IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of cervical screening after age 60 years according to screening history: Nationwide cohort study in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Jiangrong Wang
  • Bengt Andrae
  • Karin Sundström
  • Alexander Ploner
  • Peter Ström
  • K Miriam Elfström
  • Joakim Dillner
  • Pär Sparén

Abstract

Background: The relatively high incidence of cervical cancer in women at older ages is a continuing concern in countries with long-established cervical screening. Controversy remains on when and how to cease screening. Existing population-based studies on the effectiveness of cervical screening at older ages have not considered women’s screening history. We performed a nationwide cohort study to investigate the incidence of cervical cancer after age 60 years and its association with cervical screening at age 61–65, stratified by screening history at age 51–60. Methods and findings: Using the Total Population Register, we identified 569,132 women born between 1 January 1919 and 31 December 1945, resident in Sweden since age 51. Women’s cytological screening records, cervical cancer occurrence, and FIGO stage (for those diagnosed with cancer) were retrieved from national registers and medical charts. We calculated the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer from age 61 to age 80 using a survival function considering competing risk, and estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of cervical cancer in relation to screening status at age 61–65 from Cox models, adjusted for birth cohort and level of education, conditioning on women’s screening history in their 50s. In women unscreened in their 50s, the cumulative incidence up to age 80 was 5.0 per 1,000 women, and screening at age 61–65 was associated with a lower risk for cervical cancer (HR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24–0.72), corresponding to a decrease of 3.3 cancer cases per 1,000 women. A higher cumulative incidence and similarly statistically significant risk decrease was seen for women with abnormal smears in their 50s. In women adequately or inadequately screened with only normal results between age 51 and age 60, the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer from age 61 to 80 was 1.6 and 2.5 per 1,000 women, respectively, and further screening at age 61–65 was not associated with statistically significant decreases of cervical cancer risk up to age 80, but with fewer cancer cases of advanced stages at age 61–65. Adjustment for potential lifestyle confounders was limited. Conclusions: In this study, cervical screening with cytology at age 61–65 was associated with a statistically significant reduction of subsequent cervical cancer risk for women who were unscreened, or screened with abnormalities, in their 50s. In women screened with normal results in their 50s, the risk for future cancer was not sizeable, and the risk reduction associated with continued screening appeared limited. These findings should inform the current debate regarding age and criteria to discontinue cervical screening. Jiangrong Wang and colleagues show in their cytology screening cohort that women who test negative for cervical cancer in their 50s are at minimal risk for developing cancer in their 60s.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Jiangrong Wang & Bengt Andrae & Karin Sundström & Alexander Ploner & Peter Ström & K Miriam Elfström & Joakim Dillner & Pär Sparén, 2017. "Effectiveness of cervical screening after age 60 years according to screening history: Nationwide cohort study in Sweden," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002414
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002414
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002414&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002414?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002414. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.