Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 1653–1660 | Cite as

Efficacy of screening in preventing cervical cancer among older women

  • Aruna Kamineni
  • Sheila Weinmann
  • Kirkwood K. Shy
  • Andrew G. Glass
  • Noel S. Weiss
Original paper

Abstract

Background

Although the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening has been firmly established in reproductive-age women, its usefulness in older women is unclear. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of cervical cancer screening in older women.

Methods

We conducted a case–control study within two integrated health care systems in the northwestern United States. Cases (n = 69) were women aged 55–79 years who were diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer during 1980–1999. Controls (n = 208) were women with an intact uterus and no diagnosis of cervical cancer, but otherwise similar to cases in terms of age and length of enrollment in the health plan. We reviewed medical records to ascertain screening history during the 7 years prior to reference date.

Results

Compared to cases, controls were more likely to have received a Pap test. After adjustment for age and current smoking status, screening prior to an estimated 1-year duration of the occult invasive phase of cervical cancer was associated with a substantial reduction in risk [odds ratio (OR) 0.23; 95 % CI 0.11–0.44]. Similar results were obtained using different estimates of the duration of the occult invasive phase. Analysis of the relative incidence of invasive cervical cancer in relation to the time following a negative screening test suggested a large reduction during the first year (OR 0.09; 95 % CI 0.03–0.24). The incidence remained low for several years thereafter, returning to the incidence among unscreened women after 5–7 years.

Conclusions

Cervical cancer screening by means of cytology is highly efficacious in older women. Our findings also suggest that five-yearly screening is approximately as efficacious as more frequent screening.

Keywords

Cervical cancer screening Cytology Pap smear Efficacy 

References

  1. 1.
    Cannistra SA, Niloff JM (1996) Cancer of the uterine cervix. N Engl J Med 334:1030–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Day NE (1984) Effect of cervical cancer screening in Scandinavia. Obstet Gynecol 63:714–718PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parkin DM, Nguyen-Dinh X, Day NE (1985) The impact of screening on the incidence of cervical cancer in England and Wales. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92:150–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gustafsson L, Adami HO (1990) Cytologic screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Sweden evaluated by identification and simulation. Br J Cancer 61:903–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sigurdsson K (1993) Effect of organized screening on the risk of cervical cancer. Evaluation of screening activity in Iceland, 1964–1991. Int J Cancer 54:563–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Celentano DD, Klassen AC, Weisman CS, Rosenshein NB (1988) Cervical cancer screening practices among older women: results from the Maryland cervical cancer case-control study. J Clin Epidemiol 41:531–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fletcher A (1990) Screening for cancer of the cervix in elderly women. Lancet 335:97–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Wijngaarden WJ, Duncan ID (1993) Rationale for stopping cervical screening in women over 50. BMJ 306:967–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gustafsson L, Sparen P, Gustafsson M et al (1995) Low efficiency of cytologic screening for cancer in situ of the cervix in older women. Int J Cancer 63:804–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruickshank ME, Angus V, Kelly M, McPhee S, Kitchener HC (1997) The case for stopping cervical screening at age 50. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:586–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J (2003) Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 89:88–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andrae B, Kemetli L, Sparen P et al (2008) Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:622–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moyer VA, Force USPST (2012) Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 156(880–91):W312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW et al (2012) American cancer society, American society for colposcopy and cervical pathology, and American society for clinical pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 62:147–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (2012) Practice Bulletin No. 131: screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 120:1222–1238Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. SEER Stat facts sheets: cervix uteri. [cited 2012 November 26]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html#references
  17. 17.
    Weiss NS (1999) Case-control studies of the efficacy of screening tests designed to prevent the incidence of cancer. Am J Epidemiol 149:1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albert A, German PM, Louis TA (1978) Screening for the early detection of cancer. The temporal natural history of a progressive disease state. Math Biosci 40:1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coppleson LW, Brown B (1975) Observations on a model of the biology of carcinoma of the cervix: a poor fit between observation and theory. Am J Obstet Gynecol 122:127–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brookmeyer R, Day NE (1987) Two-stage models for the analysis of cancer screening data. Biometrics 43:657–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albert A (1981) Estimated cervical cancer disease state incidence and transition rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 67:571–576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berrino F, Gatta G, d’Alto M, Crosignani P, Riboli E (1986) Efficacy of screening in preventing invasive cervical cancer: a case-control study in Milan, Italy. IARC Sci Publ 111–23Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    IARC Working Group on Cervical Cancer Screening. Screening for squamous cervical cancer—the duration of low risk following negative results in cervical cytology test: introduction. IARC Sci Publ 1986:15–24Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenland S (1995) Dose-response and trend analysis in epidemiology: alternatives to categorical analysis. Epidemiology 6:356–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schiffman MH, Brinton LA, Devesa SS, Fraumeni JF Jr (1996) Cervical cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF Jr (eds) Cancer epidemiology and prevention. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1090–1116Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bosch FX, Munoz N, de Sanjose S et al (1992) Risk factors for cervical cancer in Colombia and Spain. Int J Cancer 52:750–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brinton LA, Hamman RF, Huggins GR et al (1987) Sexual and reproductive risk factors for invasive squamous cell cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 79:23–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kjaer SK, Dahl C, Engholm G, Bock JE, Lynge E, Jensen OM (1992) Case-control study of risk factors for cervical neoplasia in Denmark. II. Role of sexual activity, reproductive factors, and venereal infections. Cancer Causes Control 3:339–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    La Vecchia C, Franceschi S, Decarli A et al (1986) Sexual factors, venereal diseases, and the risk of intraepithelial and invasive cervical neoplasia. Cancer 58:935–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peters RK, Thomas D, Hagan DG, Mack TM, Henderson BE (1986) Risk factors for invasive cervical cancer among Latinas and non-Latinas in Los Angeles county. J Natl Cancer Inst 77:1063–1077PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Daling JR, Madeleine MM, McKnight B et al (1996) The relationship of human papillomavirus-related cervical tumors to cigarette smoking, oral contraceptive use, and prior herpes simplex virus type 2 infection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 5:541–548PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brinton LA, Fraumeni JF Jr (1986) Epidemiology of uterine cervical cancer. J Chronic Dis 39:1051–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lyon JL, Gardner JW, West DW, Stanish WM, Hebertson RM (1983) Smoking and carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Am J Public Health 73:558–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Slattery ML, Robison LM, Schuman KL et al (1989) Cigarette smoking and exposure to passive smoke are risk factors for cervical cancer. JAMA 261:1593–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trevathan E, Layde P, Webster LA, Adams JB, Benigno BB, Ory H (1983) Cigarette smoking and dysplasia and carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. JAMA 250:499–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lonnberg S, Anttila A, Luostarinen T, Nieminen P (2012) Age-specific effectiveness of the finnish cervical cancer screening programme. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21:1354–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Lynge E et al (2009) Incidence of cervical cancer after several negative smear results by age 50: prospective observational study. BMJ 338:b1354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Herbert A, Breen C, Bryant TN et al (1996) Invasive cervical cancer in Southampton and South West Hampshire: effect of introducing a comprehensive screening programme. J Med Screen 3:23–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. Fast Stats. [cited 2012 November 26]; Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?series=cancer
  40. 40.
    American Cancer Society (2009) Cancer facts & figures 2009. Atlanta, American Cancer SocietyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aruna Kamineni
    • 1
  • Sheila Weinmann
    • 2
  • Kirkwood K. Shy
    • 3
  • Andrew G. Glass
    • 2
  • Noel S. Weiss
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Group Health Research InstituteSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health ResearchKaiser Permanente NorthwestPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  5. 5.Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations