Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2013

01-04-2013 | Gynecologic Oncology

A retrospective study of cervical screening in women under 25 years (2005–2009)

Authors: Asem Alsheikh Ali, Diane Richardson, Nicholas Hill

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 4/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Since 2003, when the age threshold of cervical screening in England has been raised from 20 to 25, there have been many calls to restore the previous starting age for cervical screening as there are concerns about the delaying of initiating cervical screening may result in an increase in the risk of cervical cancer. We conducted a retrospective study to analyse the safety of changing the starting age of cervical screening programme in England to the age of 25, by reviewing the cervical cytology performed in 426 women under 25 years in Bromley Borough of London, UK, between 2005 and 2009.

Study design

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 426 women under 25 years, who were referred with cervical smears taken at Bromley PCT’s to the colposcopy clinic at Bromley Hospitals, South London Healthcare NHS Trust, over a 4-year period, between 2005 and 2009. The colposcopy findings and histology results were reviewed and analysed.

Results

In our review, 44.80 % of smears showed mild dyskaryosis. 23 and 12 % showed moderate dyskaryosis and severe dyskaryosis, respectively. 11.2 % had borderline smear, and 0.2 % revealed glandular changes. On colposcopic examination, only 16.2 % (69) were reported as normal; however, 25.8, 20 % of the women were diagnosed with low and high grade abnormalities, respectively. 12 % (53) of the cases showed HPV-related changes, whereas no suspected malignancy was found. Colposcopic-directed cervical biopsy was obtained in 228 women (~54 %) depending on the colposcopic examination findings. The most histological finding was CIN I which constitutes 48 % (110) of all biopsies. However, 25 % (58) and 9 % (20) revealed CIN II and CIN III, respectively. The glandular changes noticed in only one case (0.44 %). The treatment was planned for 130 women, a significant proportion (30.5 %) of the 426 women who referred for colposcopy. The histological examination of the biopsies showed CIN in 91 % of the cases (115), 74.8 % (86) of them had CIN II (36) or CIN III (50). In addition, the glandular changes found in two cases (1.6 %). More importantly, there was one case diagnosed with micro-invasive cervical cancer (0.79 %) and this comprises 0.23 % of our sample.

Conclusion

In view of the size and the heterogeneity of our sample, it is difficult to recommend changing the starting age of the cervical screening programme. However, we strongly recommend to have a low threshold to offering cervical cytology to the women under 25 on clinical basis, particularly, after the recent introduction of HPV triage (outside the scope of this study), which will enable us to avoid the two main disadvantages of the early screening, namely over-diagnosis and over-treatment.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Luesley D, Leeson S (2010) Colposcopy and programme management guidelines for the NHS cervical screening programme second edition NHSCSP publication no 20. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. May 2010 Luesley D, Leeson S (2010) Colposcopy and programme management guidelines for the NHS cervical screening programme second edition NHSCSP publication no 20. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. May 2010
4.
go back to reference ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins (2003) ACOG practice bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 45, August 2003. Cervical cytology screening (replaces committee opinion 152, March 1995). Obstet Gynecol 102:417–427 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins (2003) ACOG practice bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 45, August 2003. Cervical cytology screening (replaces committee opinion 152, March 1995). Obstet Gynecol 102:417–427
5.
go back to reference Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, Moscicki AB, Smith RA, Eyre HJ et al (2002) American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52:342–362PubMedCrossRef Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, Moscicki AB, Smith RA, Eyre HJ et al (2002) American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52:342–362PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hartman KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D (2002) Screening for cervical cancer: systematic evidence review no.: 25. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. 290-97-0011). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm. Hartman KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D (2002) Screening for cervical cancer: systematic evidence review no.: 25. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. 290-97-0011). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville. http://​www.​ahrq.​gov/​clinic/​serfiles.​htm.
7.
go back to reference Members of the Working Party on Cervical Screening (1998) Recommendations for cervical screening 1997. NZ Med J 111:94–98 Members of the Working Party on Cervical Screening (1998) Recommendations for cervical screening 1997. NZ Med J 111:94–98
8.
go back to reference Herbert A, Anshu, Gregory M, Gupta S, Singh N (2008) Screen-detected invasive cervical carcinoma and its clinical significance during the introduction of organized screening. BJOG. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.01989.x. Herbert A, Anshu, Gregory M, Gupta S, Singh N (2008) Screen-detected invasive cervical carcinoma and its clinical significance during the introduction of organized screening. BJOG. doi:10.​1111/​j.​1471-0528.​01989.​x.
9.
go back to reference Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J (2009) Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case–control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ 339:b2968PubMedCrossRef Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J (2009) Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case–control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ 339:b2968PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Saseini P, Castanon A, Cuzick J (2010) Impact of cervical screening on young women: a critical review of the literature. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, (NHSCSP Publication No 31) Saseini P, Castanon A, Cuzick J (2010) Impact of cervical screening on young women: a critical review of the literature. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, (NHSCSP Publication No 31)
13.
go back to reference Sasieni P, Adams J (1999) Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age cohort model. BMJ 318(7193):1244–1245PubMedCrossRef Sasieni P, Adams J (1999) Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age cohort model. BMJ 318(7193):1244–1245PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Collins S, Mazloomzadeh S, Winter H et al (2002) High incidence of cervical human papillomavirus infection in women during their first sexual relationship. BJOG 109:96–98PubMedCrossRef Collins S, Mazloomzadeh S, Winter H et al (2002) High incidence of cervical human papillomavirus infection in women during their first sexual relationship. BJOG 109:96–98PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C et al (2008) Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 337:a1284PubMedCrossRef Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C et al (2008) Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 337:a1284PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Bruinsma F, Lumley J, Tan J et al (2007) Precancerous changes in the cervix and risk of subsequent preterm birth. BJOG 114:70–80PubMedCrossRef Bruinsma F, Lumley J, Tan J et al (2007) Precancerous changes in the cervix and risk of subsequent preterm birth. BJOG 114:70–80PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rosenthal AN, Panoskaltsis T, Smith T, Soutter WP (2001) The frequency of significant pathology in women attending a general gynaecological service for postcoital bleeding. BJOG 108:103–106PubMed Rosenthal AN, Panoskaltsis T, Smith T, Soutter WP (2001) The frequency of significant pathology in women attending a general gynaecological service for postcoital bleeding. BJOG 108:103–106PubMed
18.
go back to reference Bano F, Kolhe S, Zamblera D, Jolaoso A, Folayan O, Page L, Norton J (2008) Cervical screening in under 25s: a high-risk young population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 139(1):86–89PubMedCrossRef Bano F, Kolhe S, Zamblera D, Jolaoso A, Folayan O, Page L, Norton J (2008) Cervical screening in under 25s: a high-risk young population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 139(1):86–89PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A retrospective study of cervical screening in women under 25 years (2005–2009)
Authors
Asem Alsheikh Ali
Diane Richardson
Nicholas Hill
Publication date
01-04-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2631-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4/2013 Go to the issue