Search

#### Objective To compare the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer diagnosed within 72 months after a normal screening sample between conventional cytology and liquid based cytology tests SurePath and ThinPrep. #### Design Retrospective population based cohort study. #### Setting Nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), January 2000 to March 2013. #### Population Women with 5924474 normal screening samples (23833123 person years). #### Exposure Use of SurePath or ThinPrep versus conventional cytology as screening test. #### Main outcome measure 72 month cumulative incidence of invasive cervical cancer after a normal screening sample for each screening test. Cox regression analyses assessed the hazard ratios, adjusted for calendar time, age, screening history, and socioeconomic status and including laboratories as random effects. #### Results The 72 month cumulative cancer incidence was 58.5 (95% confidence interval 54.6 to 62.7) per 100000 normal conventional cytology samples, compared with 66.8 (56.7 to 78.7) for ThinPrep and 44.6 (37.8 to 52.6) for SurePath. Compared with conventional cytology, the hazard of invasive cancer was 19% lower (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.99) for SurePath, mainly caused by a 27% lower hazard (0.73, 0.57 to 0.93) of a clinically detected cancer. For ThinPrep, the hazard was on average 15% higher (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.95 to 1.38), mainly caused by a 56% higher hazard of a screen detected cancer (1.56, 1.17 to 2.08). #### Conclusions These findings should provoke reconsideration of the assumed similarity in sensitivity to detect progressive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia between different types of liquid based cyt

Objective: Although early detection of cancer through screening can prevent cancer deaths, a drawback of screening is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis has been much debated in breast cancer screening, but less so in cervical cancer screening. We examined the impact of overdiagnosis by comparing two screening programmes in the Netherlands. Methods: We estimated overdiagnosis rates by microsimulation for breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening, using a cohort of women born in 1982 with lifelong follow-up. Overdiagnosis estimates were made analogous to two definitions formed by the UK 2012 breast screening review. Pre-invasive disease was included in both definitions. Results: Screening prevented 921 cervical cancers (-55%) and 378 cervical cancer deaths (-59%), and 169 (-1.3%) breast cancer cases and 970 breast cancer deaths (-21%). The cervical cancer overdiagnosis rate was 74.8% (including pre-invasive disease). Breast cancer overdiagnosis was estimated at 2.5% (including pre-invasive disease). For women of all ages in breast cancer screening, an excess of 207 diagnoses/100,000 women was found, compared with an excess of 3999 diagnoses/100,000 women in cervical cancer screening. Conclusions: For breast cancer, the frequency of overdiagnosis in screening is relatively low, but consequences are evident. For cervical cancer, the frequency of overdiagnosis in screening is high, because of detection of pre-invasive disease, but the consequences per case are relatively small due to less invasive treatment. This illustrates that it is necessary to present overdiagnosis in relation to disease stage and consequences.

Purpose: Within the last decade, SurePath and ThinPrep [both liquid-based cytology (LBC) tests] have replaced conventional cytology (CC) as primary test method in cervical cancer screening programs of multiple countries. The aim of our study was to examine the effect in the Dutch screening program. Methods: All primary smears taken within this program from 2000 to 2011 were analyzed using the nationwide registry of histo- and cytopathology (PALGA) with a follow-up until March 2013. The percentage of smears classified as borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) and >BMD as well as CIN and cervical cancer detection rates were compared between SurePath and ThinPrep versus CC by logistic regression analyses (adjusted for age, screen region, socioeconomic status, and calendar time). Results: We included 3,118,685 CC, 1,313,731 SurePath, and 1,584,587 ThinPrep smears. Using SurePath resulted in an increased rate of primary smears classified as >BMD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.16)]. CIN I and II+ detection rates increased by 14 % [OR = 1.14 (95% CI 1.08–1.20)] and 8 % [OR = 1.08 (95% CI 1.05–1.12)]. Cervical cancer detection rates were unaffected. Implementing ThinPrep did not result in major alterations of the cytological classification of smears, and it did not affect CIN detection rates. While not significant, cervical cancer detection rates were lower [OR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.75–1.01)]. Conclusions: The impact of replacing CC by LBC as primary test method depends on the type of LBC test used. Only the use of SurePath was associated with increased CIN II+ detection, although it simultaneously increased the detection of CIN I.

Background: Vaccination against the oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 will reduce the prevalence of these types, thereby also reducing cervical cancer risk in unvaccinated women. This (measurable) herd effect will be limited at first, but is expected to increase over time. At a certain herd immunity level, tailoring screening to vaccination status may no longer be worth the additional effort. Moreover, uniform screening may be the only viable option. We therefore investigated at what level of herd immunity it is cost-effective to also reduce screening intensity in unvaccinated women. Methods: We used the MISCAN-Cervix model to determine the optimal screening strategy for a prevaccination population and for vaccinated women (∼80% decreased risk), assuming a willingness- to-pay of €50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. We considered HPV testing, cytology testing and co-testing and varied the start age of screening, the screening interval and the number of lifetime screens. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening unvaccinated women with the strategy optimized to the pre-vaccination population as compared to with the strategy optimized to vaccinated women, assuming different herd immunity levels. Results: Primary HPV screening with cytology triage was the optimal strategy, with 8 lifetime screens for the pre-vaccination population and 3 for vaccinated women. The ICER of screening unvaccinated women 8 times instead of 3 was €28,085 in the absence of herd immunity. At around 50% herd immunity, the ICER reached €50,000. Conclusion: From a herd immunity level of 50% onwards, screening intensity based on the pre-vaccination risk level becomes cost-ineffective for unvaccinated women. Reducing the screening intensity of uniform screening may then be considered.

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women all over the world, mainly affecting young women. As cervical cancer is easy to prevent by early detection and treatment of the disease, screening was introduced in the Netherlands in the 1970s. The number of cervical cancer cases and cervical cancer related deaths were thereby effectively reduced. Substantial improvements in the understanding of the natural history of cervical cancer as well as advancements in technologies have led to a rapid development and implementation of novel screening tests. The aim of this thesis is to give an overview of the effects of using new screening tests in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme. More specific, we focus on the effects of using different cytology tests in the current programme, as well as on the possible effects of self-sampling tests in the future programme.

The human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA test has higher sensitivity than cytology for cervical cancer screening. Therefore, cervical cancer cases that are missed by cytology could potentially be identified if we use primary HPV testing. Studies showed that HPV screening is the preferred primary test at age 35 and over. Given the high prevalence of harmless HPV infections, the use of HPV testing at younger age is less obvious. The number of cancers in young age is often mentioned to indicate the possible benefits of a more sensitive test. We actually estimated the proportion of those cases that is potentially preventable in The Netherlands by the use of a more sensitive screen-test at the first screening age 30, given that the more sensitive test is used at age 35 and over. We analysed the screening history of women diagnosed with cervical cancer in the period 2004 to March 2009, using data from the Dutch National Pathology Registry. Only 15-30% (two to four cases per 100,000 women) of the cases was preceded by negative cytology under age 35 and therefore could have been prevented by a more sensitive test at age 30. The lower the screening coverage and the shorter the screening interval in those screened at young age, the smaller the gain of a more sensitive test. So, as long as the current screening pattern is not changed, the majority of the cervical cancer cases at young age would still occur even when applying a more sensitive test at the younger ages.