Pathways to diagnosis of cervical cancer: Screening history, delay in follow up, and smear reading

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 114, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 398-407

  Priest, P ^a,e   Sadler, L ^a   Peters, J ^b   Crengle, S ^a   Bethwaite, P ^c   Medley, G ^d   Jackson, R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b Auckland Regional Public Health Service   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^d MELBOURNE PATHOLOGY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Cervical screening; Pap smear; Screening programmes

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 33847785234     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01207.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-19.
2. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 2003;89:88-93.
3. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249-56.
4. New Zealand Health Information Service. Mortality and Demographic Data 2000. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2004.
5. Wells W. Review of Cervical Screening Services at Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust. London: NHS Executive, 1997.
6. McGoogan E, Day N, Dorrian L, Hudson EA. Report of the Inquiry into Cervical Cytopathology at Inverclyde Royal Hospital, Greenock. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office Books, 1993.
7. Duffy AP, Barrett DK, Duggan MA. Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Under-Reporting of Cervical Smear Abnormalities in the Gisborne Region. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2001.
8. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E. Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1001-5.
9. 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;88:2283-9.
10. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz P, Lowell DM, Meigs J, Merino MJ, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health 1995;85:791-4.
11. Stuart GCE, McGregor E, Duggan MA, Nation JG. Review of the screening history of Alberta women with invasive cervical cancer. CMAJ 1997;157:513-19.
12. Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Ritter J, Meyer P, Philippe E. Screening histories of incidence cases of cervical cancer and high grade SIL. A comparison. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1431-8.
13. Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, Weinmann S, Mouchawar J, Bischoff K, et al. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:675-83.
14. Sadler L, Priest P, Peters J, Crengle S, Jackson R. The New Zealand Cervical Cancer Audit, Whakamaatau Mate Pukupuku Taiawa o Aotearoa. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2004.
15. New Zealand Health Information Service. Cancer: New Registrations and Deaths 1999. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2002.
16. Ministry of Health. NZDep2001 Population Distributions. [Internet] 2004 [http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/Files/NZDep2001Population Distributions/ $File/NZDep2001PopulationDistributions]. Accessed 30 August 2004.
17. Benedet JL, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Beller U, Creasman WT, Heintz AP, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;83:41-78.
18. National Cervical Screening Programme. Interim Operational Policy and Quality Standards. Wellington: Health Funding Authority, 2000.
19. Statistics New Zealand. 2001 Census: Ethnic Groups. 2005. [http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-ethnic-groups/default]. Accessed 26 April 2005.
20. Independent Monitoring Group. Annual Monitoring Report 2001: National Cervical Screening Programme. Dunedin: Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, 2004.
21. National Screening Unit. Independent Monitoring Group Reports. [http://www.healthywomen.org.nz/mohpro/Monitor.aspx]. Accessed 26 April 2005.
22. Baker D, Middleton E. Cervical screening and health inequality in England in the 1990s. J Epidemol Community Health 2003;57:417-23.
23. Kenter GG, Schoonderwald EM, Koelma IA, Arentz N, Hermans J, Fleuren G. The cytological screening history of 469 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix uteri; does interval carcinoma exist? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:400-3.
24. Womack C, Warren AY. Achievable laboratory standards; a review of cytology of 99 women with cervical cancer. Cytopathology 1998;9:171-7.
25. Crengle S, Crampton P, Woodward A. Mäori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In: Healy J, McKee M, editors. Accessing Health Care: Responding to Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. pp. 281-302.
26. Ajwani S, Blakely T, Robson B, Bonne M, Tobias M. Decades of Disparities: Ethnic Mortality Trends in New Zealand 1980-1999. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2003.
27. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations and Rationale: Screening for Cervical Cancer. 2003. [http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/ cervcan/cervcanrr.htm]. Accessed 29 June 2005.
28. Randall P, Majoribanks J, Farquhar CM. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a systematic review. A Report for the National Screening Unit of the Ministry of Health. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2004.
29. Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N. Liquidbased cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1-78.
30. Sawaya G, Grimes D. New technologies in cervical cytology screening: a word of caution. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:307-10.