The impact of loss to follow-up in the Dutch organised HPV-based cervical cancer screening programme

被引:4
|
作者
Olthof, E. M. G. [1 ,4 ]
Aitken, C. A. [1 ,2 ]
Siebers, A. G. [3 ]
van Kemenade, F. J. [2 ]
de Kok, I. M. C. M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus MC Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Dept Publ Hlth, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Erasmus MC Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Dept Pathol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Palga Dutch Nationwide Pathol Databank, Houten, Netherlands
[4] Dr Molewaterpl 40, NL-3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
cervical cancer screening; compliance; HPV; loss to follow-up; EUROPEAN GUIDELINES; QUALITY-ASSURANCE; CARE FAILURES; COLPOSCOPY;
D O I
10.1002/ijc.34902
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Loss to follow-up (LTFU) within cervical screening programmes can result in missed clinically relevant lesions, potentially reducing programme effectiveness. To examine the health impact of losing women during the screening process, we determined the proportion of women LTFU per step of the Dutch hrHPV-based screening programme. We then determined the probability of being LTFU by age, screening history and sampling method (self- or clinician-sampled) using logistic regression analysis. Finally, we estimated the number of missed CIN2+/3+ lesions per LTFU moment by using the CIN-risk in women compliant with follow-up. Data from the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (Palga) was used. Women eligible for screening in 2017 and 2018 were included (N = 840,428). For clinician collected (CC) samples, the highest proportion LTFU was found following 'referral advice for colposcopy' (5.5% after indirect referral; 3.8% after direct referral). For self-sampling, the highest proportions LTFU were found following the advice for repeat cytology (13.6%) and after referral advice for colposcopy (8.2% after indirect referral; 4.3% after direct referral). Self-sampling users and women with no screening history had a higher LTFU-risk (OR: 3.87, CI: 3.55-4.23; OR: 1.39, CI: 1.20-1.61) compared to women that used CC sampling and women that have been screened before, respectively. Of all women LTFU in 2017/18, the total number of potentially missed CIN2+ was 844 (21% of women LTFU). Most lesions were missed after 'direct referral for colposcopy' (N = 462, 11.5% of women LTFU). So, this indicates a gap between the screening programme and clinical care which requires further attention, by improving monitoring of patients after referral. Loss to follow-up within cervical cancer screening programmes can result in missed clinically relevant lesions, potentially reducing programme effectiveness. In a more sensitive HPV-based programme, the loss of effectiveness may be larger than in cytology-based programmes. This study in the Netherlands is the first to quantify loss to follow-up in an organised cervical cancer screening programme and calculate the potentially missed cervical lesions. Along the referral pathway of the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme, most clinically relevant lesions were missed after referral for colposcopy, indicating a gap between screening and clinical care. image
引用
收藏
页码:2132 / 2141
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] HPV-based cervical cancer screening, including self-sampling, versus screening with cytology in Argentina
    Arbyn, Marc
    de Sanjose, Silvia
    Weiderpass, Elisabete
    LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH, 2019, 7 (06): : E688 - E689
  • [32] The HPV self-collection paradox: boosting cervical cancer screening, struggling with follow-up care
    Wang, Runzhi
    Coleman, Jenell S.
    LANCET PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 8 (06): : E394 - E395
  • [33] Television soap opera and the NHS cervical screening programme: follow-up data
    Owen-Smith, V
    Richardson, J
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH MEDICINE, 2003, 25 (02): : 183 - 183
  • [34] Comparison of HPV-based assays with Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening in Morelos State, Mexico
    Salmerón, J
    LAzcano-Ponce, E
    Lorincz, A
    Hernández, M
    Hernández, P
    Leyva, A
    Uribe, M
    Manzanares, H
    Antunez, A
    Carmona, E
    Ronnett, BM
    Sherman, ME
    Bishai, D
    Ferris, D
    Flores, Y
    Yunes, E
    Shah, KV
    CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 2003, 14 (06) : 505 - 512
  • [35] Comparison of HPV-based assays with Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening in Morelos State, Mexico
    Jorge Salmerón
    Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce
    Attila Lorincz
    Mauricio Hernández
    Pilar Hernández
    Ahideé Leyva
    Mario Uribe
    Horacio Manzanares
    Alfredo Antunez
    Enrique Carmona
    Brigitte M. Ronnett
    Mark E. Sherman
    David Bishai
    Daron Ferris
    Yvonne Flores
    Elsa Yunes
    Keerti V. Shah
    Cancer Causes & Control, 2003, 14 : 505 - 512
  • [36] The comparative and cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical cancer screening algorithms in El Salvador
    Campos, Nicole G.
    Maza, Mauricio
    Alfaro, Karla
    Gage, Julia C.
    Castle, Philip E.
    Felix, Juan C.
    Cremer, Miriam L.
    Kim, Jane J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2015, 137 (04) : 893 - 902
  • [37] Strategies and implementation outcomes of HPV-based cervical screening studies to prevent cervical cancer in India: A systematic review
    Oommen, Anu Mary
    Ashfaq, Maleeha
    Cherian, Anne George
    Colling, Ana Machado
    Ramirez, Arianis Tatiana
    Saunders, Tessa
    Singarayar, Pravin
    Thomas, Vinotha
    Thomas, Anitha
    Marcus, Tobey Ann
    Pricilla, Ruby Angeline
    Nightingale, Claire
    Brotherton, Julia M. L.
    JOURNAL OF CANCER POLICY, 2024, 42
  • [38] HPV-based cervical-cancer screening in China (vol 11, pg 1112, 2010)
    Arbyn, M.
    Walker, A.
    Meijer, C. J. L.
    LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2015, 16 (13): : E480 - E480
  • [39] Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical cancer screening in the public health system in Nicaragua
    Campos, Nicole G.
    Mvundura, Mercy
    Jeronimo, Jose
    Holme, Francesca
    Vodicka, Elisabeth
    Jane, J. Kim
    BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (06):
  • [40] Primary HPV-based cervical cancer screening in Europe: implementation status, challenges, and future plans
    Maver, P. J.
    Poljak, M.
    CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2020, 26 (05) : 579 - 583