Effects of streamlining cervical cancer screening the Dutch way: Consequences of changes in the Dutch KOPAC-based follow-up protocol and consensus-based limitation of equivocal cytology

Acta Cytologica

Volumn 54, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1095-1100

  Briët, Martijn C ^a   Berger, Thomas H D ^a   Van Ballegooijen, Marjolein ^b   Boon, Mathilde E ^a   Rebolj, Matejka ^b  

^a LEIDEN CYTOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY LABORATORY   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical screening; Cytology; PALGA; Pathology database

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER SCREENING; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 78650843954     PISSN: 00015547     EISSN: 19382650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000325251     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. de Koning HJ, Coebergh JW, van Dongen JA: Is mass screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Eur J Cancer 1996;32A: 1835-1844
2. van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD, van Oortmarssen GJ, Koopmanschap MA, Lubbe JT, van Agt HM: Preventive Pap-smears: Balancing costs, risks and benefits. Br J Cancer 1992;65:930-933
3. Wardle J, Pope R: The psychological costs of screening for cancer. J Psychosom Res 1992;36:609-624
4. van Ballegooijen M, Boer R, van Oortmarssen GJ, Koopmanschap MA, Lubbe JT, Habbema JD: Cervical cancer screening programme: Age ranges and intervals: An updated cost-effectiveness analysis (in Dutch). Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, 1993
5. Bulk S, van Kemenade FJ, Rozendaal L, Meijer CJ: The Dutch CISOE-A framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:388-393
6. Hermens RP, Hak E, Hulscher ME, Braspenning JC, Grol RP: Adherence to guidelines on cervical cancer screening in general practice: Programme elements of successful implementation. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:897-903 (Pubitemid 33039668)
7. Fahs MC, Plichta SB, Mandelblatt JS: Cost-effective policies for cervical cancer screening: An international review. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9:211-230
8. Boon ME, van Ravenswaay Claasen HH, van Westering RP, Kok LP: Urbanization and the incidence of abnormalities of squamous and glandular epithelium of the cervix. Cancer 2003; 99:4-8
9. Siemens FC, Boon ME, Kuypers JC, Kok LP: Populationbased cervical screening with a 5-year interval in the Netherlands: Stabilization of the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma and its precursor lesions in the screened population. Acta Cytol 2004;48:348-354
10. Verbruggen BS, Boon ME, Boon LM: Dysbacteriosis and squamous (pre)neoplasia of immigrants and Dutch women as established in population-based cervical screening. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:377-381
11. SBBW (Dutch screening program): Annual Report 1994. Leiden, SBBW, 1994
12. SBBW (Dutch screening program): Annual Report 2003. Leiden, SBBW, 2003
13. Central Bureau of Statistics: Population: Age, sex, marital status per January 1st [in Dutch]. Available at http://statline.cbs.nl. Accessed 2008
14. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Berkers LM, Habbema D: Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: Successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2007;120:806-812
15. Van den Brandt PA, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, Hunen PM: Development of a record linkage protocol for use in the Dutch Cancer Registry for Epidemiological Research. Int J Epidemiol 1990;19:553-558 (Pubitemid 20331799)
16. van den Akker-van Marle ME, van BM, Habbema JD: Low risk of cervical cancer during a long period after negative screening in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2003;88:1054-1057
17. Anttila A, Nieminen P: Cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:2209-2214
18. Appelman CLM, Bruinsma M, Collette C, van Weel C, Geijer RMM: Standard of the Dutch College of GPs concerning cervical smears (1st revision, in Dutch). Huisarts Wet 1996;39: 134-141
19. Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, Elske van den Akker-van Marle M, Hanselaar AG, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD: Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 115:851-855
20. Rebolj M: Recent developments in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme. PhD thesis. Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, 2008
21. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, van Kemenade F, Looman C, Boer R, Habbema JD: No increased risk for cervical cancer after a broader definition of a negative Pap smear. Int J Cancer 2008;123:2632-2635
22. Engberts MK, Vermeulen CF, Verbruggen BS, van Haaften M, Boon ME, Heintz AP: Candida and squamous (pre)neoplasia of immigrants and Dutch women as established in population-based cervical screening. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:1596-1600