkins; S Gallivan; C Sherlaw-Johnson; M Drummond
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-12-05       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Risk of cervical abnormality after age 50 in women with previously negative smears.

Authors:  R G Blanks; S M Moss; S Addou; D A Coleman; A J Swerdlow
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme.

Authors:  C Sherlaw-Johnson; Z Philips
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-07-05       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Do women >or=50 years of age need as much screening as women <50 years after they have had negative screening results?

Authors:  P Armaroli; F Gallo; A Bellomi; S Ciatto; D Consonni; D Davi; P Giorgi-Rossi; A Iossa; E Mancini; C Naldoni; E Polla; G Ronco; M Serafini; V Vergini; L Zanier; M Zappa; N Segnan
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.