Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Leslea Peirson, Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna Ciliska, Rachel Warren, Leslea Peirson, Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna Ciliska, Rachel Warren

Abstract

Background: The systematic review on which this paper is based provided evidence for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their guideline regarding screening for cervical cancer. In this article we highlight three questions covered in the full review that pertain to the effectiveness of screening for reducing cervical cancer mortality and incidence as well as optimal timing and frequency of screening.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central from 1995 to 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies with comparison groups. Eligible studies included women aged 15 to 70 years who were screened using conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology or human papillomavirus DNA tests. Relevance screening, data extraction, risk of bias analyses and quality assessments were performed in duplicate. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model on the one body of evidence that could be pooled.

Results: From the 15,145 screened citations, 27 papers (24 studies) were included; five older studies located in a United States Preventive Services Task Force review were also included. A randomized controlled trial in India showed even a single lifetime screening test significantly decreased the risk of mortality from and incidence of advanced cervical cancer compared to no screening (mortality: risk ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47, 0.90; incidence: relative risk 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.42, 0.75). Cytology screening was shown to be beneficial in a cohort study that found testing significantly reduced the risk of being diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer compared to no screening (risk ratio 0.38; 95% confidence interval 0.23, 0.63). Pooled evidence from a dozen case-control studies also indicated a significant protective effect of cytology screening (odds ratio 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.30, 0.41). This review found no conclusive evidence for establishing optimal ages to start and stop cervical screening, or to determine how often to screen; however the available data suggests substantial protective effects for screening women 30 years and older and for intervals of up to five years.

Conclusions: The available evidence supports the conclusion that cervical screening does offer protective benefits and is associated with a reduction in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and cervical cancer mortality.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for selection of studies included in the systematic review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of the effect of screening on incidence of invasive cervical cancer - exposure to cytology screening.

