New strategies for human papillomavirus-based cervical screening.

Author manuscript; published in final edited form as: Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2013 September; 9(5):. doi:10.2217/whe.13.48Human papillomavirus testing has been shown to be far more sensitive and robust in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 and above (and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and above) for cervical screening than approaches based on either cytology or visual inspection; however, there are a number of issues that need to be overcome if it is to substantially reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with cervical cancer at the population level. The two main issues are coverage (increasing the number of women who participate in screening) and the management of women who test positive for high-risk human papillomavirus. This article will review the potential for vaginal self-collection to improve coverage and the options for triage of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women in high-resource and low-resource settings

Consultation rates in cervical screening non-attenders: opportunities to increase screening uptake in GP primary care

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of cervical screening non-attenders presenting to general practice (GP) primary care over one year. SETTING: 137 practices in East London, UK. METHODS: Anonymous primary care records were downloaded using EMIS web (clinical software). Cervical screening nonattendance was defined as no recorded smear in the last 3.5 years (women aged 25–49) or 5.5 years (women aged 50–64). The last three consultation entries were used to estimate the proportion of non-attenders who consulted in GP over 3 months and 1 year using the Kaplan-Meier method. Newly registered women were assessed separately. Results were calculated for each practice and the median and interquartile range (IQR) across practices are presented. Heterogeneity was assessed using funnel plots. RESULTS: Of 261,810 women, 224,313 (86%) had been registered for >1 year. The proportion classified as non-attenders differed between those registered for >1 year (30%, IQR 27%--35%) and within the last year (49%, IQR 40%--57%), suggesting that screening records were less up-to-date in newly registered women. A median of 32% (IQR: 27%--37%) of non-attenders presented over 3 months, and 60% (IQR: 52%--67%) over 1 year. Funnel plots of the proportion of non-attenders presenting by the number of non-attenders showed substantial variation between practices. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of cervical screening non-attenders present to their GP at least once a year, in over 75% of practices. This represents a good opportunity for improving coverage by offering an alternative form of screening, such as self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing

Trends in the lifetime risk of developing cancer in Great Britain: comparison of risk for those born from 1930 to 1960

BACKGROUND: Typically, lifetime risk is calculated by the period method using current risks at different ages. Here, we estimate the probability of being diagnosed with cancer for individuals born in a given year, by estimating future risks as the cohort ages. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime risk of cancer in Britain separately for men and women born in each year from 1930 to 1960. We projected rates of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) and of all cancer deaths forwards using a flexible age-period-cohort model and backwards using age-specific extrapolation. The sensitivity of the estimated lifetime risk to the method of projection was explored. RESULTS: The lifetime risk of cancer increased from 38.5% for men born in 1930 to 53.5% for men born in 1960. For women it increased from 36.7 to 47.5%. Results are robust to different models for projections of cancer rates. CONCLUSIONS: The lifetime risk of cancer for people born since 1960 is >50%. Over half of people who are currently adults under the age of 65 years will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime

Impact of cervical screening on cervical cancer mortality: estimation using stage-specific results from a nested case-control study

Cancer Research UK (A16892 to P.S.)

Benefits and harms of cervical screening from age 20 years compared with screening from age 25 years

This work is supported by Cancer Research UK (C8162/10406 and C8162/12537). The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication

Impact of screening between the ages of 60 and 64 on cumulative rates of cervical cancer to age 84y by screening history at ages 50 to 59: A population-based case-control study

There is little empirical data on the absolute benefit of cervical screening between ages 60-64y on subsequent cancer risk. We estimate the incidence of cervical cancer up to age 84y in women with and without a cervical cytology test at age 60-64y, by screening histories aged 50-59y. The current study is a population based case-control study of women born between 1928 and 1956 and aged 60-84y between 2007 and 2018. We included all such women diagnosed with cervical cancer in England and an aged-matched random sample without cancer. Women with a hysterectomy were excluded. Exposure was cervical cytology between ages 50–64y. The main outcome was 25y cumulative risk of cervical cancer between ages 60-84y. We found that eight in every 1000 (8.40, 95%CI: 7.78 to 9.07) women without a screening test between age 50‐64y develop cervical cancer between the ages of 60-84y. The risk is half: 3.46 per 1000 (95%CI: 2.75 to 4.36) among women with a test between age 60-64y but no cervical screening test at age 50-59y. The absolute difference in risk is equivalent to one fewer cancer for every 202 such women screened. The highest risk (10.01, 95%CI:6.70 to 14.95) was among women with abnormal screening at ages 50-59y and no tests 60-64y. 25y risk among women with a screening test every five years between age 50–64y was just under two in a 1000 (1.59, 95%CI:1.42 to 1.78). Results suggest the upper age of screening should be dependent on previous screening participation and results