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]

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).)

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.