Search

Background: The aim of this study was to determine attitude of Dutch midwifes, gynecologists and general practitioners (GPs) towards involvement in antenatal cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the Netherlands. Methods: In 2021, Dutch midwives, gynecologists, and GPs were offered a single digital questionnaire assessing perceived feasibility, benefits, and harms of antenatal CCS. Results: A total of 6943 Questionnaires were send and response rate was 18% (N = 1260). Of all respondents, 78% considered antenatal CCS via obstetric care providers feasible. Most respondents (85%) agreed that offering CCS in person can increase motivation to attend. Most midwives (93%) considered that women would feel less encumbered if cervical sampling would be performed by obstetric care providers, rather than by GPs. Conclusion: Results indicate that introduction of antenatal CCS is considered feasible by a majority of Dutch midwifes, gynecologists, and GPs. Considered benefits include improved motivation to attend and reduced test related barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loss to follow‐up (LTFU) within cervical screening programmes can result in missed clinically relevant lesions, potentially reducing programme effectiveness. To examine the health impact of losing women during the screening process, we determined the proportion of women LTFU per step of the Dutch hrHPV‐based screening programme. We then determined the probability of being LTFU by age, screening history and sampling method (self‐ or clinician‐sampled) using logistic regression analysis. Finally, we estimated the number of missed CIN2+/3+ lesions per LTFU moment by using the CIN‐risk in women compliant with follow‐up. Data from the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (Palga) was used. Women eligible for screening in 2017 and 2018 were included (N = 840,428). For clinician collected (CC) samples, the highest proportion LTFU was found following 'referral advice for colposcopy' (5.5% after indirect referral; 3.8% after direct referral). For self‐sampling, the highest proportions LTFU were found following the advice for repeat cytology (13.6%) and after referral advice for colposcopy (8.2% after indirect referral; 4.3% after direct referral). Self‐sampling users and women with no screening history had a higher LTFU‐risk (OR: 3.87, CI: 3.55–4.23; OR: 1.39, CI: 1.20–1.61) compared to women that used CC sampling and women that have been screened before, respectively. Of all women LTFU in 2017/18, the total number of potentially missed CIN2+ was 844 (21% of women LTFU). Most lesions were missed after 'direct referral for colposcopy' (N = 462, 11.5% of women LTFU). So, this indicates a gap between the screening programme and clinical care which requires further attention, by improving monitoring of patients after referral. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is under debate whether healthcare costs related to death and in life years gained (LysG) due to life saving interventions should be included in economic evaluations. We estimated the impact of including these costs on cost-effectiveness of cancer screening. We obtained health insurance, home care, nursing homes, and mortality data for 2.1 million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1998-1999. Costs related to death were approximated by the healthcare costs in the last year of life (LastYL), by cause and age of death. Costs in LYsG were estimated by calculating the healthcare costs in any life year. We calculated the change in cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) if unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG would be included. Costs in the LastYL were on average 33% higher for persons dying from cancer than from any cause. Including costs in LysG increased the CER by 4040 euro in women, and by 4100 euro in men. Of these, 660 euro in women, and 890 euro in men, were costs in the LastYL. Including unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG will change the comparative cost-effectiveness of healthcare programmes. The CERs of cancer screening programmes will clearly increase, with approximately 4000 euro. However, because of the favourable CER's, including unrelated healthcare costs will in general have limited policy implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Organisation of a screening programme influences programme resilience to a disruption as COVID-19. Due to COVID-19, the Dutch human papillomavirus-based cervical screening programme was temporarily suspended. Afterwards, multiple measures have been taken to catch-up participation. This study aimed to investigate programme resilience by examining the effect of COVID-19 and programme measures taken on participation in cervical screening., Study Design: Observational cohort study., Methods: Data from the national screening registry and Dutch nationwide pathology databank (Palga) were used on invitations and follow-up in 2018/2019 (pre-COVID) and 2020 (COVID). Sending invitations, reminders and self-sampling kits were suspended from March to July 2020. Main outcome measures include distribution of participant characteristics (age, region and screening history), participation rates by age and region, time between invitation and participation (i.e. response time) and self-sampling use per month., Results: Participation rate was significantly lower in 2020 (49.8%) compared to 2018/19 (56.8%, P < 0.001), in all ages and regions. Compared to 2018/19, participation rates decreased most in women invited from January to March 2020 (-6.7%, -9.1% and -10.4%, respectively). From August, participation rates started to recover (difference between -0.8% and -2.7%). Median response time was longer in February and March (2020: 143 and 173 days; 2018/19: 53 and 55 days) and comparable from July onwards (median difference 0-6 days). Self-sampling use was higher in 2020 (16.3%) compared to 2018/19 (7.6%)., Conclusions: The pandemic impacted participation rates in the Dutch cervical screening programme, especially of women invited before the programme pause. Implementation of self-sampling in national cervical screening programmes could increase participation rates and could serve as an alternative screening method in times of exceptional health care circumstances, such as a pandemic. Due to the well-organised programme and measures taken to catch-up participation, the impact of COVID-19 on the screening programme remained small., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

There are currently screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer in many European countries. However, the uptake of cancer screening in general may vary within and between countries. The aim of this study is to assess the inequalities in testing utilization by socio-economic status and whether the amount of inequality varies across European regions. We conducted an analysis based on cross-sectional data from the second wave of the European Health Interview Survey from 2013 to 2015. We analysed the use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer testing by socio-economic position (household income, educational level and employment status), socio-demographic factors, self-perceived health and smoking behaviour, by using multinomial logistic models, and inequality measurement based on the Slope index of inequality (SII) and Relative index of inequality (RII). The results show that the utilization of mammography (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (95%CI):0.50-0.61), cervical smear tests (OR = 0.60, 95%CI:0.56-0.65) and colorectal testing (OR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.78-0.86) was overall less likely among individuals within a low household income compared to a high household income. Also, individuals with a non-EU country of birth, low educational level and being unemployed (or retired) were overall less likely to be tested. The income-based inequality in breast (SII = 0.191;RII = 1.260) and colorectal testing utilization (SII = 0.161;RII = 1.487) was the greatest in Southern Europe. For cervical smears, this inequality was greatest in Eastern Europe (SII = 0.122;RII = 1.195). We concluded that there is considerable inequality in the use of cancer tests in Europe, with inequalities associated with household income, educational level, employment status, and country of birth., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: Women with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] may be at higher risk for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]. However, data are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of high-grade dysplasia and cancer [CIN2+] in IBD women and identify risk factors., Methods: Clinical data from adult IBD women in a multicentre Dutch IBD prospective cohort [PSI] from 2007 onwards were linked to cervical cytology and histology records from the Dutch nationwide cytology and pathology database [PALGA], from 2000 to 2016. Patients were frequency-matched 1:4 to a general population cohort. Standardised detection rates [SDR] were calculated for CIN2+. Longitudinal data were assessed to calculate CIN2+ risk during follow-up using incidence rate ratios [IRR] and risk factors were identified in multivariable analysis., Results: Cervical records were available from 2098 IBD women [77%] and 8379 in the matched cohort; median follow-up was 13 years. CIN2+ detection rate was higher in the IBD cohort than in the matched cohort (SDR 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.52). Women with IBD had an increased risk of CIN2+ [IRR 1.66, 95% CI 1.21-2.25] and persistent or recurrent CIN during follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95% CI 1.06-3.38). Risk factors for CIN2+ in IBD women were smoking and disease location (ileocolonic [L3] or upper gastrointestinal [GI] [L4]). CIN2+ risk was not associated with exposure to immunosuppressants., Conclusions: Women with IBD are at increased risk for CIN2+ lesions. These results underline the importance of human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccination and adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in IBD women, regardless of exposure to immunosuppressants., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Objective: Women exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero (DES) have an increased risk of clear cell adenocarcinoma (CCA) of the vagina and cervix, while their risk of non-CCA invasive cervical cancer is still unclear., Methods: We studied the risk of pre-cancerous (CIN) lesions and non-CCA invasive cervical cancer in a prospective cohort of 12,182 women with self-reported DES exposure followed from 2000 till 2008. We took screening behavior carefully into account. Incidence was obtained through linkage with the Netherlands Nationwide Pathology database (PALGA). General population data were also derived from PALGA., Results: The incidence of CIN1 was increased (Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR)=2.8, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=2.3 to 3.4), but no increased risk was observed for CIN2+ (CIN2, CIN3 or invasive cancer) compared to the screened general population (SIR=1.1, 95% CI=0.95 to1.4). Women with DES-related malformations had increased risks of both CIN1 and CIN2+ (SIR=4.1, 95%CI=3.0 to 5.3 and SIR=1.5, 95%CI=1.1 to 2.0, respectively). For CIN2+, this risk increase was largely restricted to women with malformations who were more intensively screened., Conclusions: An increased risk of CIN1 among DES daughters was observed, especially in women with DES-related malformations, probably mainly due to screening. The risk of CIN2+ (including cancer) was not increased. However, among DES daughters with DES-related malformations a true small risk increase for non-CCA cervical cancer cannot be excluded., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the most cost-effective screening programme for cervical cancer., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective., Setting: The Netherlands., Population: Dutch women who have not been invited for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination., Methods: We calibrated the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model to Dutch epidemiological data. We used this model to consider nine screening strategies that use: (i) cytological testing with cytology triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears; (ii) HPV testing with cytology triage for HPV-positive smears; or (iii) cytological testing with HPV triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears. For each strategy, we varied the number of screening rounds, the time interval, the age of the first screening, and the type of cytological testing (conventional or liquid-based cytology)., Main Outcome Measures: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs from a societal perspective., Results: Under the base-case assumptions, primary HPV testing with cytology triage is the most cost-effective strategy. Using cost-effectiveness thresholds of € 20,000 and € 50,000 per QALY gained yields optimal screening programmes with three and seven screening rounds, respectively. The results are sensitive to several uncertain model inputs, most importantly the costs of the HPV test. For women aged 32 years or younger, primary cytology screening is more cost-effective than primary HPV testing., Conclusions: Increasing the interval between screening rounds and changing the primary test from cytology to HPV testing can improve the effectiveness and decrease the costs of cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands., (© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG.)

The Dutch Minister of Health, Welfare and Sportintends to implement Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for 12-year-old girls and catch-up vaccination for 13- 16-year-old girls, as part of the National Immunisation Programme from September 2009 onwards. However, due to a well-organised screening programme, cervical cancer is not an important public health problem in the Netherlands any more, which limits the possible impact of HPV vaccination. Vaccine trials thus far have involved a relatively small number ofparticipants with limited follow-up, so the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing cervical cancer is not yet known. There are no data on frequency and severity of possible adverse events and the vaccine has not yet been tested in the intention-to-vaccinate group of 12-year-old girls. Even when we assume that HPV16/18-related cervical cancer is prevented on a lifelong basis, the cost-effectiveness ratio of HPV vaccination is estimated not to be favourable. In conclusion, HPV vaccination does not seem to be urgent in the Netherlands. Therefore we advise studying the safety in 12-year-old girls first while at the same time waiting for the longer follow-up results of ongoing trials.