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

Cervical Screening at Age 50-64 Years and the Risk of Cervical Cancer at Age 65 Years and Older: Population-Based Case Control Study

This work was supported by Cancer Research UK [C8162/10406 and C8162/12537]