Cervical cancer case–control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program

Our study used a refined case–control cervical cancer Audit framework to investigate effectiveness of cervical screening, with measures of three screening failures: irregular‐participation, cervical cancer developed after cytological abnormalities and after normal screening results. The register‐bas...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of cancer 2020-03, Vol.146 (5), p.1230-1240
Hauptverfasser: Wang, Jiangrong, Elfström, K. Miriam, Andrae, Bengt, Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara, Ploner, Alexander, Lei, Jiayao, Dillner, Joakim, Sundström, Karin, Sparén, Pär
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1240
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1230
container_title International journal of cancer
container_volume 146
creator Wang, Jiangrong
Elfström, K. Miriam
Andrae, Bengt
Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara
Ploner, Alexander
Lei, Jiayao
Dillner, Joakim
Sundström, Karin
Sparén, Pär
description Our study used a refined case–control cervical cancer Audit framework to investigate effectiveness of cervical screening, with measures of three screening failures: irregular‐participation, cervical cancer developed after cytological abnormalities and after normal screening results. The register‐based study included 4,254 cervical cancer cases diagnosed in Sweden during 2002–2011, and 30 population‐based controls per case. We used conditional logistic regression models to examine relative risks of cervical cancer in relation to screening participation and screening results in the past two screening rounds from 6 months before cancer diagnosis. We found that women unscreened in past two screening rounds showed four times increased risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened in time (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 3.8–4.5), and women unscreened in the previous round but screened in the most recent round also showed a statistically significantly elevated risk (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5–1.8). Women having abnormality in previous two rounds exhibited higher risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened with normal results, while having normal results in the subsequent round after the abnormality also yielded an increased risk (OR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2–5.1). Being screened with only normal results was associated with 89% risk reduction for squamous cell cancer, compared to women unscreened, but only 60% reduction for adenocarcinoma. Our findings emphasize the importance of routine participation in cervical screening and suggest that management of abnormalities, as well as sensitivity of the test, warrants improvement especially for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma. The Audit framework serves as routine evaluation model and the findings benchmark for future evaluation of changes in screening practice. What's new? Systematic review of cancer screening is critical to ensuring high‐quality, effective disease prevention and detection and management. In this study, case–control audit was used to evaluate cervical cancer screening in Sweden. Analyses show that relative to women who undergo routine screening, cervical cancer risk is elevated for women who are screened at irregular intervals. Risk was significantly increased among women with abnormalities detected at screening. The audit further revealed that, overall, management of abnormalities for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma is inferior compared to squamous cell cancer. The findings suggest that case–control audit
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ijc.32416
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_479702</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2334686733</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5186-77ca58a35ca7c1ffae083f1223b07be70cdf82cb0eb04aecec22c677ac9ea92a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kt9qFDEUxoModq1e-AIS8EbBaU-SmcmMF0LZ-qdSEES9DZnsmTXrbLImk11613fwDX0SY2dbrNCrc8j55eOcj4-QpwyOGAA_titzJHjJ6ntkxqCVBXBW3SezPINCMlEfkEcxrgAYq6B8SA4EYyDbRs7IZo5ha40eqNHOYMgl4u_LX8a7MfiB6rSw42v6GWMaxkj74Nc0-DRahxS3ekh6tN5R31NN3VW_swuk5lo1moDorFvSTfDLoNePyYNeDxGf7Osh-fru7Zf5h-L80_uz-cl5YSrW1IWURleNFpXR0rC-1wiN6BnnogPZoQSz6BtuOsAOSo0GDeemllKbFnXLtTgkxaQbd7hJndoEu9bhQnlt1f7pR-5QlbKVwDP_6k7-1H47UT4sVUqqhOx0m_E3E57ZNS4MZrv0cOvX7Ymz39XSb5UEEE0js8CLvUDwPxPGUa1tNDgM2qFPUeVLOci6rFhGn_-HrnwKLrunuBBl3dRSiEy9nCgTfIwB-5tlGKi_MVE5JuoqJpl99u_2N-R1LjJwPAE7O-DF3Urq7ON8kvwD5JfLyw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2334686733</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cervical cancer case–control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><creator>Wang, Jiangrong ; Elfström, K. Miriam ; Andrae, Bengt ; Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara ; Ploner, Alexander ; Lei, Jiayao ; Dillner, Joakim ; Sundström, Karin ; Sparén, Pär</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jiangrong ; Elfström, K. Miriam ; Andrae, Bengt ; Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara ; Ploner, Alexander ; Lei, Jiayao ; Dillner, Joakim ; Sundström, Karin ; Sparén, Pär</creatorcontrib><description>Our study used a refined case–control cervical cancer Audit framework to investigate effectiveness of cervical screening, with measures of three screening failures: irregular‐participation, cervical cancer developed after cytological abnormalities and after normal screening results. The register‐based study included 4,254 cervical cancer cases diagnosed in Sweden during 2002–2011, and 30 population‐based controls per case. We used conditional logistic regression models to examine relative risks of cervical cancer in relation to screening participation and screening results in the past two screening rounds from 6 months before cancer diagnosis. We found that women unscreened in past two screening rounds showed four times increased risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened in time (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 3.8–4.5), and women unscreened in the previous round but screened in the most recent round also showed a statistically significantly elevated risk (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5–1.8). Women having abnormality in previous two rounds exhibited higher risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened with normal results, while having normal results in the subsequent round after the abnormality also yielded an increased risk (OR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2–5.1). Being screened with only normal results was associated with 89% risk reduction for squamous cell cancer, compared to women unscreened, but only 60% reduction for adenocarcinoma. Our findings emphasize the importance of routine participation in cervical screening and suggest that management of abnormalities, as well as sensitivity of the test, warrants improvement especially for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma. The Audit framework serves as routine evaluation model and the findings benchmark for future evaluation of changes in screening practice. What's new? Systematic review of cancer screening is critical to ensuring high‐quality, effective disease prevention and detection and management. In this study, case–control audit was used to evaluate cervical cancer screening in Sweden. Analyses show that relative to women who undergo routine screening, cervical cancer risk is elevated for women who are screened at irregular intervals. Risk was significantly increased among women with abnormalities detected at screening. The audit further revealed that, overall, management of abnormalities for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma is inferior compared to squamous cell cancer. The findings suggest that case–control auditing is a useful means of evaluating cervical screening programs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-7136</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1097-0215</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0215</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32416</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31107987</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Adenocarcinoma ; Adult ; Aged ; Benchmarking - statistics & numerical data ; Cancer ; Cancer Epidemiology ; Case-Control Studies ; Cervical cancer ; cervical screening ; Cervix ; Cervix Uteri - pathology ; cytology ; Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Health risk assessment ; Health risks ; Humans ; Mass Screening - organization & administration ; Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data ; Medical Audit - statistics & numerical data ; Medical research ; Medical screening ; Middle Aged ; Papanicolaou Test - statistics & numerical data ; Patient Participation - statistics & numerical data ; Pregnancy ; prevention ; Program Evaluation ; Registries - statistics & numerical data ; Regression analysis ; Risk Assessment ; Sweden - epidemiology ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology ; Young Adult]]></subject><ispartof>International journal of cancer, 2020-03, Vol.146 (5), p.1230-1240</ispartof><rights>2019 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC</rights><rights>2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.</rights><rights>2020 UICC</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5186-77ca58a35ca7c1ffae083f1223b07be70cdf82cb0eb04aecec22c677ac9ea92a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5186-77ca58a35ca7c1ffae083f1223b07be70cdf82cb0eb04aecec22c677ac9ea92a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6865-0224 ; 0000-0002-0514-7226 ; 0000-0002-0001-503X ; 0000-0002-5184-8971</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fijc.32416$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fijc.32416$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,550,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31107987$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-403249$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:142657458$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jiangrong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elfström, K. Miriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrae, Bengt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ploner, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lei, Jiayao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dillner, Joakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sundström, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sparén, Pär</creatorcontrib><title>Cervical cancer case–control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program</title><title>International journal of cancer</title><addtitle>Int J Cancer</addtitle><description>Our study used a refined case–control cervical cancer Audit framework to investigate effectiveness of cervical screening, with measures of three screening failures: irregular‐participation, cervical cancer developed after cytological abnormalities and after normal screening results. The register‐based study included 4,254 cervical cancer cases diagnosed in Sweden during 2002–2011, and 30 population‐based controls per case. We used conditional logistic regression models to examine relative risks of cervical cancer in relation to screening participation and screening results in the past two screening rounds from 6 months before cancer diagnosis. We found that women unscreened in past two screening rounds showed four times increased risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened in time (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 3.8–4.5), and women unscreened in the previous round but screened in the most recent round also showed a statistically significantly elevated risk (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5–1.8). Women having abnormality in previous two rounds exhibited higher risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened with normal results, while having normal results in the subsequent round after the abnormality also yielded an increased risk (OR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2–5.1). Being screened with only normal results was associated with 89% risk reduction for squamous cell cancer, compared to women unscreened, but only 60% reduction for adenocarcinoma. Our findings emphasize the importance of routine participation in cervical screening and suggest that management of abnormalities, as well as sensitivity of the test, warrants improvement especially for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma. The Audit framework serves as routine evaluation model and the findings benchmark for future evaluation of changes in screening practice. What's new? Systematic review of cancer screening is critical to ensuring high‐quality, effective disease prevention and detection and management. In this study, case–control audit was used to evaluate cervical cancer screening in Sweden. Analyses show that relative to women who undergo routine screening, cervical cancer risk is elevated for women who are screened at irregular intervals. Risk was significantly increased among women with abnormalities detected at screening. The audit further revealed that, overall, management of abnormalities for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma is inferior compared to squamous cell cancer. The findings suggest that case–control auditing is a useful means of evaluating cervical screening programs.</description><subject>Adenocarcinoma</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Benchmarking - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer Epidemiology</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Cervical cancer</subject><subject>cervical screening</subject><subject>Cervix</subject><subject>Cervix Uteri - pathology</subject><subject>cytology</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mass Screening - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medical Audit - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Papanicolaou Test - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Participation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>prevention</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Registries - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Sweden - epidemiology</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0020-7136</issn><issn>1097-0215</issn><issn>1097-0215</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kt9qFDEUxoModq1e-AIS8EbBaU-SmcmMF0LZ-qdSEES9DZnsmTXrbLImk11613fwDX0SY2dbrNCrc8j55eOcj4-QpwyOGAA_titzJHjJ6ntkxqCVBXBW3SezPINCMlEfkEcxrgAYq6B8SA4EYyDbRs7IZo5ha40eqNHOYMgl4u_LX8a7MfiB6rSw42v6GWMaxkj74Nc0-DRahxS3ekh6tN5R31NN3VW_swuk5lo1moDorFvSTfDLoNePyYNeDxGf7Osh-fru7Zf5h-L80_uz-cl5YSrW1IWURleNFpXR0rC-1wiN6BnnogPZoQSz6BtuOsAOSo0GDeemllKbFnXLtTgkxaQbd7hJndoEu9bhQnlt1f7pR-5QlbKVwDP_6k7-1H47UT4sVUqqhOx0m_E3E57ZNS4MZrv0cOvX7Ymz39XSb5UEEE0js8CLvUDwPxPGUa1tNDgM2qFPUeVLOci6rFhGn_-HrnwKLrunuBBl3dRSiEy9nCgTfIwB-5tlGKi_MVE5JuoqJpl99u_2N-R1LjJwPAE7O-DF3Urq7ON8kvwD5JfLyw</recordid><startdate>20200301</startdate><enddate>20200301</enddate><creator>Wang, Jiangrong</creator><creator>Elfström, K. Miriam</creator><creator>Andrae, Bengt</creator><creator>Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara</creator><creator>Ploner, Alexander</creator><creator>Lei, Jiayao</creator><creator>Dillner, Joakim</creator><creator>Sundström, Karin</creator><creator>Sparén, Pär</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ACNBI</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>DF2</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6865-0224</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0514-7226</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0001-503X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5184-8971</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200301</creationdate><title>Cervical cancer case–control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program</title><author>Wang, Jiangrong ; Elfström, K. Miriam ; Andrae, Bengt ; Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara ; Ploner, Alexander ; Lei, Jiayao ; Dillner, Joakim ; Sundström, Karin ; Sparén, Pär</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5186-77ca58a35ca7c1ffae083f1223b07be70cdf82cb0eb04aecec22c677ac9ea92a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adenocarcinoma</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Benchmarking - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer Epidemiology</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Cervical cancer</topic><topic>cervical screening</topic><topic>Cervix</topic><topic>Cervix Uteri - pathology</topic><topic>cytology</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mass Screening - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medical Audit - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Papanicolaou Test - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Participation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>prevention</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Registries - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Sweden - epidemiology</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jiangrong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elfström, K. Miriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrae, Bengt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ploner, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lei, Jiayao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dillner, Joakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sundström, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sparén, Pär</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SWEPUB Uppsala universitet full text</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SWEPUB Uppsala universitet</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><jtitle>International journal of cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Jiangrong</au><au>Elfström, K. Miriam</au><au>Andrae, Bengt</au><au>Nordqvist Kleppe, Sara</au><au>Ploner, Alexander</au><au>Lei, Jiayao</au><au>Dillner, Joakim</au><au>Sundström, Karin</au><au>Sparén, Pär</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cervical cancer case–control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program</atitle><jtitle>International journal of cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Cancer</addtitle><date>2020-03-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>146</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1230</spage><epage>1240</epage><pages>1230-1240</pages><issn>0020-7136</issn><issn>1097-0215</issn><eissn>1097-0215</eissn><abstract>Our study used a refined case–control cervical cancer Audit framework to investigate effectiveness of cervical screening, with measures of three screening failures: irregular‐participation, cervical cancer developed after cytological abnormalities and after normal screening results. The register‐based study included 4,254 cervical cancer cases diagnosed in Sweden during 2002–2011, and 30 population‐based controls per case. We used conditional logistic regression models to examine relative risks of cervical cancer in relation to screening participation and screening results in the past two screening rounds from 6 months before cancer diagnosis. We found that women unscreened in past two screening rounds showed four times increased risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened in time (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 3.8–4.5), and women unscreened in the previous round but screened in the most recent round also showed a statistically significantly elevated risk (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5–1.8). Women having abnormality in previous two rounds exhibited higher risk of cervical cancer compared to women screened with normal results, while having normal results in the subsequent round after the abnormality also yielded an increased risk (OR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2–5.1). Being screened with only normal results was associated with 89% risk reduction for squamous cell cancer, compared to women unscreened, but only 60% reduction for adenocarcinoma. Our findings emphasize the importance of routine participation in cervical screening and suggest that management of abnormalities, as well as sensitivity of the test, warrants improvement especially for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma. The Audit framework serves as routine evaluation model and the findings benchmark for future evaluation of changes in screening practice. What's new? Systematic review of cancer screening is critical to ensuring high‐quality, effective disease prevention and detection and management. In this study, case–control audit was used to evaluate cervical cancer screening in Sweden. Analyses show that relative to women who undergo routine screening, cervical cancer risk is elevated for women who are screened at irregular intervals. Risk was significantly increased among women with abnormalities detected at screening. The audit further revealed that, overall, management of abnormalities for preventing cervical adenocarcinoma is inferior compared to squamous cell cancer. The findings suggest that case–control auditing is a useful means of evaluating cervical screening programs.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>31107987</pmid><doi>10.1002/ijc.32416</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6865-0224</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0514-7226</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0001-503X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5184-8971</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-7136
ispartof International journal of cancer, 2020-03, Vol.146 (5), p.1230-1240
issn 0020-7136
1097-0215
1097-0215
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_479702
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; SWEPUB Freely available online
subjects Adenocarcinoma
Adult
Aged
Benchmarking - statistics & numerical data
Cancer
Cancer Epidemiology
Case-Control Studies
Cervical cancer
cervical screening
Cervix
Cervix Uteri - pathology
cytology
Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data
Female
Health risk assessment
Health risks
Humans
Mass Screening - organization & administration
Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data
Medical Audit - statistics & numerical data
Medical research
Medical screening
Middle Aged
Papanicolaou Test - statistics & numerical data
Patient Participation - statistics & numerical data
Pregnancy
prevention
Program Evaluation
Registries - statistics & numerical data
Regression analysis
Risk Assessment
Sweden - epidemiology
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - epidemiology
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology
Young Adult
title Cervical cancer case–control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T00%3A54%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cervical%20cancer%20case%E2%80%93control%20audit:%20Results%20from%20routine%20evaluation%20of%20a%20nationwide%20cervical%20screening%20program&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20cancer&rft.au=Wang,%20Jiangrong&rft.date=2020-03-01&rft.volume=146&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1230&rft.epage=1240&rft.pages=1230-1240&rft.issn=0020-7136&rft.eissn=1097-0215&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ijc.32416&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E2334686733%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2334686733&rft_id=info:pmid/31107987&rfr_iscdi=true