Exploring the trend of increased cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detection rates in the Netherlands

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 144-150

  Rozemeijer, Kirsten ^a   van Kemenade, Folkert J ^a   Penning, Corine ^a   Matthijsse, Suzette M ^a   Naber, Steffie K ^a   van Rosmalen, Joost ^a   van Ballegooijen, Marjolein ^a   de Kok, Inge M C M ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Screening; Trend

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PROCEDURES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84953346901     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: 14755793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0969141315580836     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Richart RM. Colpomicroscopic Studies of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Cancer 1966;19:395-405.
2. Richart RM. Causes and management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer 1987 Oct 15;60(Suppl 8): 1951-9.
3. van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Epidemiological evidence for age-dependent regression of pre-invasive cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1991 Sep;64(3): 559-65.
4. Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Marle ME, Habbema JD, Lynge E. Non-progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia estimated from populationscreening data. Br J Cancer 1997;75(1): 124-30.
5. Plaxe SC, Saltzstein SL. Estimation of the duration of the preclinical phase of cervical adenocarcinoma suggests that there is ample opportunity for screening. Gynecol Oncol 1999 Oct;75(1): 55-61.
6. Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJ, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine2012 Nov 2030(Suppl 5): F88-99.
7. Workgroup Gynecologic Oncology. Guideline Draft 1.1; Treatment of CIN [in Dutch]. 2004.
8. Landelijke Evaluatie Bevolkingsonderzoek Baarmoederhalskanker, LEBA rapportage tot en met 2013 (in Dutch). Available from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; www.rivm.nl (accessed 2 April 2015).
9. Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G, Blauwgeers H, van de Pol A, van Krieken JH, et al. Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 2007;29(1): 19-24.
10. Knol FA. Van hoog naar laag; van laag naar hoog: de sociaal-ruimtelijke ontwikkeling van wijken tussen 1971-1995 [in Dutch]. Social Cultureel Planbureau; 1998.
11. Statistical Research and Applications Branch of the US National Cancer Institute (http://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint).
12. Rask J, Lynge E, Franzmann M, Hansen B, Hjortebjerg A, Rygaard C, et al. Impact of technology on cytology outcome in cervical cancer screening of young and older women. Int J Cancer 2014 May 1;134(9): 2168-79.
13. Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 1998 Nov 18;280(19): 1690-1.
14. Rebolj M. Recent developments in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme [thesis]. Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Public Health, Erasmus University; 2008.
15. 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 Feb 15;120(4): 806-12.
16. de Kok IM, van der Aa MA, van Ballegooijen M, Siesling S, Karim-Kos HE, van Kemenade FJ, et al. Trends in cervical cancer in the Netherlands until 2007: has the bottom been reached? Int J Cancer 2011 May 1;128(9): 2174-81.
17. Schiffman M, Solomon D. Clinical practice. Cervical-cancer screening with human papillomavirus and cytologic cotesting. N Engl J Med 2013 Dec 12;369(24): 2324-31.
18. Dalla Palma P, Giorgi Rossi P, Collina G, Buccoliero AM, Ghiringhello B, Gilioli E, et al. The reproducibility of CIN diagnoses among different pathologists: data from histology reviews from a multicenter randomized study. Am J Clin Pathol 2009 Jul;132(1): 125-32.
19. Carreon JD, Sherman ME, Guillen D, Solomon D, Herrero R, Jeronimo J, et al. CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2007 Oct;26(4): 441-6.
20. 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 Apr;57(4): 388-93.
21. Barken SS, Rebolj M, Andersen ES, Lynge E. Frequency of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia treatment in a well-screened population. Int J Cancer 2012 May 15;130(10): 2438-44.
22. Finnish Cancer Registry. Statistics of cervical cancer screening in Finland, 2006 and 2009. In: https://cancer-fi.directo.fi/syoparekisteri/en/
23. NHS Cervical screening programme. Annual review 2012. ISBN 978-1-84463-0943-3.