Dramatic increase in cervical cancer registrations in young women in 2009 in England unlikely to be due to the new policy not to screen women aged 20–24
Abstract
Objective To explore whether the 17% increase in cervical cancer in England in 2009 was due to the change in cervical screening policy. Methods Trends in incidence of cervical cancer and of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) were analysed for England, Wales and Scotland. Invasive cervical cancer data on 4079 cancers in women aged 20-39 diagnosed between April 2007 and August 2011 in England were analysed by single year of age. Results In England there was a 38% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 18-62%) increase in cervical cancer incidence rates in women aged 25-29 in 2009 relative to 2008, and a 30% (11-51%) increase in women aged 35-39. Compared rates in 2010 are similar to those in 2008. The average increase between 2000 and 2010 in women aged 25-29 was no greater in England than in Scotland and Wales (relative risk 0.98, 95% CI 0.69-1.39). In England there has been a gradual increase in CIN3 (particularly for ages 25-29) since 2003, with a more dramatic increase in 2009, but a fall in 2010. Audit data showed an increase in cancers diagnosed at age 25 in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 (P ≤ 0.0004). No increase was observed at age 26. For ages 27-29 an increase in cancer was observed for 2008/2009-2009/2010 when compared with 2007/2008-2010/2011 (P Conclusions The increase in cervical cancer in England in 2009 cannot be attributed to the lack of screening of women aged 20-24, or to a general decrease in the coverage or quality of cervical screening.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent trend analyses reveal an increasing burden of cervical cancer, even in countries with well organized screening programs based on cytology and good coverage.
“However, recent trend analyses reveal an increasing burden of cervical cancer, even in countries with well organized screening programs based on cytology and good coverage.8 9 10 11 12”
From Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Arbyn, M., Smith, S. B., Temin, S., Sultana, F., & Castle, P. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k4823 · Cited by 851 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sasieni, P., & Castanon, A.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Epidemiologist, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Corresponding author
- Sasieni, Peter
- ORCID
- Sasieni, Peter
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Screening
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-09
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 127-132
- ISSN
- 0969-1413 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-5793
- OpenAlex
- W2099039244
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Screening (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Cancer Research UK (C8162/10406, C8162/12537)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- cervical cancer incidence, young women, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, screening coverage, cancer trends, England, Scotland, Wales
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, England, Female, Health Policy, Humans, Mass Screening, Registries, Risk, Scotland, Wales, Incidence, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review