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
Comparative Study
. 1992 Aug 22;305(6851):449-51.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6851.449.

Predicting mortality from cervical cancer after negative smear test results

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Predicting mortality from cervical cancer after negative smear test results

G J van Oortmarssen et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the relative protection against death from cervical cancer after two or more negative smear test results and compare it with the protection against invasive cancer estimated by an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group in an analysis of data from 10 large screening programmes.

Design: Comparison of risk of death from cervical cancer after two or more negative smear results with the risk in unscreened women by using a model constructed with data from the British Columbia screening programme.

Main outcome measures: Mortality from and incidence of invasive cancer.

Results: In women with two negative smear results estimates of protection against cervical cancer were about 50% higher when lethal invasive cancer was used as the criterion rather than all invasive cancer. This difference was due to these women being more likely to attend for further tests at which invasive cancer could be detected: screen detected cancer has a better prognosis than clinically diagnosed cancer. Screening intervals could be longer than three years: screening women aged 35-64 every five years was predicted to result in a 90% reduction in mortality from cervical cancer.

Conclusion: Because protection from mortality is higher than protection from disease and because of the high costs and negative side effects of frequent screening, screening intervals should be longer than three years.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Clin Invest Med. 1982;5(1):1-29 - PubMed
    1. Br J Cancer. 1989 Jul;60(1):132-41 - PubMed
    1. Br J Cancer. 1991 Sep;64(3):559-65 - PubMed
    1. BMJ. 1989 Feb 4;298(6669):288-90 - PubMed
    1. Soc Sci Med. 1990;30(10):1081-7 - PubMed

Publication types