Decreasing cervical cancer mortality in Mexico: Effect of papanicolaou coverage, birthrate, and the importance of diagnostic validity of cytology

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 17, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 2808-2817

  Lazcano Ponce, Eduardo ^a   Palacio Mejia, Lina Sofía ^a   Allen Leigh, Betania ^a   Yunes Diaz, Elsa ^a   Alonso, Patricia ^b   Schiavon, Raffaela ^c   Hernandez Avila, Mauricio ^d  

^a INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SALUD PÚBLICA   (Mexico)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^c IPAS   (United States)

^d Ministry of Health   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH RATE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEXICO; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RURAL AREA; SELF REPORT; URBAN AREA; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

BIRTH RATE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; LINEAR MODELS; MEXICO; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 54249083703     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2659     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Bray F, Loos AH, McCarron P, et al. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:677-86.
2. Hristova L, Hakama M. Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries on deaths, cost and quality of life up to the year 2017. Acta Oncol 1997;36 Suppl 9:1-60.
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. Lazcano-Ponce E, Rascon-Pacheco R, Lozano-Ascencio R, Velasco E. Mortality from carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Mexico: Impact of screening 1980-1990. Acta Cytol 1996;40:506-12.
5. Lazcano-Ponce E, Nájera-Aguilar P, Buiatti E, et al. The cervical cancer screening program in México: problems with access and coverage. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:698-704.
6. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Moss S, Alonso de Ruíz P, Salmerón Castro J, Hernández Avila M. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: why is it ineffective? The case of Mexico. Arch Med Res 1999;30:240-50.
7. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Buiatti E, Nájera-Aguilar P, Alonso-de-Ruiz P, Hernández-Avila M. Evaluation model of the Mexican national program for early cervical cancer detection and proposals for a new approach. Cancer Causes Control 1998;9:241-51.
8. Lazcano-Ponce EC, de Ruiz PA, Lopez-Carrillo L, Vazquez-Manriquez ME, Hernandez-Avila M. Quality control study on negative gynecological cytology in Mexico. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;10:10-4.
9. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Alonso de Ruíz P, López-Carrillo L, et al. Validity and reproducibility of cytologic diagnosis in a sample of cervical cancer screening centers in Mexico. Acta Cytol 1997;41:277-84.
10. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, World Population Prospects, 2004 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects, 2003 Revision [consulted 2006 February 24]. Available from: http://esa.un.org/unpp.
11. Valdespino JL, Olaiz G, López-Barajas MP, et al. Encuesta Nacional de Salud 2000. Tomo I. Vivienda, población y utilización de servicios de salud. Cuernavaca, Morelos (México): Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; 2003.
12. Chavez A, Uribe P, Palma Y, editors. La salud reproductiva en México: Análisis de la encuesta nacional de salud reproductivea 2003. Secretaría de Salud y Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias. UNAM, Mexico.
13. INSP/CIESAS. Evaluación de Resultados de Impacto del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades. Cuernavaca (Mexico): Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; 2003. Available from: http://evaluacion.oportunidades.gob. mx:8010/es/eval_cuantitativa.php.
14. Hernández Prado B, Hernández Ávila M. Evaluación externa de effecto del Programa Oportunidades 2003. Cuernavaca (Mexico): Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; 2005. Available from: http://evaluacion.oportunidades.gob.mx:8010/es/eval_cuantitativa.php.
15. Olaiz-Fernández G, Rivera-Dommarco J, Shamah-Levy T, et al. Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutrición 2006 [National Health and Nutrition Survey 2006]. Cuernavaca (Mexico): Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica; 2006.
16. Sepúlveda C, Prado R. Effective cervical cytology screening programmes in middle-income countries: The Chilean experience. Cancer Detect Prev 2005;29:405-11.
17. Parkin M, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74-108.
18. Castellsague X, Muñoz N. Cofactors in human papillomavirus carcinogenesis - role of parity, oral contraceptives and tobacco smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2003;31:20-8.
19. Schiffman MH, Brinton LA. The epidemiology of cervical carcinogenesis. Cancer 1995;76:1888-901.
20. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Rojas-Martínez R, López-Acuña MP, López-Carrillo L, Hernández-Avila M. [Reproductive risk factors and uterine cervix cancer in Mexico City.]. Salud Publica Mex 1993;35:65-73.
21. Giuliano AR, Papenfuss M, De Galaz EM, et al. Risk factors for squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) of the cervix among women residing at the US-Mexico border. Int J Cancer 2004;109:112-8.
22. Munoz N, Castellsague X, de Gonzalez AB, Gissmann L. Chapter 1: HPV in the etiology of human cancer. Vaccine 2006;24S3:S1-10.
23. Castellsague X, Diaz M, de Sanjose S, et al. Worldwide human papillomavirus etiology of cervical adenocarcinoma and its cofactors: implications for screening and prevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:303-15.
24. Castellsague X, Munoz N. Chapter 3: Cofactors in human papillomavirus carcinogenesis - role of parity, oral contraceptives, and tobacco smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2003;31:20-8.
