What is the Right Age for Cervical Cancer Screening?

Women's Health

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-4

  Sasieni, Peter ^a   Castañon, Alejandra ^a   Cuzick, Jack ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EDITORIAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77951216993     PISSN: 17455057     EISSN: 17455065     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/WHE.09.69     Document Type: Editorial

References (27)

1. Papers of special note have been highlighted as:
2. of interest
3. of considerable interest
4. Raffle AE Alden B Quinn M Babb PJ Brett MT: Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: Analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented. BMJ 326(7395), 901 (2003).
5. Mccredie MR Sharples KJ Paul C et al.: Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 9(5), 425–434 (2008).
6. Followed-up 948 untreated women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and assessed the progression rates to cancer.
7. Sasieni P Castanon A Parkin DM: How many cervical cancers are prevented by treatment of screen-detected disease in young women? Int. J. Cancer 124(2), 461–464 (2009).
8. Kyrgiou M Koliopoulos G Martin-Hirsch PL Arbyn M Prendiville W Paraskevaidis E: Obstetric outcome after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 367, 489–498 (2006).
9. Extensive meta-analysis including 27 studies that investigated at the association between large loop excision of the transformation zone and preterm delivery, low birth weight and premature rupture of membranes.
10. Sasieni P Cuzick J Farmery E: Accelerated decline in cervical cancer mortality in england and wales. Lancet 346, 1566–1567 (1995).
11. Peto J Gilham C Fletcher O Matthews FE: The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 364(9430), 249–256 (2004).
12. Provides estimates of what future trends in mortality would have been in the absence of screening.
13. Sasieni PD Cuzick J Lynch-Farmery E: Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The national co-ordinating network for cervical screening working group. Br. J. Cancer 73(8), 1001–1005 (1996).
14. IARC: Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. BMJ (Clin. Res. Ed.) 293, 659–664 (1986).
15. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention: Cervix cancer screening. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies. IARC Press, Lyon, France (2005).
16. Handbook providing an evidence-based critical evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness of the types of cervical cancer screening available by the end of 2004.
17. Sasieni P Adams J Cuzick J: Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br. J. Cancer 89, 88–93 (2003).
18. Population based case–control study of over 2500 cervical cancer screenings that found that screening was far less effective in preventing stage 1B or worse cervical cancer in women aged between 20 and 34 years than it was in preventing cervical cancer in older women.
19. Sasieni P Castanon A Cuzick J: Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ 339, B2968 (2009).
20. Confirmed the findings of [9]. Comprised over 4000 cases and applied a different statistical method to the data. The focus was on age at screening.
21. Department of Health: Cervical screening programme, England: 2003–2004. Department of Health (2004).
22. Office for National Statistics: Cancer statistics registrations. Series MB1 no. 34, (2003).
23. Albrechtsen S Rasmussen S Thoresen S Irgens LM Iversen OE: Pregnancy outcome in women before and after cervical conisation: population based cohort study. BMJ 337, A1343 (2008).
24. Jakobsson M Gissler M Sainio S Paavonen J Tapper AM: Preterm delivery after surgical treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet. Gynecol. 109(2 Pt 1), 309–313 (2007).
25. Nohr B Tabor A Frederiksen K Kjaer SK: Loop electrosurgical excision of the cervix and the subsequent risk of preterm delivery. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 86(5), 596–603 (2007).
26. Van Wijngaarden WJ Duncan ID: Rationale for stopping cervical screening in women over 50. BMJ 306(6883), 967–971 (1993).
27. Van Wijngaarden WJ Duncan ID: Upper age limit for cervical screening. BMJ 306(6889), 1409–1410 (1993).