Recent Developments in the Dutch Cervical Cancer Screening Programme

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second most common female malignancy, diagnosed in 500,000 women each year, while 275,000 die from it. Without prevention, the peak incidence occurs at a relatively young age, between 40-55 years, when women are still active on the labour market and have young children. While cervical cancer is the leading cancer-related cause of death and the second most common cancer in women in developing countries (incidence rates ≥30 per 100,000), it became much less common in developed countries in the recent decades. In the Netherlands, the incidence and mortality have been decreasing for decades (Figure 1-1). In 2003, cervical cancer was newly diagnosed in 584 women (World standardized incidence rate (WSR): 4.9 per 100,000 women) and 214 women died from it (WSR: 1.4 per 100,000 women). Inter-country differences in cervical cancer incidence are caused by differences in determinants and in access to preventive measures. The prevalence of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection, the necessary factor in the development of cervical cancer, is generally higher in developing countries. Differences in the host factor, e.g. more common malnourishment and the prevalence of other infections in the developing countries, may also play a role. These countries typically do not offer population-wide cervical cancer screening facilities, which require a high level of organization and adequate health care resources

Risk of cervical cancer after completed post-treatment follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Population based cohort study

Abstract Objective To compare the risk of cervical cancer in women with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia who returned to routine screening after having completed post-treatment follow-up with consecutive normal smear test results with women with a normal primary smear test result. Design Population based cohort study using data from a nationwide pathology register. Setting The Netherlands, 1994 to 2006. Population 38 956 women with histologically confirmed intraepithelial neoplasia grades 1 to 3 with completed follow-up after treatment. Intervention Routine post-treatment follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, recommending smear tests at six, 12, and 24 months. Main outcome measure Incidence of cervical cancer in the period from completed follow-up with negative test results after cervical intraepithelial neoplasia to the next primary test. 10-year hazard ratios were compared with periods after normal results for the primary smear test, adjusted for year in follow-up. Results 20 cervical cancers were diagnosed during 56 956 woman years after completed follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, whereas 1613 cervical cancers were diagnosed during 25 020 697 woman years after a normal primary smear test result. The incidence of 35.1 (95% confidence interval 21.4 to 54.2) per 100 000 woman years and 6.4 (6.1 to 6.8) per 100 000 woman years, respectively, led to an adjusted hazard ratio of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 2.7 to 6.5) for periods after completed follow-up compared with periods after normal primary smear test results. This hazard ratio was increased for all ages. No significant difference in risk of cervical cancer was observed by grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Conclusions An excess risk

Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study

#### Objective To compare the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer diagnosed within 72 months after a normal screening sample between conventional cytology and liquid based cytology tests SurePath and ThinPrep. #### Design Retrospective population based cohort study. #### Setting Nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), January 2000 to March 2013. #### Population Women with 5924474 normal screening samples (23833123 person years). #### Exposure Use of SurePath or ThinPrep versus conventional cytology as screening test. #### Main outcome measure 72 month cumulative incidence of invasive cervical cancer after a normal screening sample for each screening test. Cox regression analyses assessed the hazard ratios, adjusted for calendar time, age, screening history, and socioeconomic status and including laboratories as random effects. #### Results The 72 month cumulative cancer incidence was 58.5 (95% confidence interval 54.6 to 62.7) per 100000 normal conventional cytology samples, compared with 66.8 (56.7 to 78.7) for ThinPrep and 44.6 (37.8 to 52.6) for SurePath. Compared with conventional cytology, the hazard of invasive cancer was 19% lower (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.99) for SurePath, mainly caused by a 27% lower hazard (0.73, 0.57 to 0.93) of a clinically detected cancer. For ThinPrep, the hazard was on average 15% higher (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.95 to 1.38), mainly caused by a 56% higher hazard of a screen detected cancer (1.56, 1.17 to 2.08). #### Conclusions These findings should provoke reconsideration of the assumed similarity in sensitivity to detect progressive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia between different types of liquid based cy

Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mammography is less effective in detecting cancer in dense than in fatty breasts. METHODS: We undertook a systematic search in PubMed to identify studies on women with dense breasts who underwent screening with mammography supplemented with ultrasound. A meta-analysis was undertaken on the proportion of cancers detected only by ultrasound, out of all screen-detected cancers, and the proportion of women with negative mammography who were referred for assessment following ultrasound screening. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. The proportion of total cancers detected only by ultrasound was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.27-0.31), consistent with an approximately 40% increase in the detection of cancers compared to mammography. In the studied populations, this translated into an additional 3.8 (95% CI: 3.4-4.2) screen-detected cases per 1000 mammography-negative women. About 13% (32/248) of cancers were in situ from 17 studies with information on this subgroup. Ultrasound approximately doubled the referral for assessment in three studies with these data. CONCLUSIONS: Studies have consistently shown an increased detection of breast cancer by supplementary ultrasound screening. An inclusion of supplementary ultrasound into routine screening will need to consider the availability of ultrasound and diagnostic assessment capacities.Department of Health Policy Research Programme (106/0001). Cancer Research UK (grants C8162/A16892 and C569/A16891)