References

    1. Pontén J, Adami HO, Bergström R, Dillner J, Friberg LG, Gustafsson L, Miller AB, Parkin DM, Sparén P, Trichopoulos D. Strategies for global control of cervical cancer. Int J Cancer. 1995;60:1–26. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910600102.
    1. Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, Warren R. Screening for Cervical Cancer. Hamilton, ON: McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre; 2012.
    1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer. CMAJ. 2013;185:35–45.
    1. McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, Baranyai J, Medley G, Jones RW, Skegg DC. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:425–434. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7.
    1. Sasieni P, Adams J. Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model. BMJ. 1999;318:1244–1245. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1244.
    1. van der Aa MA, Pukkala E, Coebergh JWW, Anttila A, Siesling S. Mass screening programmes and trends in cervical cancer in Finland and the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:1854–1858.
    1. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer. Alexandria, VA: USPSTF; 1996.
    1. Vesco KK, Witlock EP, Eder M, Lin J, Burda BU, Senger CA, Holmes RS, Fu R, Zuber S. Screening for Cervical Cancer: a Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–926. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
    1. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2:121–145. doi: 10.1177/096228029300200202.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186.
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, the Cochrane Methods Group. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2 (Updated September 2009) 502. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2009. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses.
    1. Aristizabal N, Cuello C, Correa P, Collazos T, Haenszel W. The impact of vaginal cytology on cervical cancer risks in Cali, Colombia. Int J Cancer. 1984;34:5–9. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910340103.
    1. Berrino F, Gatta G, D'Alto M, Crosignani P, Riboli E. Efficacy of screening in preventing invasive cervical cancer: a case–control study in Milan, Italy. IARC Sci Publ. 1986;76:111–123.
    1. Clarke EA, Anderson TW. Does screening by "Pap" smears help prevent cervical cancer? A case–control study. Lancet. 1979;2:1–4.
    1. Herrero R, Brinton LA, Reeves WC, Brenes MM, de Britton RC, Gaitan E, Tenorio F. Screening for cervical cancer in Latin America: a case–control study. Int J Epidemiol. 1992;21:1050–1056. doi: 10.1093/ije/21.6.1050.
    1. La Vecchia C, Franceschi S, Decarli A, Fasoli M, Gentile A, Tognoni G. "Pap" smear and the risk of cervical neoplasia: quantitative estimates from a case–control study. Lancet. 1984;2:779–782.
    1. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM, Hingmire S, Malvi SG, Thorat R, Kothari A, Chinoy R, Kelkar R, Kane S, Desai S, Keskar VR, Rajeshwarkar R, Panse N, Dinshaw KA. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1385–1394. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0808516.
    1. Herbert A, Stein K, Bryant TN, Breen C, Old P. Relation between the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the screening interval: is a five year interval too long? J Med Screen. 1996;3:140–145.
    1. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Lynge E, Looman C, Essink-Bot ML, Boer R, Habbema D. Incidence of cervical cancer after several negative smear results by age 50: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2009;338:b1354. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1354.
    1. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Anttila A, Hakama M. Organised vs. spontaneous Pap-smear screening for cervical cancer: a case–control study. Int J Cancer. 1999;83:55–58. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990924)83:1<55::AID-IJC11>;2-U.
    1. Andrae B, Kemetli L, Sparén P, Silfverdal L, Strander B, Ryd W, Dillner J, Törnberg S. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:622–629. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn099.
    1. Decker K, Demers A, Chateau D, Musto G, Nugent Z, Lotocki R, Harrison M. Papanicolaou test utilization and frequency of screening opportunities among women diagnosed with cervical cancer. Open Med. 2009;3:e140–e147.
    1. Hernández-Avila M, Lazcano-Ponce EC, de Ruíz PA, Romieu I. Evaluation of the cervical cancer screening programme in Mexico: a population-based case–control study. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27:370–376. doi: 10.1093/ije/27.3.370.
    1. Hoffman M, Cooper D, Carrara H, Rosenberg L, Kelly J, Stander I, Williamson AL, Denny L, du Toit G, Shapiro S. Limited Pap screening associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in South Africa. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:573–577. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg081.
    1. Jiménez-Pérez M, Thomas DB. Has the use of pap smears reduced the risk of invasive cervical cancer in Guadalajara, Mexico? Int J Cancer. 1999;82:804–809. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990909)82:6<804::AID-IJC6>;2-N.
    1. Makino H, Sato S, Yajima A, Komatsu S, Fukao A. Evaluation of the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: a case–control study in Miyagi, Japan. Tohoku J Exp Med. 1995;175:171–178. doi: 10.1620/tjem.175.171.
    1. Talbott EO, Norman SA, Kuller LH, Ishii EK, Baffone KM, Dunn MS, Krampe BR, Weinberg GB. Refining preventive strategies for invasive cervical cancer: a population-based case–control study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 1995;4:387–395. doi: 10.1089/jwh.1995.4.387.
    1. Miller MG, Sung HY, Sawaya GF, Kearney KA, Kinney W, Hiatt RA. Screening interval and risk of invasive squamous cell cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:29–37. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02454-7.
    1. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E. 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. 1996;73:1001–1005. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1996.196.
    1. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:88–93. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600974.
    1. Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J. Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case–control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ. 2009;339:b2968. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2968.
    1. Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J. Screening and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Int J Cancer. 2009;125:525–529. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24410.
    1. Yang B, Morrell S, Zuo Y, Roder D, Tracey E, Jelfs P. A case–control study of the protective benefit of cervical screening against invasive cervical cancer in NSW women. Cancer Cause Control. 2008;19:569–576. doi: 10.1007/s10552-008-9118-9.
    1. Zappa M, Visioli CB, Ciatto S, Iossa A, Paci E, Sasieni P. Lower protection of cytological screening for adenocarcinomas and shorter protection for younger women: the results of a case–control study in Florence. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:1784–1786.
    1. Kasinpila C, Promthet S, Vatanasapt P, Sasieni P, Parkin DM. Evaluation of the nationwide cervical screening programme in Thailand: a case–control study. J Med Screen. 2011;18:147–153. doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.011075.
    1. Wells GA, Shea BJ, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch W, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000. [ ]
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Higgins JPT, Green S, editor. West Sussex, UK: Wiley; 2008. Assessing risk of bias in included studies; pp. 187–241.
    1. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Higgins JPT, Green S, editor. West Sussex,UK: Wiley; 2008. Addressing reporting biases; pp. 297–333.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Djulbegovic B, Atkins D, Falck-Ytter Y, Williams JW Jr, Meerpohl J, Norris SL, Akl EA, Schünemann H. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1277–1282. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011.
    1. Ogilvie GS, van Niekerk DJ, Krajden M, Martin RE, Ehlen TG, Ceballos K, Peacock SJ, Smith LW, Kan L, Cook DA, Mei W, Stuart GC, Franco EL, Coldman AJ. A randomized controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening: trial design and preliminary results (HPV FOCAL Trial) BMC Cancer. 2010;10:111. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-111.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する