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
. 2004 Aug 31;91(5):935-41.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602069.

Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries

A Anttila et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

A questionnaire survey was conducted by the Epidemiology Working Group of the European Cervical Cancer Screening Network, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, between August and December 2003 in 35 centres in 20 European countries with reliable cervical cancer incidence and/or mortality data in databanks held at IARC and WHO. The questionnaire was completed by 28 centres from 20 countries. The final tables included information on 25 centres from 18 countries. Six countries had started screening in the 1960s, whereas 10 countries or regions had started at least a pilot programme by 2003. There were six invitational and nine partially invitational programmes, the rest employing opportunistic screening only. Recommended lifetime number of smears varied from seven to more than 50. Coverage of smear test within the recommended screening interval (usually 3 or 5 years) was above 80% in three countries. Screening registration took place in 13 programmes. Eight programmes reported the rates of screen-detected cervical cancers and precursor lesions. There was wide variation in the CIN3 detection rates. International guidelines and quality assurance protocols are useful for monitoring and evaluating screening programmes systematically. Our survey indicated that the recommendations as currently given are met in only few European countries. Health authorities need to consider stronger measures and incentives than those laid out in the current set of recommendations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention (2000) Recommendations on cancer screening in the European union. Advisory committee on cancer prevention. Eur J Cancer 36: 1473–1478 - PubMed
    1. Anderson GH, Boyes DA, Benedet JL, Le Riche JC, Matisic JP, Suen KC, Worth AJ, Millner A, Bennett OM (1988) Organisation and results of the cervical cytology screening programme in British Columbia, 1955–1985. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 296: 975–978 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anttila A, Läärä E (2000) Cervix cancer: geographical correlations. In Evaluation and Monitoring of Screening Programmes, Sankila R, Démaret E, Hakama M, Lynge E, Schouten LJ, Parkin DM, for the European Network of Cancer Registries (eds) pp 77–97, Brussels, Luxembourg: European Commission, Europe Against Cancer Programme
    1. Arbyn M, Geys H (2002) Trend of cervical cancer mortality in Belgium (1954–1994): tentative solution for the certification problem of unspecified uterine cancer. Int J Cancer 102: 649–654 - PubMed
    1. Bennetts A, Irwig L, Oldenburg B, Simpson JM, Mock P, Boyes A, Adams K, Weisberg E, Shelley J (1995) PEAPS-Q: a questionnaire to measure the psychosocial effects of having an abnormal pap smear. J Clin Epidemiol 48: 1235–1243 - PubMed

Publication types