Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: To quantify the benefits (cancer prevention and down-staging) and harms (recall and excess treatment) of cervical screening starting from age 20 years rather than from age 25 years.We use routine screening and cancer incidence statistics from Wales (for screening from age 20 years) and England (screening from 25 years), and unpublished data from the National Audit of Invasive Cervical Cancer to estimate the number of: screening tests, women with abnormal results, referrals to colposcopy, women treated, and diagnoses of micro-invasive (stage 1A) and frank-invasive (stage IB+) cervical cancers (under three different scenarios) in women invited for screening from age 20 years and from 25 years.Inviting 100,000 women from age 20 years yields an additional: 119,000 screens, 20,000 non-negative results, 8000 colposcopy referrals, and an extra 3000 women treated when compared with inviting from age 25 years. Screening from age 20 years prevents between three and nine frank invasive cancers and between 0 and 23 cancers in total (depending on the scenario). A cumulative increase of nine stage IB+ cancers corresponds to an annual rate increase of 0.9 per 100,000 women aged 20-29 years.To prevent one frank invasive cancer, one would need to do between 12,500 and 40,000 additional screening tests in the age group 20-24 years and treat between 300 and 900 women.

SUBMITTER: Landy R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3974083 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Landy R R Birke H H Castanon A A Sasieni P P

British journal of cancer 20140211 7

<h4>Background</h4>To quantify the benefits (cancer prevention and down-staging) and harms (recall and excess treatment) of cervical screening starting from age 20 years rather than from age 25 years.<h4>Methods</h4>We use routine screening and cancer incidence statistics from Wales (for screening from age 20 years) and England (screening from 25 years), and unpublished data from the National Audit of Invasive Cervical Cancer to estimate the number of: screening tests, women with abnormal result ...[more]

PMID: 24518600

Similar Datasets

Project description:Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States.To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years.Comparative modeling study.Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature.A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening.Lifetime.Societal.Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial).life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, false-positive findings/deaths averted.Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate.The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions.Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance.Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure.National Cancer Institute.

Project description:BackgroundThere is little consensus, and minimal evidence, regarding the age at which to stop cervical screening. We studied the association between screening at age 50-64 y and cervical cancer at age 65-83 y.Methods and findingsCases were women (n = 1,341) diagnosed with cervical cancer at age 65-83 y between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2012 in England and Wales; age-matched controls (n = 2,646) were randomly selected from population registers. Screening details from 1988 onwards were extracted from national databases. We calculated the odds ratios (OR) for different screening histories and subsequent cervical cancer. Women with adequate negative screening at age 65 y (288 cases, 1,395 controls) were at lowest risk of cervical cancer (20-y risk: 8 cancers per 10,000 women) compared with those (532 cases, 429 controls) not screened at age 50-64 y (20-y risk: 49 cancers per 10,000 women, with OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.13-0.19). ORs depended on the age mix of women because of the weakening association with time since last screen: OR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.08-0.14 at 2.5 to 7.5 y since last screen; OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.20-0.36 at 12.5 to 17.5 y since last screen. Screening at least every 5.5 y between the ages 50 and 64 y was associated with a 75% lower risk of cervical cancer between the ages 65 and 79 y (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.21-0.30), and the attributable risk was such that in the absence of screening, cervical cancer rates in women aged 65+ would have been 2.4 (95% CI 2.1-2.7) times higher. In women aged 80-83 y the association was weaker (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.83) than in those aged 65-69 y (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.09-0.17). This study was limited by an absence of data on confounding factors; additionally, findings based on cytology may not generalise to human papillomavirus testing.ConclusionsWomen with adequate negative screening at age 50-64 y had one-sixth of the risk of cervical cancer at age 65-83 y compared with women who were not screened. Stopping screening between ages 60 and 69 y in women with adequate negative screening seems sensible, but further screening may be justifiable as life expectancy increases.

Project description:Context and objectiveStandards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature.Summary of methodThe new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations.ConclusionWe present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets