Advertisement

Medical Oncology and Tumor Pharmacotherapy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 175–181 | Cite as

Efficacy of cervical cancer screening

  • Folke Pettersson
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

The earlier optimistic predictions that invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix could be totally eradicated by means of Pap screening have failed. Experiences from different countries give evidence, however, that a considerable reduction of incidence and mortality can be gained with this type of secondary prevention. Improved knowledge of the epidemiology of carcinoma of the uterine cervix and of its natural history could be anticipated to give a better basis for the planning of preventive measures. Maintenance of a high laboratory standard, a good technique for taking of smears, and improved communications between laboratories and the doctor or nurse taking the smear and the doctor or clinic performing the treatment and an adequate reaction to the report from the laboratory with adequate treatment of the precancerous stages is supposed to improve the effect of the screening programmes.

Key words

Screening Cervix Cancer Efficacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pettersson F (ed.):Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer, Vol. 20. Stockholm (1988).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Munoz N, Bosch F X, Jensen O M:Human Papillo- mavirus and Cervical Cancer. IARC Scientific Publication No. 94, Lyon (1989).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hellberg D, Valentin J, Nilsson S: Smoking and cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia. An association independent of sexual or other risk factors.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 65, 625 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pedersen O: Precancerous stages of the cervical epithelium in relation to manifest cervical carcinoma.Acta Radiol Suppl127 (1955).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kottmeier H L: Evolution et traitement des epithe- liomas.Rev Fr Gynec Obstet 56, 821 (1961).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pettersson F: Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Changes in incidence. 38th Annual Meeting of the Society of Pelvic Surgeons, October 5—8, 1988, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christopherson W M, Lundin Jr. F E, Mendez W M, Parker J E: Cervical cancer control. A study of morbidity and mortality trends over a twenty-one- year period.Cancer 38, 1357 (1976).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christopherson W M, Parker J E, Mendez W M, Lundin F E Jr: Cervix cancer death rates and mass cytologic screening.Cancer 26, 808 (1970).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boyes D A, Knoweiden J, Phillips A J: The evaluation of cancer control measures. Summary of the conclusion of UICC Symposium held in Sheffield in September 1972.Br J Cancer 28, 105 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cramer D W: The role of cervical cytology in the declining morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer.Cancer 34, 2018 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardner J W, Lyon J L: Efficacy of cervical cytologic screening in the control of cervical cancer.Prevent Med 6, 487 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shulman J J, Leyton M, Hamilton R: The Papani- colaou smear: an insensitive case-finding procedure.Am J Obstet Gynecol 120, 446 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sackett D L: Can screening programs for serious diseases really improve health?Science Forum 15, 9 (1970).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin P L; Mow preventable is invasive cervical cancer? A community study of preventable factors.Am J Obstet Gynecol 113, 541 (1972).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guzick D S: Efficacy of screening for cervical cancer: A review.Am J Public Health 68, 125 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    West R R: Cervical cancer: Age at registration and age at death.Br J Cancer 35 236 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saxén E A: Trends: facts or fallacy, in Magnus K (ed):Trends in Cancer Incidence. Causes and Practical Implications, p. 5. New York, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation (1982).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pettersson F, Björkholm E, Näslund I: Evaluation of screening for cervical cancer in Sweden: trends in incidence and mortality 1958–1980.Int J Epidemiol 14, 521 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pettersson F, Näslund I, Malker BEvaluation of the Effect of Papanicolaou Screening in Sweden: Record Linkage Between a Central Screening Registry and the National Cancer Registry. IARC Scientific Publ No. 76, Lyon (1986).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hakama M, Magnus K. Pettersson F, Storm H, Tulinius H: Effect of the organized screening in the Nordic countries on the risk of cervical cancer.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hakama M, Miller A B, Day N E:Screening for Cancer of the Uterine Cervix. IARC Scientific Publ No. 76, Lyon (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Folke Pettersson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gynaecological Oncology, RadiumhemmetKarolinska HospitalStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations