Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 9/2013

01-09-2013 | Original paper

The impact of a two- versus three-yearly cervical screening interval recommendation on cervical cancer incidence and mortality: an analysis of trends in Australia, New Zealand, and England

Authors: Leonardo Simonella, Karen Canfell

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 9/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the impact of cervical screening interval recommendations on cervical cancer incidence and mortality during periods of organized and opportunistic screening in Australia (2-yearly screening interval for organized screening), New Zealand (3 yearly interval for organized screening), and England (3/5 yearly interval for organized screening).

Methods

Changes in cervical cancer rates over two 10-year periods were assessed in each country among women aged 20–69 years using a standardized rate ratio (SRR). The SRR for opportunistic screening was calculated from 1973–1977 to 1983–1987 (mortality only), and for organized screening from 1993–1997 to 2003–2007 (mortality and incidence).

Results

During  the period of opportunistic cervical screening, mortality reduced by 24 % in Australia and 10 % in England and Wales [Australia: SRR 0.76 (95 % CI 0.71–0.83); England and Wales: SRR 0.90 (95 % CI 0.87–0.93)]; no statistically significant reduction was observed in New Zealand [SRR 0.95 (95 % CI 0.82–1.11)]. After the introduction of organized screening, mortality reduced 39–45 % in each country [Australia: SRR 0.56 (95 % CI 0.51–0.62); New Zealand: SRR 0.53 (95 % CI 0.44–0.63); England and Wales: SRR 0.61 (95 % CI 0.58–0.64)], while incidence reduced 19–38 % [New Zealand: SRR 0.62 (95 % CI 0.56–0.69); Australia: SRR 0.64 (95 % CI 0.61–0.72); England: SRR 0.81 (95 % CI 0.78–0.83)].

Conclusion

In the era of opportunistic screening, some reductions were observed in cervical cancer mortality rates, but these were relatively modest and seen inconsistently between countries. After the introduction of organized cervical screening, cervical cancer mortality rates fell by a similar amount (~40 % or more) in all countries, and incidence fell by more than a third in Australia and New Zealand and by approximately one-fifth in England. Although several factors are likely to have influenced these observed reductions in cervical cancer rates, these findings do not support the more frequent 2-yearly cervical screening interval recommendation in Australia.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Patnick J (2000) Cervical cancer screening in England. Eur J cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 36(17):2205–2208CrossRef
4.
5.
6.
Office of National Statistics (2009) Cancer Statistics Registrations: registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2007, England. Series MB1 No. 38. Office of National Statistics, London, UK
7.
GLOBOCAN 2008, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10 [Internet] (2010) International agency for research on cancer. http://​globocan.​iarc.​fr. Accessed 8th Aug 2010
8.
IARC Working Group on Evaluation of Cervical Cancer Screening Programmes (1986) 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. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 293 (6548):659–664
9.
Cervix cancer screening/IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies (2005) Chapters 5–8: effectiveness of screening in populations; Summary; Evaluation; Recommendations. In, vol 10. IARC Press, Lyon, France, pp 201–241
10.
Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J (2003) Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 89(1):88–93PubMedCrossRef
11.
Anttila A, Ronco G, (2009) Working Group on the Registration and Monitoring of Cervical Cancer Screening Programmes in the European Union within the European Network for Information on Cancer (EUNICE) Description of the national situation of cervical cancer screening in the member states of the European Union. Eur J cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 45(15): 2685–2708
12.
Anttila A, von Karsa L, Aasmaa A, Fender M, Patnick J, Rebolj M, Nicula F, Vass L, Valerianova Z, Voti L, Sauvaget C, Ronco G (2009) Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. Eur J cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 45(15):2649–2658CrossRef
13.
Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing (2012) National Cervical Screening Program Renewal. Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing. Accessed 2012
14.
Canfell K, Sitas F, Beral V (2006) Cervical cancer in Australia and the United Kingdom: comparison of screening policy and uptake, and cancer incidence and mortality. Med J Aust 185(9):482–486PubMed
15.
Creighton P, Lew JB, Clements M, Smith M, Howard K, Dyer S, Lord S, Canfell K (2010) Cervical cancer screening in Australia: modelled evaluation of the impact of changing the recommended interval from two to three years. BMC Public Health 10:734
16.
17.
Office of National Statistics (1998–2008) Cancer Statistics: Registrations: Registrations of cancer diagnosed in 1992; 1993;1994; 1995-1997; 1998; 1999; 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006, England and Wales. vol Series MB1 No.: 25–30; 34–37 Office of National Statistics
18.
Jakomis N (2010) Cancer incidences ENGLAND 1992–1994. Office of National Statistics, London
19.
Boyle P, Parkin, DM (1991) Chapter 11: Statistical Methods for Registries. In: Jensen OM, Parkin, DM, MacLennan, R., Muir, CS., Skeet, RG. (ed) Cancer Registration: Principles and Methods. IARC Press, Lyon, France
20.
Doll R, Payne P, Waterhouse JAH (1966) Cancer Incidence in five continents, vol I. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, GenevaCrossRef
21.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009) Cervical Screening in Australia 2006–2007. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Cat. No. CAN 43 Cancer Series Number 47, Canberra
22.
Brewer N, McKenzie F, Wong KC, Ellison-Loschmann L (2009) National cervical screening programme annual monitoring report 2007, vol 26. Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, NZ, Wellington, New Zealand
23.
Brewer N, McKenzie F, Wong KC, Eillison-Loschmann L (2008) NCSP Annual Monitoring Report 2006, Centre for Public Health Research. Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
24.
Brewer N, McKenzie F, Wong KC, Eillison-Loschmann L (2007) NCSP annual monitoring report 2005. Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
25.
Brewer N, McKenzie F, Travier N, Jeffreys M (2007) NCSP annual monitoring report 2004. Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
26.
Coppell K (2003) NCSP annual monitoring report 2003. Wellington, New Zealand
27.
Coppell K (2003) NCSP annual monitoring report 2002. Wellington, New Zealand
28.
Coppell K, Cox B (2002) National cervical screening programme October–December 2001. Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
29.
Coppell K, Cox B (2001) National Cervical Screening Programme October–December 2000. Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
30.
31.
National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes (2000) Reducing the risk: cervical screening programme 2000. NHS Cervical Screening Programme, National Health Service, Sheffield
32.
33.
National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes (2002) Building on experience: cervical screening programme 2002. NHS Cervical Screening Programme, National Health Service, Sheffield
34.
Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E (1999) Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 318(7188):904–908PubMedCrossRef
35.
Foley G, Alston R, Geraci M, Brabin L, Kitchener H, Birch J (2011) Increasing rates of cervical cancer in young women in England: an analysis of national data 1982–2006. Br J Cancer 105(1):177–184PubMedCrossRef
36.
Arbyn M, Rebolj M, De Kok IM, Fender M, Becker N, O’Reilly M, Andrae B (2009) The challenges of organising cervical screening programmes in the 15 old member states of the European Union. Eur J cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 45(15):2671–2678CrossRef
37.
Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Weiderpass E, Bray F, Anttila A (2009) Trends of cervical cancer mortality in the member states of the European Union. Eur J cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 45(15):2640–2648CrossRef
38.
Ferlay J, Parkin, DM., Curado, MP., Bray, F., Edwards, B., Shin, HR., Forman, D (2010) Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Volumes I to IX: IARC CancerBase No. 9. Accessed Feb 2011
39.
Taylor RJ, Morrell SL, Mamoon HA, Wain GV (2001) Effects of screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in New South Wales implied by influences of period of diagnosis and birth cohort. J Epidemiol Commun Health 55(11):782–788CrossRef
40.
Appleby P, Beral V, Berrington de González A, Colin D, Franceschi S, Goodhill A, Green J, Peto J, Plummer M, Sweetland S, Cancer ICoESoC (2007) Cervical cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data for 16,573 women with cervical cancer and 35,509 women without cervical cancer from 24 epidemiological studies. Lancet 370 (9599):1609–1621
41.
The International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer (2006) Cervical carcinoma and reproductive factors: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 16,563 women with cervical carcinoma and 33,542 women without cervical carcinoma from 25 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer 119(5):1108–1124CrossRef
42.
Appleby P, Beral V, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Colin D, Franceschi S, Goodill A, Green J, Peto J, Plummer M, Sweetland S (2006) Carcinoma of the cervix and tobacco smoking: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 13,541 women with carcinoma of the cervix and 23,017 women without carcinoma of the cervix from 23 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer 118(6):1481–1495PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
45.
46.
Australian Institute of Health (2005) statistics on drug use in Australia 2004. Department of health and ageing, drug statistics series no. 15, Canberra
47.
Legood R, Wolstenholme J, Gray A (2009) From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: mind the gap. Health Policy 89(2):193–200PubMedCrossRef
48.
Cervix cancer screening/IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies (2005) Chapter 2: Screening tests. In. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, vol 2, 10 edn. IARC Press, pp 59–117
49.
Patel A, Galaal K, Burnley C, Faulkner K, Martin-Hirsch P, Bland MJ, Leeson S, Beer H, Paranjothy S, Sasieni P, Naik R (2012) Cervical cancer incidence in young women: a historical and geographic controlled UK regional population study. Br J Cancer 106(11):1753–1759
50.
Taylor R, Morrell S, Mamoon H, Wain G, Ross J (2006) Decline in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in New South Wales in relation to control activities (Australia). Cancer causes control: CCC 17(3):299–306PubMedCrossRef
51.
Wise J (2012) Pilot study will assess whether HPV test should replace smears to screen for cervical cancer. BMJ 344:e3744PubMedCrossRef
52.
Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A, Bailey A, Albrow R, Roberts C, Desai M, Mather J, Turner A, Moss S, Peto J (2011) 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 (Oxford, England: 1990) 47(6):864–871CrossRef
53.
Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter SD, Hanley J, Ferenczy A, Ratnam S, Coutlee F, Franco EL (2007) Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J med 357(16):1579–1588PubMedCrossRef
54.
Anttila A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Leinonen M, Hakama M, Laurila P, Tarkkanen J, Malila N, Nieminen P (2010) Rate of cervical cancer, severe intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma in situ in primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage: randomised study within organised screening programme. BMJ 340:c1804PubMedCrossRef
55.
Bulk S, Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Boeke AJ, Verheijen RH, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ (2007) Risk of high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia based on cytology and high-risk HPV testing at baseline and at 6-months. Int J Cancer 121(2):361–367PubMedCrossRef
56.
Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade FJ, Boeke AJ, Bulk S, Voorhorst FJ, Verheijen RH, van Groningen K, Boon ME, Ruitinga W, van Ballegooijen M, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ (2007) Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet 370(9601):1764–1772PubMedCrossRef
57.
Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Dalla Palma P, Del Mistro A, Ghiringhello B, Girlando S, Gillio-Tos A, De Marco L, Naldoni C, Pierotti P, Rizzolo R, Schincaglia P, Zorzi M, Zappa M, Segnan N, Cuzick J (2010) Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet oncol 11(3):249–257PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The impact of a two- versus three-yearly cervical screening interval recommendation on cervical cancer incidence and mortality: an analysis of trends in Australia, New Zealand, and England
Authors
Leonardo Simonella
Karen Canfell
Publication date
01-09-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-013-0250-9

Other articles of this Issue 9/2013

Cancer Causes & Control 9/2013 Go to the issue

Original paper

Exercise after diagnosis and metabolic syndrome among breast cancer survivors: a report from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study

Original paper

Obesity in relation to lung cancer incidence in African American women

Original paper

Do reproductive and hormonal risk factors for breast cancer associate with attendance at mammography screening?

Review article

Methylation markers for prostate cancer prognosis: a systematic review

Original paper

Birth size and survival in breast cancer patients from the Uppsala Birth Cohort Study

Original paper

Disparities in survival after female breast cancer diagnosis: a population-based study
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits