The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study

K Canfell, R Barnabas, J Patnick, V Beral, K Canfell, R Barnabas, J Patnick, V Beral

Abstract

In 2003, the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) announced that its screening interval would be reduced to 3 years in women aged 25-49 and fixed at 5 years in those aged 50-64, and that women under 25 years will no longer be invited for screening. In order to assess these and possible further changes to cervical screening practice in the UK, we constructed a mathematical model of cervical HPV infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer, and of UK age-specific screening coverage rates, screening intervals and treatment efficacy. The predicted cumulative lifetime incidence of invasive cervical cancer in the UK is 1.70% in the absence of screening and 0.77% with pre-2003 screening practice. A reduction in lifetime incidence to 0.63% is predicted following the implementation of the 2003 NHSCSP recommendations, which represents a 63% reduction compared to incidence rates in the UK population if it were unscreened. The model suggests that, after the implementation of the 2003 recommendations, increasing the sensitivity of the screening test regime from its current average value of 56 to 90% would further reduce the cumulative lifetime incidence of invasive cervical cancer to 0.46%. Alternatively, extending screening to women aged 65-79 years would further reduce the lifetime incidence to 0.56%. Screening women aged 20-25 years would have minimal impact, with the cumulative lifetime incidence decreasing from 0.63 to 0.61%. In conclusion, the study supports the 2003 recommendations for changes to cervical screening intervals.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Markov model incorporating states for cervical HPV infection, CIN and treatment of screen-detected disease.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Prevalence of cervical HPV infection (PCR detectable HPV DNA) found in population surveys in the Netherlands and the USA, compared to the model prediction. aMelkert et al (1993); bSchiffman and Kjaer (2003).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Observed and predicted incidence of invasive cervical cancer in the UK. aCancer Registrations in England, 1998–2000. Office of National Statistics.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Predicted effect of 2003 NHS Cervical Screening Programme recommendations. aCancer Registrations in England, 1998–2000. Office of National Statistics.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Effect of varying the sensitivity of cervical screening, after implementing the 2003 screening interval changes.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Effect of extending screening to women aged 20–24 or 65–79 years, after implementing the 2003 screening interval changes.

References

    1. Barnabas RV, Garnett GP (2004) The potential public health impact of vaccines against human papillomavirus. European Consortium for Cervical Cancer Education, (in press)
    1. Beral V, Hermon C, Munoz N, Devesa SS (1994) Cervical cancer. Cancer Surv 19–20:265–285
    1. Bodner K, Bodner-Adler B, Wierrani F, Kimberger O, Denk C, Grunberger W (2002) Is therapeutic conization sufficient to eliminate a high-risk HPV infection of the uterine cervix? A clinicopathological analysis. Anticancer Res 22:3733–3736
    1. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, Hulman G, Kitchener H, Luesley D, McGoogan E, Menon U, Terry G, Edwards R, Brooks C, Desai M, Gie C, Ho L, Jacobs I, Pickles C, Sasieni P (2003) Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 362:1871–1876
    1. de Brux J, Orth G, Croissant O, Cochard B, Ionesco M (1983) Condylomatous lesions of the uterine cervix: their course in 2466 patients. Bull Cancer 70:410–422
    1. Department of Health (2001) Department of Health Bulletin 2001/22, Cervical Screening Programme, England, 2000–2001, September 2001
    1. Esteve J, Benhamou E, Raymond L (1994) Descriptive Epidemiology, IARC Scientific Publications No. 128. IV. Lyon, France: International Agency for Cancer Research
    1. Hildesheim A, Schiffman MH, Gravitt PE, Glass AG, Greer CE, Zhang T, Scott DR, Rush BB, Lawler P, Sherman ME (1994) Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. J Infect Dis 169:235–240
    1. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD (1998) Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 338:423–428
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2004)
    1. Koutsky LA, Holmes KK, Critchlow CW, Stevens CE, Paavonen J, Beckmann AM, DeRouen TA, Galloway DA, Vernon D, Kiviat NB (1992) A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection. N Engl J Med 327:1272–1278
    1. McIndoe WA, McLean MR, Jones RW, Mullins PR (1984) The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 64:451–458
    1. Melkert PW, Hopman E, Van Den Brule AJ, Risse EK, van Diest PJ, Bleker OP, Helmerhorst T, Schipper ME, Meijer CJ, Walboomers JM (1993) Prevalence of HPV in cytomorphologically normal cervical smears, as determined by the polymerase chain reaction, is age-dependent. Int J Cancer 53:919–923
    1. Miller DK, Homan SM (1994) Determining transition probabilities: confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making 14:52–58
    1. Molano M, Van den Brule A, Plummer M, Weiderpass E, Posso H, Arslan A, Meijer CJ, Munoz N, Franceschi S (2003) Determinants of clearance of human papillomavirus infections in Colombian women with normal cytology: a population-based, 5-year follow-up study. Am J Epidemiol 158:486–494
    1. Moscicki AB, Shiboski S, Broering J, Powell K, Clayton L, Jay N, Darragh TM, Brescia R, Kanowitz S, Miller SB, Stone J, Hanson E, Palefsky J (1998) The natural history of human papillomavirus infection as measured by repeated DNA testing in adolescent and young women. J Pediatr 132:277–284
    1. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB (2000) Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol 151:1158–1171
    1. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB (2000) Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 132:810–819
    1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2003) Final Appraisal Determination – Guidance on the Use of Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Screening. Review of Existing Guidance Number 5
    1. Office of National Statistics (2001) Cancer Statistics: Registrations., No. 28, England, 1995–1997. London, UK: Office of National Statistics
    1. Office of National Statistics (2003a) Mortality Statistics: Cause. Review of the Registrar General on Deaths by Cause, Sex and Age, In England and Wales, 1999, No. 26. London, UK: Office of National Statistics
    1. Office of National Statistics (2003b) National Statistics: Cancer Registrations in England, 2000. London, UK: Office of National Statistics
    1. Ostor AG (1993) Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 12:186–192
    1. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E (1999) Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 318:904–908
    1. Redburn JC, Murphy MF (2001) Hysterectomy prevalence and adjusted cervical and uterine cancer rates in England and Wales. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108:388–395
    1. Royston G (1999) Commentary: trials vs models in appraising screening programmes. BMJ 318:360–361
    1. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J (2003) Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 89:88–93
    1. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E (1996) Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. Br J Cancer 73:1001–1005
    1. Schiffman M, Kjaer SK (2003) Chapter 2: Natural history of anogenital human papillomavirus infection and neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 31:14–19
    1. Schlecht NF, Kulaga S, Robitaille J, Ferreira S, Santos M, Miyamura RA, Duarte-Franco E, Rohan TE, Ferenczy A, Villa LL, Franco EL (2001) Persistent human papillomavirus infection as a predictor of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. JAMA 286:3106–3114
    1. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S, Jenkins D, Jones MH (1994) Cytological screening and management of abnormalities in prevention of cervical cancer: an overview with stochastic modelling. J Clin Pathol 47:430–435
    1. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S, Jenkins D (1999) Withdrawing low risk women from cervical screening programmes: mathematical modelling study. BMJ 318:356–360
    1. Syrjanen K, Kataja V, Yliskoski M, Chang F, Syrjanen S, Saarikoski S (1992) Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus lesions does not substantiate the biologic relevance of the Bethesda System. Obstet Gynecol 79:675–682
    1. Yokoyama M, Iwasaka T, Nagata C, Nozawa S, Sekiya S, Hirai Y, Kanazawa K, Sato S, Hoshiai H, Sugase M, Kawana T, Yoshikawa H (2003) Prognostic factors associated with the clinical outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a cohort study in Japan. Cancer Lett 192:171–179

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit