Patients with cervical cancer: Why did screening not prevent these cases?

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 205, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 64.e1-64.e7

  De Bie, Roosmarie P ^a   Vergers Spooren, Henke C ^a   Massuger, Leon F A G ^a   Siebers, Albertus G ^a   Salet Van Der Pol, Maria R J ^a   Vedder, Judith E M ^a   Melchers, Willem J G ^a   Bulten, Johan ^a   Bekkers, Ruud L M ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

cervical cancer; cervical smear; screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 79959710276     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: 10976868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.02.046     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) databases http://www.rivm.nl Accessed Jan. 10, 2010
2. F. Levi, F. Lucchini, E. Negri, S. Franceschi, and C. la Vecchia Cervical cancer mortality in young women in Europe: patterns and trends Eur J Cancer 36 2000 2266 2271
3. M.A. van der Aa, E. Pukkala, J.W. Coebergh, A. Anttila, and S. Siesling Mass screening programmes and trends in cervical cancer in Finland and The Netherlands Int J Cancer 122 2008 1854 1858 (Pubitemid 351413434)
4. G.F. Sawaya, A.D. Brown, A.E. Washington, and A.M. Garber Clinical practice Current approaches to cervical-cancer screening N Engl J Med 344 2001 1603 1607 (Pubitemid 32479914)
5. K. Nanda, D.C. McCrory, and E.R. Myers Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review Ann Intern Med 132 2000 810 819 (Pubitemid 30317797)
6. N.W. Bulkmans, L. Rozendaal, F.J. Voorhorst, P.J. Snijders, and C.J. Meijer Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening Br J Cancer 92 2005 1800 1802 (Pubitemid 40756496)
7. C. Clavel, M. Masure, and J.P. Bory Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women Br J Cancer 84 2001 1616 1623 (Pubitemid 32612492)
8. M.T. Fahey, L. Irwig, and P. Macaskill Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy Am J Epidemiol 141 1995 680 689
9. A. Herbert, Anshu, M. Gregory, S.S. Gupta, and N. Singh Invasive cervical cancer audit: a relative increase in interval cancers while coverage increased and incidence declined BJOG 116 2009 845 853
10. M. Casparie, A.T. Tiebosch, and G. Burger Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive Cell Oncol 29 2007 19 24 (Pubitemid 46535194)
11. D. Solomon, D. Davey, and R. Kurman The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology JAMA 287 2002 2114 2119 (Pubitemid 34437346)
12. D.C. Wilbur False negatives in focused rescreening of Papanicolaou smears: how frequently are 'abnormal' cells detected in retrospective review of smears preceding cancer or high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia? Arch Pathol Lab Med 121 1997 273 276
13. B. Andrae, L. Kemetli, and P. Sparen Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden J Natl Cancer Inst 100 2008 622 629
14. A. Herbert, Anshu, and G. Culora Invasive cervical cancer audit: why cancers developed in a high-risk population with an organised screening programme BJOG 117 2010 736 745
15. P. Priest, L. Sadler, and J. Peters Pathways to diagnosis of cervical cancer: screening history, delay in follow up, and smear reading BJOG 114 2007 398 407 (Pubitemid 46393279)
16. A.B. Bos, M. Rebolj, J.D. Habbema, and M. van Ballegooijen Nonattendance is still the main limitation for the effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in the Netherlands Int J Cancer 119 2006 2372 2375 (Pubitemid 44546958)
17. M. van Ballegooijen, E. van den Akker-van Marle, and J. Patnick Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness Eur J Cancer 36 2000 2177 2188
18. J.F. Krane, S.R. Granter, C.E. Trask, C.L. Hogan, and K.R. Lee Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases Cancer 93 2001 8 15
19. M. Schoolland, A. Segal, S. Allpress, A. Miranda, F.A. Frost, and G.F. Sterrett Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix Cancer 96 2002 330 337
20. H.O. Smith, M.F. Tiffany, C.R. Qualls, and C.R. Key The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United Statesa 24-year population-based study Gynecol Oncol 78 2000 97 105 (Pubitemid 30650338)
21. H.P. van de Nieuwenhof, L.F. Massuger, and J.A. de Hullu Significant decrease of adenocarcinoma in situ not reflected in cervical adenocarcinoma incidence in The Netherlands, 1989-2003 Br J Cancer 98 2008 165 167
22. O. Ingemann-Hansen, M. Lidang, and I. Niemann Screening history of women with cervical cancer: a 6-year study in Aarhus, Denmark Br J Cancer 98 2008 1292 1294 (Pubitemid 351481678)
23. D.T. Janerich, O. Hadjimichael, and P.E. Schwartz The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer in Connecticut Am J Public Health 85 1995 791 794
24. F.A. Kreuger, and H. Beerman The screening history of women with cervical cancer in the Rotterdam area Eur J Epidemiol 16 2000 641 645
25. G.C. Stuart, S.E. McGregor, M.A. Duggan, and J.G. Nation Review of the screening history of Alberta women with invasive cervical cancer CMAJ 157 1997 513 519 (Pubitemid 27405855)
26. H.Y. Sung, K.A. Kearney, M. Miller, W. Kinney, G.F. Sawaya, and R.A. Hiatt Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan Cancer 88 2000 2283 2289 (Pubitemid 30247128)
27. M.A. van der Aa, E.M. Schutter, M. Looijen-Salamon, J.E. Martens, and S. Siesling Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001 Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 139 2008 204 209
28. M.A. Tacken, J.C. Braspenning, and R.P. Hermens Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women's beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization Eur J Public Health 17 2007 178 185 (Pubitemid 46536726)
29. R.L. Bekkers, C.J. Meijer, L.F. Massuger, P.J. Snijders, and W.J. Melchers Effects of HPV detection in population-based screening programmes for cervical cancer; a Dutch moment Gynecol Oncol 100 2006 451 454 (Pubitemid 43246858)
30. G. Ronco, J. Cuzick, P. Pierotti, M.P. Cariaggi, P.P. Dalla, and C. Naldoni Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial BMJ 335 2007 28
31. A.G. Siebers, P.J. Klinkhamer, M. Arbyn, A.O. Raifu, L.F. Massuger, and J. Bulten Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial Obstet Gynecol 112 2008 1327 1334
32. E. Davey, A. Barratt, and L. Irwig Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review Lancet 367 2006 122 132 (Pubitemid 43077128)
33. A.E. Dawson Can we change the way we screen? The ThinPrep Imaging System Cancer 102 2004 340 344
34. P.J. Klinkhamer, W.J. Meerding, P.F. Rosier, and A.G. Hanselaar Liquid-based cervical cytology Cancer 99 2003 263 271
35. K.R. Lee, R. Ashfaq, G.G. Birdsong, M.E. Corkill, K.M. McIntosh, and S.L. Inhorn Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening Obstet Gynecol 90 1997 278 284 (Pubitemid 27318847)
36. N.W. Bulkmans, L. Rozendaal, and P.J. Snijders POBASCAM, a population-based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high-risk HPV testing in cervical screening: design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women Int J Cancer 110 2004 94 101 (Pubitemid 38507208)
37. J. Cuzick, A. Szarewski, and H. Cubie Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study Lancet 362 2003 1871 1876 (Pubitemid 37518501)
38. G.S. Ogilvie, D.M. Patrick, and M. Schulzer Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis Sex Transm Infect 81 2005 207 212 (Pubitemid 40835044)
39. P. Petignat, D.L. Faltin, I. Bruchim, M.R. Tramer, E.L. Franco, and F. Coutlee Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis Gynecol Oncol 105 2007 530 535 (Pubitemid 46590347)
40. A.G. Bais, F.J. van Kemenade, and J. Berkhof Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs Int J Cancer 120 2007 1505 1510 (Pubitemid 46355385)
41. M. Gok, D.A. Heideman, and F.J. van Kemenade HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study BMJ 340 2010 c1040
42. M.A. Nobbenhuis, T.J. Helmerhorst, and A.J. van den Brule Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women J Clin Pathol 55 2002 435 439 (Pubitemid 34620780)