Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Apr 26;326(7395):901.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7395.901.

Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented

A E Raffle  1 , B Alden, M Quinn, P J Babb, M T Brett
Affiliations

Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented

A E Raffle et al. BMJ. .

Erratum in

  • BMJ. 2003 Aug 9;327(7410):325

Abstract

Objective: To determine the frequency of different outcomes in women participating in cervical screening.

Design: Analysis of screening records from 348 419 women, and modelling of cases of cervical cancer and deaths with and without screening.

Setting: Cervical screening programme in Bristol.

Results: For every 10 000 women screened from 1976 to 1996, 1564 had abnormal cytology, 818 were investigated, and 543 had abnormal histology. One hundred and seventy six had persistent abnormality for two years or more. In the absence of screening 80 women would be expected to develop cancer of the cervix by 2011, of whom 25 would die. With screening 10 of these deaths would be avoided. Comparison of cumulative abnormality rates with numbers expected to develop cancer in the absence of screening suggests that at least 80% of high grade dyskaryosis and of high grade dysplasia would not progress to cancer. The lifetime risk of having abnormal cytology detected could be as high as 40% for women born since 1960.

Conclusions: Screening is labour and resource intensive. It involves treatment for many women not destined to develop invasive cancer. The increased intervention rate for cervical abnormality in England is due to change in practice, not a cohort effect, and is probably the reason for the marked fall in incidence and mortality during the 1990s. For other cancers there is scope for major iatrogenic harm from screening because of invasive tests and treatments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cumulative incidence by birth cohort (April 1911 to March 1976, in five year age groups) for detection of abnormal cytology, all grades combined, 1976-96
Figure 2
Figure 2
Outcomes per 10 000 women for cervical screening in study population, 1976-96, and for modelling of cervical cancer cases and deaths up to 2011
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Raffle AE, Alden B, Mackenzie EF. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for? Lancet. 1995;345:1469–1473. - PubMed
    1. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ. 1999;318:904–908. - PMC - PubMed
    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. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson CM, Nottingham J. Bridging the knowledge gap and communicating uncertainties for informed consent in cervical cytology screening: we need unbiased information and a culture change. Cytopathology. 1999;10:221–228. - PubMed
    1. Raffle AE. Information about screening—is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect. 2001;4:92–98. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types