Outcomes in cervical screening using various cytology technologies: What’s age got to do with it?

Unlike for human papillomavirus screening, little is known about the possible age-dependent variation in the outcomes of cervical cytology screening. The aim of our study was to describe age-related outcomes of five cytological technologies in a population-based screening program targeting women aged 23–59 years. All cervical cytology from women residing in Copenhagen has been analyzed in the laboratory of the Department of Pathology, Hvidovre University Hospital. We studied five technology phases: (1) conventional cytology with manual reading, (2) conventional cytology with 50% automatically signed out as normal, (3) liquid-based cytology (LBC) with 50% automatically signed out as normal, (4) LBC with 25% automatically signed out as normal, and (5) LBC with 25% automatically signed out as normal and with 16 preselected areas for attention in manual reading. We calculated proportion of samples with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (≥ASCUS) by age and technology phase. We included 391 140 samples. The proportion of ≥ASCUS increased steadily from 3.8% in phase 1 to 6.0% in phase 5. This pattern varied considerably across age groups. In women aged 23–34 years, the proportion almost doubled, relative proportion 1.96 (95% confidence interval: 1.84–2.08). An opposite development was seen in women aged 45–59 years, relative proportion 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.57–0.82). Technological upgrading of cytology strongly affected the outcome of cervical screening for young women. If corroborated with data from other laboratories, these findings call for caution in implementation of new cytology screening technologies.

[1]  E. Lynge,et al.  Restriction of human papillomavirus DNA testing in primary cervical screening to women above age 30: systematic review , 2012, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[2]  C. Pedersen,et al.  The Danish Civil Registration System , 2011, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[3]  Elsebeth Lynge,et al.  The Danish National Patient Register , 2011, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[4]  B. Bjerregaard,et al.  The Danish Pathology Register , 2011, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[5]  Marianne Lundkjær Gjerstorff,et al.  The Danish Cancer Registry , 2011, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[6]  Pekka Nieminen,et al.  Cervical cancer patterns with automation‐assisted and conventional cytological screening: A randomized study , 2011, International journal of cancer.

[7]  P Barton,et al.  Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[8]  G. Ronco,et al.  Age‐specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid‐based cytology: data from two randomised clinical trials , 2010, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  P. Castle Screening: HPV testing for cervical cancer: the good, the bad, and the ugly , 2010, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[10]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[11]  T. Agorastos,et al.  Prevalence and distribution of high-risk human papillomavirus in Greece , 2009, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[12]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. , 2009, JAMA.

[13]  L. Massuger,et al.  Cytologic Detection of Cervical Abnormalities Using Liquid-Based Compared With Conventional Cytology: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  T. Iftner,et al.  Population‐based prevalence, type‐ and age‐specific distribution of HPV in women before introduction of an HPV‐vaccination program in Denmark , 2008, International journal of cancer.

[15]  N. Wilson,et al.  What's Age Got to Do With It? , 2008, Science.

[16]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  T. Toivonen,et al.  Randomized evaluation trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer: Results after 777,000 invitations , 2007, Journal of medical screening.

[19]  B. Kirschner,et al.  Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smear and SurePath® liquid‐based cytology in the Copenhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer , 2006, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[20]  M. Fremont-Smith,et al.  Comparison of the Surepath™ liquid‐based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct‐to‐vial study , 2004, Cancer.

[21]  R. Moseley,et al.  Liquid‐based cytology: is this the way forward for cervical screening? , 2002, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[22]  D. Ferris,et al.  The efficacy of liquid-based cervical cytology using direct-to-vial sample collection. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[23]  J. Walboomers,et al.  Distribution of 37 mucosotropic HPV types in women with cytologically normal cervical smears: The age‐related patterns for high‐risk and low‐risk types , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[24]  J. Habbema,et al.  Epidemiological evidence for age-dependent regression of pre-invasive cervical cancer. , 1991, British Journal of Cancer.

[25]  R Legood,et al.  MAVARIC - a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. , 2011, Health technology assessment.