25. Munoz N, Franceschi S, Bosetti C, et al. Role of parity and human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: the IARC multicentric case-control study. Lancet 2002;359:1093-101.
26. Lynge E, Clausen LB, Guignard R, Poll P. What happens when organization of cervical cancer screening is delayed or stopped? J Med Screen 2006;13:41-6.
27. Sirovich BE, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Screening for cervical cancer: will women accept less? Am J Med 2005;118:151-8.
28. Sirovich BE, Welch HG. The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:243-50.
29. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999;318:904-8.
30. Anttila A, Pukkala E, Soderman B, Kallio M, Nieminen P, Hakama M. Effect of organised screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Finland, 1963-1995: recent increase in cervical cancer incidence. Int J Cancer 1999;83:59-65.
31. Caplan LS, McQueen DV, Qualters JR, Leff M, Garrett C, Calonge N. Validity of women's self-reports of cancer screening test utilization in a managed care population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:1182-7.
32. Kahn JA, Goodman E, Kaplowitz RA, Slap GB, Emans SJ. Validity of adolescent and young adult self-report of Papanicolaou smear results. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:625-31.
33. Norman SA, Localio AR, Zhou L, et al. Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:264-71.
34. Bancej CM, Maxwell CJ, Snider J. Inconsistent self-reported mammography history: findings from the National Population Health Survey longitudinal cohort. BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4:32.
35. Hall HI, Van Den Eeden SK, Tolsma DD, et al. Testing for prostate and colorectal cancer: comparison of self-report and medical record audit. Prev Med 2004;39:27-35.
36. Kim JJ, Leung GM, Woo PP, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong. J Public Health 2004;26:130-7.
37. Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Goldie SJ. Estimating the cost of cervical cancer screening in five developing countries. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006;4:13.
38. Yabroff KR, Mangan P, Mandelblatt J. Effectiveness of interventions to increase Papanicolaou smear use. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16:188-203.
39. Bastani R, Yabroff KR, Myers RE, Glenn B. Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening. Cancer 2004;101:1188-200.
40. Goins KV, Zapka JG, Geiger AM, et al. Implementation of systems strategies for breast and cervical cancer screening services in health maintenance organizations. Am J Manag Care 2003;9:745-55.
41. Yabroff KR, Kerner JF, Mandelblatt JS. Effectiveness of interventions to improve follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening. Prev Med 2000;31:429-39.
42. Nieminen P, Kotaniemi L, Hakama M, et al. A randomised public-health trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: Performance with 470,000 invitations. Int J Cancer 2005;115:307-11.
43. Salmeron J, Lazcano-Ponce E, Lorincz A, et al. Comparison of HPV-based assays with Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening in Morelos State, Mexico. Cancer Causes Control 2003;14:505-12.
44. Mitchell HS. Laboratory performance measures: evidence against low-risk women explaining low detection rates of high-grade abnormalities. Cytopathology 2005;16:77-81.
45. Lundenberg G. Quality assurance in cervical cytology. The Papanicolaou smear. JAMA 1989;262:1672-9.
46. CLIA 88. Centers for Diseases Control. Regulations for implementing clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988: a summary. JAMA 1982;267:1725-34.
47. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The revised Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. Acta Cytol 1992;36:273-6.
48. Koss L, Lin E, Schreiber K, Elgert P, Mango L. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:220-9.
49. Data on automated cytology systems as submitted by their developers. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1991;13:300-6.
50. Wilbur D, Cibas E, Merritt S, James L, Berger B, Bonfiglio T. Thinprep processor. Clinical trials demostrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytology specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-14.
51. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12-9.
52. Inglis S, Shaw A, Koenig S. Chapter 11: HPV vaccines: Commercial Research & Development. Vaccine 2006;24:S3/99-105.
53. Wright TC, van Damme P, Schmitt H-J, Meheus A. Chapter 14. HPV vaccine introduction in industrialized countries. Vaccine 2006;24:S3/122-32.
54. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner DR. False negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985;29:1043-6.
55. Nielsen ML. Cytopathology laboratory improvement programs of the College of American Pathologists: Laboratory Accreditation Program (CAP LAP) and Performance Improvement Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology (CAP PAP). Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:256-9.
56. Newton LE. Cytopathology proficiency testing in New York State: The first 25 years. Lab Med 1994;25:230-1.
57. Tan KB, Chang SA, Soh VC, Thamboo TP, Nilsson B, Chan NH. Quality indices in a cervicovaginal cytology service: before and after laboratory accreditation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:303-7.
58. Raab SS, Jones BA, Souers R, Tworek JA. The effect of continuous monitoring of cytologic-histologic correlation data on cervical cancer screening performance. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008;132:16-22.
59. Salvetto M, Sandiford P. External quality assurance for cervical cytology in developing countries. Experience in Peru and Nicaragua. Acta Cytol 2004;48:23-31.
60. Alonso de Ruiz P, Lazcano Ponce EC, Duarte Torres R, Ruiz Juárez I, Martínez Cortez I. Diagnostic reproducibility of Pap testing in two regions of Mexico: the need for quality control mechanisms. Bol San Panam 1996;121:518-27.