Cervical screening in England: The past, present, and future

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 120, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 87-96

  Albrow, Rebecca ^a   Kitchener, Henry ^a   Gupta, Nalini ^b   Desai, Mina ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH   (India)

^c MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Mass screening; Papillomavirus infections; Vaginal smears

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84861670946     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20203     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Farmery E, Gray JAM. Report of the First Five Years of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Oxford, United Kingdom: National Co-ordinating Network; 1994.
2. Raffle A, Gray M. Screening: Evidence and Practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2007.
3. Anonymous. Cancer of the cervix: death by incompetence. Lancet. 1985;326:363-364.
4. Herbert A. Is cervical screening working? A cytopathologist's view from the United Kingdom. Hum Pathol. 1997;28: 120-126.
5. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. The Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1968.
6. Department of Health and Social Services. Health Services Management: Cervical Cancer Screening in Health Circular HC (88) 1. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health and Social Services; 1988.
7. National Health Service. NHS Connecting for Health. The Cervical Screening Call/Recall System. Available at: http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs. uk/systemsandservices/ssd/downloads/cervical/contents/1-1intro#callrecall. Accessed March 3, 2011.
8. Denton KJ, Desai M. Cervical screening programmes. In: Gray W, Kocjan G, eds. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 3rd ed. London, United Kingdom: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2010.
9. National Audit Office. Cervical and Breast Screening in England: A Report by the Controller and Auditor General. London, United Kingdom: National Audit Office; 1992.
10. National Audit Office. The performance of the NHS cervical screening programme in England: a report by the Controller and Auditor General. London, United Kingdom: National Audit Office; 1998.
11. Anderson CM, Nottingham J. Bridging the knowledge gap and communicating uncertainties for informed consent in cervical cytology screening; we need unbiased information and a culture change. Cytopathology. 1999;10:221-228.
12. Department of Health. Cervical Cytology (1989-90, 1994-95): Summary Information From Form KC53, England. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health Statistics Division 2B; 1995.
13. Cancer Research Campaign. Cervical Cancer Screening. Factsheet No. 13. London, United Kingdom: Cancer Research Campaign; 1994.
14. Raffle AE, Alden B, Mackenzie EFD. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for? Lancet. 1995;345:1469-1473.
15. Department of Health. Cervical Cytology 1992-93: Summary Information From Form KC53, England. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health Statistics Division 2B; 1994.
16. Feichtinger W, Obrura A, Brunner M. Accelerated decline in cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales. Lancet. 1995;346:1566-1567.
17. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E, The National Coordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. Br J Cancer. 1996;73:1001-1005.
18. Scottish Office. Report of the Inquiry Into Cervical Cytopathology at Inverclyde Royal Hospital, Greenock. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: HMSO; 1993.
19. Patnick J. NHS Cervical Screening Programme Position Statement on the Findings of the Inquiry Into Cervical Cytology Services at the James Paget Hospital NHS Trust, Gorleston: NHSCSP; 1997.
20. Wells W. Review of Cervical Screening Services at Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust. London, United Kingdom: NHS Executive South Thames; 1997.
21. Herbert A, Bryant TN, Campbell MJ, Smith J. Investigation of the effect of occult invasive cancer on progress towards successful cervical screening. J Med Screen. 1998;5:92-98.
22. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet. 2004;364:249-256.
23. Evans DMD, Hudson EA, Brown CL, et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1986;39:933-944.
24. Denton KJ, Herbert A, Turnbull LS, et al. The revised BSCC terminology for abnormal cervical cytology. Cytopathol. 2008;19:137-157.
25. British Society for Clinical Cytology. Recommended Code of Practice for Laboratories Participating in the UK Cervical Screening Programmes 2010. Available at: http://www.clinicalcytology. co.uk/resources/cop/BSCC-COP-2010. pdf. Accessed July 27, 2011.
26. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1-73.
27. Moss SM, Gray A, Marteau T, Legood R, Henstock E, Maissi E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC Cervical Screening Pilot Studies -Report to the Department of Health. Sutton, United Kingdom: Institute of Cancer Research; 2004.
28. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technology Appraisal Guidance 69: Guidance on the Use of Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Screening. London, United Kingdom: National Insitute for Clinical Excellence; 2003.
29. Moss S, Gray A, Legood R, Vessey M, Patnick J, Kitchener H. Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study. BMJ. 2006;332:83-85.
30. Department of Health. Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health; 2011.
31. Department of Health. The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2011/2012. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health; 2011.
32. Kitchener HC, Walker PG, Nelson L, et al. HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology in the follow up of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG. 2008;115:1 001-1007.
33. Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P, Bryan S, Hyde C. Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(13
34. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature. New Zealand Health Technology Assessment Report. 2000;3(1
35. Kitchener H, Blanks R, Dunn G, et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:56-64.
36. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Cubie H, et al. MAVARIC -a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1-176.
37. Scottish Cervical Review Group Feasibility Sub Group. Cervical Cytology ThinPrep Imager (TIS) Feasibility Study-Report from the Feasibility Sub Group to Cervical Cytology Review Group. Edinburgh: Scottish Pathology Network; 2004.
38. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:88-93.
39. Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening. Extraordinary Meeting to Re-examine Current Policy on Cervical Screening for Women Aged 20-24 Years Taking Account of Any New Evidence and Make Recommendations to the National Cancer Director and Ministers held on 19th May 2009. Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening; 2009.
40. Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J. Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ. 2009;339:b2968.
41. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;367:489-498.
42. Department of Health. Cancer Reform Strategy. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health; 2007.
43. Department of Health. The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2010/11. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health; 2009.
44. Lord Carter of Coles. Report of the Review of NHS Pathology Services in England. London, United Kingdom: Department of Health; 2006.
45. The Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical Screening Programme England 2009-10. London, United Kingdom: The Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2010.
46. NHS Improvement. NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) Cytology Improvement Guide -Achieving a 14 Day Turnaround Time in Cytology. Leicester, United Kingdom: NHS Improvement; 2009.
47. NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical Screening Programme England, 2009-10. London, United Kingdom: NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2010.
48. Lancucki L, Fender M, Koukari A, et al. A fall-off in cervical screening coverage of younger women in developed countries. J Med Screen. 2010;17:91-96.
49. Blomberg K, Widmark C, Ternestedt B-M, Tornberg S, Tishelman C. Between youth and adulthood: focus group discussions with 30-year old women about cervical cancer and its prevention in Sweden. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34:E11-E20.
50. Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A, et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47: 864-871.