Cargando…

Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.

A nested case-control study was undertaken in the Maribo County cohort of 27,811 women with negative Pap smears. Sixty women who later developed invasive cervical cancer constituted the cases, and five matched controls were selected from the cohort for each case. A total of 633 previous, negative sm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lynge, E., Arffmann, E., Poll, P., Anderson, P. K.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 1993
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1968579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8347493
_version_ 1782134771189547008
author Lynge, E.
Arffmann, E.
Poll, P.
Anderson, P. K.
author_facet Lynge, E.
Arffmann, E.
Poll, P.
Anderson, P. K.
author_sort Lynge, E.
collection PubMed
description A nested case-control study was undertaken in the Maribo County cohort of 27,811 women with negative Pap smears. Sixty women who later developed invasive cervical cancer constituted the cases, and five matched controls were selected from the cohort for each case. A total of 633 previous, negative smears for the cases and controls were reviewed independently by two pathologists. The review showed misclassification to be frequent in these smears collected in the period 1966-82. Thirty-five smears were considered positive at the review. The misclassification was differential in respect to the women's later disease status. The odds ratio for patients compared with controls for having at least one positive smear was 22.12 (95% CI 7.54-64.94). We were unable to identify specific characteristics of misclassified smears coming from later cases. Koilocytosis/dyskeratosis, herpes virus changed cells and hyperkeratosis were equally rare in smears from patients and controls. The Maribo County data indicate that the fraction of preventable cases of invasive cervical cancer in women aged 30-64 within the first 5 years after a negative smear could be increased from 62-72% to 83-86%, if misclassification of true positive smears could be eliminated. As a rough estimate, this would be at the cost of a 2% increase in the work load. It should be remembered that there is a large element of extrapolation in applying these results based on relatively poor quality specimens from 1966-82 as compared to a modern screening service.
format Text
id pubmed-1968579
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1993
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-19685792009-09-10 Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme. Lynge, E. Arffmann, E. Poll, P. Anderson, P. K. Br J Cancer Research Article A nested case-control study was undertaken in the Maribo County cohort of 27,811 women with negative Pap smears. Sixty women who later developed invasive cervical cancer constituted the cases, and five matched controls were selected from the cohort for each case. A total of 633 previous, negative smears for the cases and controls were reviewed independently by two pathologists. The review showed misclassification to be frequent in these smears collected in the period 1966-82. Thirty-five smears were considered positive at the review. The misclassification was differential in respect to the women's later disease status. The odds ratio for patients compared with controls for having at least one positive smear was 22.12 (95% CI 7.54-64.94). We were unable to identify specific characteristics of misclassified smears coming from later cases. Koilocytosis/dyskeratosis, herpes virus changed cells and hyperkeratosis were equally rare in smears from patients and controls. The Maribo County data indicate that the fraction of preventable cases of invasive cervical cancer in women aged 30-64 within the first 5 years after a negative smear could be increased from 62-72% to 83-86%, if misclassification of true positive smears could be eliminated. As a rough estimate, this would be at the cost of a 2% increase in the work load. It should be remembered that there is a large element of extrapolation in applying these results based on relatively poor quality specimens from 1966-82 as compared to a modern screening service. Nature Publishing Group 1993-08 /pmc/articles/PMC1968579/ /pubmed/8347493 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lynge, E.
Arffmann, E.
Poll, P.
Anderson, P. K.
Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.
title Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.
title_full Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.
title_fullStr Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.
title_full_unstemmed Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.
title_short Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.
title_sort smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme.
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1968579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8347493
work_keys_str_mv AT lyngee smearmisclassificationinacervicalcancerscreeningprogramme
AT arffmanne smearmisclassificationinacervicalcancerscreeningprogramme
AT pollp smearmisclassificationinacervicalcancerscreeningprogramme
AT andersonpk smearmisclassificationinacervicalcancerscreeningprogramme