Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 1994 May;47(5):430–435. doi: 10.1136/jcp.47.5.430

Cytological screening and management of abnormalities in prevention of cervical cancer: an overview with stochastic modelling.

C Sherlaw-Johnson 1, S Gallivan 1, D Jenkins 1, M H Jones 1
PMCID: PMC502020  PMID: 8027396

Abstract

AIMS--To develop a mathematical model of the histological changes of precancer and the development of invasive cancer and how these are related to cytological findings. To use this to investigate the effects on incidence of cervical cancer, number of smear tests and colposcopies, of different schedules for cervical screening, and the clinical management policies for dyskaryosis. METHODS--A stochastic model was developed relating the available data on tissue progression to the cytological findings. Two strategies, A and B, were compared: under A, women with any abnormal smear receive immediate colposcopy and treatment; under B, women with mild or borderline dyskaryosis have repeated smears at six monthly intervals with colposcopy only for persistent abnormalities. RESULTS--The model predicted an incidence of invasive cervical cancer in an unscreened population of women aged over 18 years of 5.9 per 10,000 per year. With 70% coverage and three yearly screening under strategy A, the incidence fell to 2.00 and under B to 2.10. The number of smears required was similar but A required two to three times as many colposcopies as B. Raising the coverage to 90% reduced the incidence to around 1 per 10,000 per year but changing the screening interval, the specificity or sensitivity of cytology had much less effect. CONCLUSION--The model has been tested under a wide range of possible variations in natural history, specificity and sensitivity of cytology. For low grade smear abnormalities, open colposcopic referral is predicted to reduce invasive cancer only slightly more than repeat cytology, at the expense of much additional colposcopy. Improving cytological coverage is suggested as more effective in reducing invasive cancer than increased use of colposcopy or more frequent screening.

Full text

PDF
430

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson M. C., Brown C. L., Buckley C. H., Fox H., Jenkins D., Lowe D. G., Manners B. T., Melcher D. H., Robertson A. J., Wells M. Current views on cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Pathol. 1991 Dec;44(12):969–978. doi: 10.1136/jcp.44.12.969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyd A., Davies L. A., Bagust A. Modelling the implications for hospital services of cervical cytology screening: a case history. J Oper Res Soc. 1989 Jun;40(6):529–537. doi: 10.1057/jors.1989.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Campion M. J., McCance D. J., Cuzick J., Singer A. Progressive potential of mild cervical atypia: prospective cytological, colposcopic, and virological study. Lancet. 1986 Aug 2;2(8501):237–240. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)92067-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Coppleson L. W., Brown B. Observations on a model of the biology of carcinoma of the cervix: a poor fit between observation and theory. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975 May 1;122(1):127–136. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(75)90627-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Evans D. M., Hudson E. A., Brown C. L., Boddington M. M., Hughes H. E., Mackenzie E. F., Marshall T. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1986 Sep;39(9):933–944. doi: 10.1136/jcp.39.9.933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fletcher A., Metaxas N., Grubb C., Chamberlain J. Four and a half year follow up of women with dyskaryotic cervical smears. BMJ. 1990 Sep 29;301(6753):641–644. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6753.641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fox H. Cervical smears: new terminology and new demands. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987 May 23;294(6583):1307–1308. doi: 10.1136/bmj.294.6583.1307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Giles J. A., Hudson E., Crow J., Williams D., Walker P. Colposcopic assessment of the accuracy of cervical cytology screening. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988 Apr 16;296(6629):1099–1102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6629.1099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jenkins D. Investigations: how to get from guidelines to protocols. BMJ. 1991 Aug 10;303(6798):323–324. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6798.323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jones M. H., Jenkins D., Cuzick J., Wolfendale M. R., Jones J. J., Balogun-Lynch C., Usherwood M. M., Singer A. Mild cervical dyskaryosis: safety of cytological surveillance. Lancet. 1992 Jun 13;339(8807):1440–1443. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92031-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kirby A. J., Spiegelhalter D. J., Day N. E., Fenton L., Swanson K., Mann E. M., Macgregor J. E. Conservative treatment of mild/moderate cervical dyskaryosis: long-term outcome. Lancet. 1992 Apr 4;339(8797):828–831. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90278-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McIndoe W. A., McLean M. R., Jones R. W., Mullins P. R. The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Oct;64(4):451–458. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Muñoz N., Bosch F. X. Epidemiology of cervical cancer. IARC Sci Publ. 1989;(94):9–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Parkin D. M. A computer simulation model for the practical planning of cervical cancer screening programmes. Br J Cancer. 1985 Apr;51(4):551–568. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1985.78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Richart R. M., Barron B. A. A follow-up study of patients with cervical dysplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1969 Oct 1;105(3):386–393. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(69)90268-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Robertson J. H., Woodend B. E., Crozier E. H., Hutchinson J. Risk of cervical cancer associated with mild dyskaryosis. BMJ. 1988 Jul 2;297(6640):18–21. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6640.18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Smith A., Elkind A., Eardley A. Making cervical screening work. BMJ. 1989 Jun 24;298(6689):1662–1664. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6689.1662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Soutter W. P., Wisdom S., Brough A. K., Monaghan J. M. Should patients with mild atypia in a cervical smear be referred for colposcopy? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986 Jan;93(1):70–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb07816.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Tay S. K., Jenkins D., Singer A. Management of squamous atypia (borderline nuclear abnormalities): repeat cytology or colposcopy? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987 May;27(2):140–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1987.tb00965.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Tidbury P., Singer A., Jenkins D. CIN 3: the role of lesion size in invasion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 Jul;99(7):583–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13825.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Woodman C. B., Jordan J. A. Colposcopy services in the West Midlands region. BMJ. 1989 Oct 7;299(6704):899–901. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6704.899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES