Do women ≥50 years of age need as much screening as women <50 years after they have had negative screening results?

British Journal of Cancer

Volumn 99, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 239-244

  Armaroli, P ^a   Gallo, F ^a   Bellomi, A ^b   Ciatto, S ^c   Consonni, D ^d   Davi, D ^e   Giorgi Rossi, P ^f   Iossa, A ^c   Mancini, E ^g   Naldoni, C ^h   Polla, E ⁱ   Ronco, G ^a   Serafini, M ^j   Vergini, V ^k   Zanier, L ^l   Zappa, M ^c   Segnan, N ^a  

^a Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria S Giovanni Battista di Torino   (Italy)

^b CARLO POMA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^c Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica   (Italy)

^d FONDAZIONE IRCCS CA GRANDA OSPEDALE MAGGIORE POLICLINICO   (Italy)

^e Epidemiology Unit   (Italy)

^f Agenzia di Sanita Pubblica della Regione Lazio   (Italy)

^g Universitaria S Giovanni Battista di Torino   (Italy)

^h Servizio Presidi Ospedalieri Assessorato Politiche per la Salute Emilia Romagna   (Italy)

ⁱ SANTA CHIARA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^j CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION INSTITUTE ISPO   (Italy)

^k Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria S Giovanni Battista di Torino   (Italy)

^l Epidemiology Unit   (Italy)

more..

Author keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; False positive cases; Mass screening; Middle aged; Vaginal smears

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COHORT ANALYSIS; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCREENING TEST; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERUS BIOPSY; VAGINA SMEAR; WOMEN'S HEALTH; AGE; CLINICAL TRIAL; ITALY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COHORT STUDIES; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 48249139837     PISSN: 00070920     EISSN: 15321827     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604455     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Armaroli P, Gallo F, Anghinoni E, Beccati D, Bellomi A, Brezzi S, Cariaggi MP, Carpanelli MC, Ciatto S, Consonni D, Dalla Palma P, Davi D, Giorgi Rossi P, Iossa A, Mancini E, Naldoni C, Polla E, Raggi P, Ronco G, Schincaglia P, Serafini M, Tomaino A, Vergini V, Zanier L, Segnan N (2005) Studio sulla frequenza del tumore della cervice in donne sopra i 50 anni. In Osservatorio Nazionale Per La Prevenzione Dei Tumori Femminili, Rosselli Del Turco M, Zappa M, pp Roma: Quarto Rapporto. 150-153
2. Bethesda NCI Workshop (1993) The Bethesda System for reporting cervical-vaginal cytologic diagnosis: revised after the second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29-30, 1991. Acta Cytol 37: 115-124
3. Brisson J, Morin C, Fortier M, Roy M, Bouchard C, Leclerc J, Christen A, Guimont C, Penault F, Meisels A (1994) Risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: differences between low- and high-grade lesions. Am J Epidemiol 140: 700-710
4. Coldman A, Phillips N, Kan L, Matisic J, Benedet L, Towers L (2005) Risk of invasive cervical cancer after Pap smears: the protective effect of multiple negatives. J Med Screen 12: 7-11
5. Coleman D, Day N, Douglas G, Farmery E, Lynge E, Philip J, Segnan N (1993) European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 29A: S1-S37
6. Cruickshank ME, Angus V, Kelly M, McPhee S, Kitchener HC (1997) The case for stopping cervical screening at age 50. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104: 586-589
7. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P (1995) Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 141: 680-689
8. Gram IT, Macaluso M, Stalsberg H (1998) Incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, and cancer of the cervix uteri following a negative Pap-smear in an opportunistic screening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77: 228-232
9. Gustafsson L, Sparen P, Gustafsson M, Pettersson B, Wilander E, Bergstrom R, Adami HO (1995) Low efficiency of cytologic screening for cancer in situ of the cervix in older women. Int J Cancer 63: 804-809
10. International Agency for Research on Cancer (2005) IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Cervix Cancer Screening. Volume 10 Lyon: IARC Press
11. International Agency for Research on Cancer (1986) IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. BMJ 293: 659-664
12. Montanari G, Confortini M, Bellomi A, Cocchi V, Dalla Palma P, D'Ambrosio E, Giovagnoli MR, Navone R, Ronco G (2003) Assessment of specimen adequacy reproducibility: an Italian experience. Diagn Cytopathol 28: 224-226
13. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB (2000) Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 132: 810-819
14. Ponten J, Adami HO, Bergstrom R (1995) Strategies for global control of cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 60: 1-26
15. Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Beck JS, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, Lee FD, Lessells AM, McLaren KM, Moss SM, Simpson JG (1989) Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 42: 231-238
16. Ronco G, Pilutti S, Patriarca S, Montanari G, Ghiringhello B, Volante R, Giordano L, Zanetti R, Mancini E, Segnan N (2005) Impact of the introduction of organised screening for cervical cancer in Turin, Italy: cancer incidence by screening history 1992-1998. Br J Cancer 93: 376-378
17. Ronco G, Segnan N, Ponti A (1991) Who has Pap tests? Variables associated with the use of Pap tests in absence of screening programmes. Int J Epidemiol 20: 349-353
18. SAS Institute Inc., USA (1999-2001) Copyright 1999-2001, Software release 8.2
19. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J (2003) Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 89: 88-93
20. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S, Jenkins D (1999) Withdrawing low risk women from cervical screening programmes: mathematical modelling study. BMJ 318: 356-360
21. StataCorp (2005) Stata Statistical Software: release 9. College Station, Stata Corporation: TX
22. Stoler MH, Schiffman M (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 285: 1500-1505
23. Van Wijngaarden WJ, Duncan ID (1993) Rationale for stopping cervical screening in women over 50. BMJ 306: 967-971