Risk of cervical cancer after completed post-treatment follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: population based cohort study

Matejka Rebolj, Theo Helmerhorst, Dik Habbema, Caspar Looman, Rob Boer, Joost van Rosmalen, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Matejka Rebolj, Theo Helmerhorst, Dik Habbema, Caspar Looman, Rob Boer, Joost van Rosmalen, Marjolein van Ballegooijen

Abstract

Objective: To compare the risk of cervical cancer in women with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia who returned to routine screening after having completed post-treatment follow-up with consecutive normal smear test results with women with a normal primary smear test result.

Design: Population based cohort study using data from a nationwide pathology register.

Setting: The Netherlands, 1994 to 2006.

Population: 38,956 women with histologically confirmed intraepithelial neoplasia grades 1 to 3 with completed follow-up after treatment.

Intervention: Routine post-treatment follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, recommending smear tests at six, 12, and 24 months.

Main outcome measure: Incidence of cervical cancer in the period from completed follow-up with negative test results after cervical intraepithelial neoplasia to the next primary test. 10-year hazard ratios were compared with periods after normal results for the primary smear test, adjusted for year in follow-up.

Results: 20 cervical cancers were diagnosed during 56,956 woman years after completed follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, whereas 1613 cervical cancers were diagnosed during 25,020,697 woman years after a normal primary smear test result. The incidence of 35.1 (95% confidence interval 21.4 to 54.2) per 100,000 woman years and 6.4 (6.1 to 6.8) per 100,000 woman years, respectively, led to an adjusted hazard ratio of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 2.7 to 6.5) for periods after completed follow-up compared with periods after normal primary smear test results. This hazard ratio was increased for all ages. No significant difference in risk of cervical cancer was observed by grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Conclusions: An excess risk of cervical cancer previously observed for women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia was also observed in the subgroup of women who completed their post-treatment follow-up with three consecutive normal smear test results. The overall corrected risk of cervical cancer in these women was increased fourfold 35 cases per 100,000 woman years) compared with women with normal primary smear test results (6 per 100,000 woman years).

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that: MR is currently involved in a comparative study of new generation human papillomavirus tests, for which Roche Diagnostics, Genomica, Qiagen, and Gen-Probe provided assays and instrumentations. MR did not receive any salary, compensation, or bonuses for work on any of the projects from any of the companies, and does not hold companies’ stock. Concerning the present paper, there has been no involvement or support from any of the companies. Since 1989 RB has been participating in the screening research group at the Department of Public Health of Erasmus MC. Between 2009 and 2012 he was also director of health economics at Cerner LifeSciences, which is a consultancy that mainly works for the pharmaceutical industry and is part of Cerner that mainly develops and markets healthcare information technology. This research and article were not funded or supported by Cerner or their clients. RB’s institution has received a grant from Health Insurance Executive Board. MvB was the principal investigator until 2008 on a project on the cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination, financed by GSK (a pharmaceutical company that produces human papillomavirus vaccines against cervical cancer). There has been no collaboration with or support from GSK for the present paper. The authors have no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4790707/bin/rebm005910.f1_default.jpg
Definition of completed negative test results at follow-up after histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and counting of woman years at risk for a hypothetical episode. CIN=histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. a=left censored (excluded) woman years at risk because of ongoing follow-up during which by definition no cervical cancer was diagnosed; b=included woman years at risk. Because for all episodes woman years at risk were also left censored before 1 January 1994, episodes of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with completed negative follow-up test results were included in the analysis if at least part of b accrued after that date. Restrictions for side analysis (episodes of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in which follow-up testing followed recommended timing): c=maximum 12 months (recommended six months and an allowed delay of six months); d=18 to 42 months

References

    1. Soutter WP, de Barros LA, Fletcher A, Monaghan JM, Duncan ID, Paraskevaidis E, et al. Invasive cervical cancer after conservative therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Lancet 1997;349:978-80.
    1. Kalliala I, Anttila A, Pukkala E, Nieminen P. Risk of cervical and other cancers after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2005;331:1183-5.
    1. Soutter WP, Sasieni P, Panoskaltsis T. Long-term risk of invasive cervical cancer after treatment of squamous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 2006;118:2048-55.
    1. Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, Sparen P. Long term risk of invasive cancer after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: population based cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:1077.
    1. Melnikow J, McGahan C, Sawaya GF, Ehlen T, Coldman A. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:721-8.
    1. Pettersson F, Malker B. Invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix following diagnosis and treatment of in situ carcinoma. Record linkage study within a National Cancer Registry. Radiother Oncol 1989;16:115-20.
    1. Swedish Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (SFOG). Guidelines for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2010, English summary. 2011. .
    1. ACOG Practice Bulletin No 109. Cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1409-20.
    1. Luesley D, Leeson S, eds. Colposcopy and programme management: guidelines for the NHS cervical screening programme, 2edn. NHSCSP Publication No 20. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2010. 2011. .
    1. Kjeld Petersen L, Frøding L, Lidang M, Arenholt L. Post-conisation follow-up (in Danish). Dansk Selskab for Gynækologi og Obstetrik, December 2007. 201. .
    1. Uršič-Vrščaj M, ed. Guidelines for comprehensive management of women with abnormal cervix uteri (in Slovenian). Ljubljana: Onkološki Inštitut, 2011. .
    1. Helmerhorst TJ, Wijnen JA. Guidelines for cervical cancer screening programme (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol 1998;111:264-5.
    1. NHS Cervical Screening Programme. HPV triage and test of cure protocol. 2011. .
    1. Anttila A, von Karsa L, Aasmaa A, Fender M, Patnick J, Rebolj M, et al. Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2649-58.
    1. Ronco G, Sideri MG, Ciatto S. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and higher long term risk of cancer. BMJ 2007;335:1053-4.
    1. Werkgroep Oncologische Gynaecologie. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), nationwide guidelines, version 1.1 (in Dutch). 2011. .
    1. Prismant. Dutch Network and National Database for Pathology (PALGA): results of retrieval of cervix uteri tests until 31 March 2007. Prismant, 2007.
    1. PALGA. Description of the PALGA system and computer network (in Dutch). 2011. .
    1. Kocken M, Helmerhorst TJ, Berkhof J, Louwers JA, Nobbenhuis MA, Bais AG, et al. Risk of recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful treatment: a long-term multi-cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:441-50.
    1. Van den Brandt PA, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, Hunen PM. Development of a record linkage protocol for use in the Dutch Cancer Registry for Epidemiological Research. Int J Epidemiol 1990;19:553-8.
    1. Van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD. Low risk of cervical cancer during a long period after negative screening in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2003;88:1054-7.
    1. Rebolj M. Recent developments in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme (PhD Thesis). Rotterdam: Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, 2008. .
    1. Hanselaar AGJM, ed. CISOE-A in pictures (CD Rom, in Dutch). University Medical center Nijmegen and Dutch Association of Pathologists, 1996.
    1. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Berkers LM, Habbema D. Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2007;120:806-12.
    1. Ulm K. A simple method to calculate the confidence interval of a standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Am J Epidemiol 1990;131:373-5.
    1. Rebolj M, Bais AG, van Ballegooijen M, Boer R, Meerding WJ, Helmerhorst TJ, et al. Human papillomavirus triage of women with persistent borderline or mildly dyskaryotic smears: comparison of costs and side effects of three alternative strategies. Int J Cancer 2007;121:1529-35.
    1. Cecchini S, Ciatto S, Iossa A, Ventura L, Zappa M. Re: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1429-30.
    1. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Lynge E, Looman C, Essink-Bot ML, Boer R, et al. Incidence of cervical cancer after several negative smear results by age 50: prospective observational study. BMJ 2009;338:b1354.
    1. Dutch Comprehensive Cancer Centres. Cancer Registry Online: incidence of cervical cancer. 2011. .
    1. Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics. Population: sex, age, marital status and region per 1 January. 2011. .
    1. Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:186-92.
    1. Kalliala I, Nieminen P, Dyba T, Pukkala E, Anttila A. Cancer free survival after CIN treatment: comparisons of treatment methods and histology. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:228-33.
    1. Leinonen M, Nieminen P, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Malila N, Tarkkanen J, Laurila P, et al. Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1612-23.
    1. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Solomon D. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:18-25.
    1. McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, Baranyai J, Medley G, Jones RW, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:425-34.
    1. Hakama M, Miller AB, Day NE, eds. Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1986.
    1. Cuzick J, Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Tsu V, Ronco G, Mayrand MH, et al. Overview of human papillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries. Vaccine 2008;26(Suppl 10):K29-41.
    1. Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade FJ, Boeke AJ, Bulk S, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet 2007;370:1764-72.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera