American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 205, Issue 1 , Pages 64.e1-64.e7 , July 2011

Patients with cervical cancer: why did screening not prevent these cases?

  • Roosmarie P. de Bie, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprints: Roosmarie P. de Bie, MD, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (internal mail 791), P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Henke C. Vergers-Spooren, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Leon F.A.G. Massuger, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Albertus G. Siebers, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Maria R.J. Salet-van der Pol

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Judith E.M. Vedder

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Willem J.G. Melchers, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Johan Bulten, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Ruud L.M. Bekkers, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Received 12 November 2010 ,Revised 1 January 2011 ,Accepted 14 February 2011.

References 

  1. Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) databases. http://www.rivm.nlAccessed Jan. 10, 2010
  2. Levi F, Lucchini F, Negri E, Franceschi S, la Vecchia C. Cervical cancer mortality in young women in Europe: patterns and trends. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:2266–2271
  3. van der Aa MA, Pukkala E, Coebergh JW, Anttila A, Siesling S. Mass screening programmes and trends in cervical cancer in Finland and The Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:1854–1858
  4. Sawaya GF, Brown AD, Washington AE, Garber AM. Clinical practice (Current approaches to cervical-cancer screening). N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1603–1607
  5. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:810–819
  6. Bulkmans NW, Rozendaal L, Voorhorst FJ, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ. Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1800–1802
  7. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:1616–1623
  8. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:680–689
  9. Herbert A, Anshu , Gregory M, Gupta SS, Singh N. Invasive cervical cancer audit: a relative increase in interval cancers while coverage increased and incidence declined. BJOG. 2009;116:845–853
  10. Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G, et al. Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol. 2007;29:19–24
  11. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114–2119
  12. Wilbur DC. False negatives in focused rescreening of Papanicolaou smears: how frequently are ‘abnormal' cells detected in retrospective review of smears preceding cancer or high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia?. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:273–276
  13. Andrae B, Kemetli L, Sparen P, et al. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:622–629
  14. Herbert A, Anshu , Culora G, et al. Invasive cervical cancer audit: why cancers developed in a high-risk population with an organised screening programme. BJOG. 2010;117:736–745
  15. Priest P, Sadler L, Peters J, et al. Pathways to diagnosis of cervical cancer: screening history, delay in follow up, and smear reading. BJOG. 2007;114:398–407
  16. Bos AB, Rebolj M, Habbema JD, van Ballegooijen M. Nonattendance is still the main limitation for the effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:2372–2375
  17. van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle E, Patnick J, et al. Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:2177–2188
  18. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, Hogan CL, Lee KR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer. 2001;93:8–15
  19. Schoolland M, Segal A, Allpress S, Miranda A, Frost FA, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Cancer. 2002;96:330–337
  20. Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, Key CR. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States—a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:97–105
  21. van de Nieuwenhof HP, Massuger LF, de Hullu JA, et al. Significant decrease of adenocarcinoma in situ not reflected in cervical adenocarcinoma incidence in The Netherlands, 1989-2003. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:165–167
  22. Ingemann-Hansen O, Lidang M, Niemann I, et al. Screening history of women with cervical cancer: a 6-year study in Aarhus, Denmark. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:1292–1294
  23. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer in Connecticut. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:791–794
  24. Kreuger FA, Beerman H. The screening history of women with cervical cancer in the Rotterdam area. Eur J Epidemiol. 2000;16:641–645
  25. Stuart GC, McGregor SE, Duggan MA, Nation JG. Review of the screening history of Alberta women with invasive cervical cancer. CMAJ. 1997;157:513–519
  26. Sung HY, Kearney KA, Miller M, Kinney W, Sawaya GF, Hiatt RA. Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan. Cancer. 2000;88:2283–2289
  27. van der Aa MA, Schutter EM, Looijen-Salamon M, Martens JE, Siesling S. Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;139:204–209
  28. Tacken MA, Braspenning JC, Hermens RP, et al. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women's beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17:178–185
  29. Bekkers RL, Meijer CJ, Massuger LF, Snijders PJ, Melchers WJ. Effects of HPV detection in population-based screening programmes for cervical cancer; a Dutch moment. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:451–454
  30. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla PP, Naldoni C, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335:28
  31. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1327–1334
  32. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet. 2006;367:122–132
  33. Dawson AE. Can we change the way we screen? (The ThinPrep Imaging System). Cancer. 2004;102:340–344
  34. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer. 2003;99:263–271
  35. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:278–284
  36. Bulkmans NW, Rozendaal L, Snijders PJ, et al. POBASCAM, a population-based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high-risk HPV testing in cervical screening: design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women. Int J Cancer. 2004;110:94–101
  37. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet. 2003;362:1871–1876
  38. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81:207–212
  39. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramer MR, Franco EL, Coutlee F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? (A systematic review and meta-analysis). Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:530–535
  40. Bais AG, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, et al. Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:1505–1510
  41. Gok M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, et al. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study. BMJ. 2010;340:c1040
  42. Nobbenhuis MA, Helmerhorst TJ, van den Brule AJ, et al. Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55:435–439

 Cite this article as: de Bie RP, Vergers-Spooren HC, Massuger LFAG, et al. Patients with cervical cancer: why did screening not prevent these cases? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:64.e1-7.

PII: S0002-9378(11)00236-5

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.02.046

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 205, Issue 1 , Pages 64.e1-64.e7 , July 2011

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution